Hierarchical Regulation of Involuntary Memory: Invo lvement into Activity, Lop Effects, and the Fate of Background Stimuli

Background. Activity psychology as a metatheory competes with cognitive psychology in the explorative and predictive power. Phenotypical similarity of the results obtained by these two approaches in the research on involuntary memory requires a special analysis, which can be carried out by testing the applicability of the conceptual apparatus of both theories (with the highest relevance of the level of processing framework) in multifactorial studies.
Objective. The study was aimed at a direct experimental examination of the severity of involuntary memorization as an outcome of performing tasks with different requirements to the level of processing: perceptual, semantic, and self-referential.
Sample. Eight hundred twenty-five volunteer students participated in the study, 598 females (72.5%) and 227 males (27.5%).
Methods. A set of 15 visually overlapping dyads “picture-numeral” was presented. Each participant was randomly assigned to perform one of six tasks either focusing on pictures or numerals, and requiring either perceptual, semantic, or self-referential processing of targets. At test, the participants attempted to recall all the presented stimuli.
Results. P.I. Zinchenko’s thesis that activity determines involuntary encoding in the way that target stimuli are remembered much better than material perceived as a peripheral context was empirically replicated. The study revealed the inversion of typical LOP effect for the target material consisting in the decrease of subsequent recall in condition of deeper processing. However, there was a standard LOP effect for background pictorial material in numeral-targeted tasks. To examine the tendency to conjunct overlapping pictures and numerals into entire objects during task performance, we inspected the pairing of background and target stimuli at recall. The background pairing index predicted recall of target stimuli, increasing the percentage of explained dispersion from shadow to deep processing. In case of control for this index, the sum remembering of pictures and numerals returned back to the standard LOP-effect.
Conclusion. The major contribution of activity to involuntary memorization was statistically confirmed. We explained the observed inversion of the standard LOP-effect for targeted numerical stimuli in terms of A.N. Leontiev’s thesis on the fundamental functional mobility of structural units of activity. We examined a tendency to actively combine target and background stimuli into integral operational units, making the initially background material relevant to the goal of action. Statistical control of this tendency reversed the inversion of the LOP-effect so that the sum recalls gradually increased as processing deepened. Thus, we got arguments in favor of the greater explanatory power of the activity approach compared to the standard cognitive approach. The potential of A.N. Leontiev’s theory was employed for the productive assimilation of particular conceptual schemes developed by cognitive psychology and clarifying their place in the multilevel determination of involuntary mnemonic effects generated by activity.

References

Craik, F.I., Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671–684.
Craik, F., Lockhart, R. (2009). Levels of Processing and Zinchenko’s Approach to Memory Research. Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya (Cultural-Historical Psychology), 5(2), 14–18. (In Russ.). 
Dehaene, S., Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 314–326.
Fisk, A.D., Derrick, W.L., Schneider, W. (1982). The Use of Dual Task Paradigms in Memory Research: A Methodological Assessment and an Evaluation of Effort as a Measure of Levels of Processing (Tech. Rep. No. HARL-ONR-8105). University of Illinois, Human Attention Research Laboratory, Champaign.
Istomina, Z.M. (1953). K voprosu o razvitii proizvol’noi pamyati u detei doshkol’nogo vozrasta. Doshkol’noe vospitanie (Preschool education), 4, 33–39. (In Russ).
Ivanova, E.F., Mazhirina, E.S. (2008). Involuntary Memory Development: Replication of P.I. Zinchenko’s Experiments. Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya (Cultural-Historical Psychology), 4(1), 48–57. (In Russ.).
Laktionov, A.N., Sereda, G.K. (1993). Activity paradigm and memory research in the work of P. I. Zinchenko. Voprosy psikhologii (Issues in Psychology), 4, 102–108. (In Russ).
Leontiev, А.N. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. M.: Smysl, 2004. (In Russ.).
Leontiev, А.N. Memory development. Experimental study of higher mental functions. М.: Pedagogika, 1983. (In Russ). Lyaudis, V.Ya. Memory in development. М.: Voronezh: MPSI; MODEK, 2011. (In Russ.).
Neisser, U. (1979/2019). The control of information pickup in selective looking. In A.D. Pick (ed). Perception and its development: A tribute to Eleanor J. Gibson. (pp. 201–219). Lawrence Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1979.
Neisser, U. (1996). Remembering as doing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(2), 203–204.
Nourkova, V.V. (2019). The Evolutionary Turn in Cultural-Historical Psychology and Theory of Cognitive Gadgets: Analogies or Gomologies. Voprosy psikhologii (Issues in Psychology), 4, 29–40. (In Russ).
Romaschuk, A.N. (2017). About the Priming of Scientific Terms and the Set towards Solving Scientific Problems. Rossiiskii zhurnal kognitivnoi nauki (The Russian Journal of Cognitive Science), 4 (1), 33–43. (In Russ).
Shilko, R.S., Dynamics of attention during short-term memorization: diss. Cand. Sci. (Psychology). Moscow, 2003.
Smirnov, A.A., Istomina, Z.M., Mal’tseva, K.P., Samokhvalova, V.I. (1971). The development of logical memorization techniques in the preschool and young school child. Soviet Psychology, 10(2), 178–195.
Sokolova, E.E. Formation and ways of development of the psychology of activity (school of A.N. Leontiev): diss. Dr. Sci. (Psychology). Moscow, 2021. (In Russ).
Stepin, V.S. (2000). Theoretical Knowledge. М.: Progress-Traditzia. (In Russ).
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit — A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104.
Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31.
Treisman, A. (1964). Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in selective attention. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3(6), 449–459.
Velichkovsky, B. M. (1999). From levels of processing to stratification of cognition. Voprosy psikhologii (Issues of psychology), 45(4), 58–75. (In Russ).
Vilenskaya, G.A. (2016). Executive functions: Nature and development. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal (Psychological Journal), 37(4), 21–31. (In Russ).
Yasnitsky, A., & Falikman, M. (2011). Guest Editors’ Introduction: Contemporary Research on Learning, Remembering, and Forgetting: The Scientific Legacy of PI Zinchenko Today. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 49(3), 3–10.
Yasnitsky, A., Falenchuk, O., Mazhirina, E.S., & Ivanova, E.F. (2008). What Can Replication Research Tell Us About the Historical Development of Mental Functions?: P.I. Zinchenko’s (1939) Case Revisited. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 46(6), 61–79. Zinchenko, P.I. (1961). Involuntary memory. M.: Izd-vo APN RSFSR. (In Russ.).
Zinchenko, V.P., Meshcheryakov, B.G. (2013). Peter Ivanovich Zinchenko (1903– 1969): His Life and Works. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal Mezhdunarodnogo universiteta prirody, obshchestva i cheloveka «Dubna» (Dubna Psychological Journal), 2, 1–23. (In Russ.).
Zwaan, R., Etz, A., Lucas, R., & Donnellan, M. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, E120. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Eds.), (pp. 241–258.). New York: Greenwood.