Memory & Cognition 2000,28 (7),1140-1151 Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) and repetition priming JEFFERY J, FRANKS, CAROL W. BILBREY, KHOO GUATLIEN, and TIMOTHY P, McNAMARA Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP), as applied to implicit memory, has tended to emphasize gen- eral forms of processing (e.g., perceptual or conceptual processing), In the present studies, the TAP principle was employed in a more specific manner in order to more precisely assess the relations be- tween the processing engaged during first exposure and that engaged during second exposure to items. Thirteen experiments used a two-phase, cross-task design in which participants engaged in different combinations of seven specific intentional tasks between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Maximum repetition priming was found when tasks were the same in Phases 1 and 2. When Phase 1and Phase 2 tasks dif- fered, there were lesser, or no, repetition priming effects, depending on the particular combination of tasks. The results demonstrate the importance of the specific intentional processes engaged during repetition priming and the potential heuristic value of TAP, as a principle and methodology, for ex- ploring the organization of memory and related process models, People are generally faster or more efficient in per- forming a task on a stimulus when there has been previ- ous experience in performing the same task on the same stimulus, The transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) prin- ciple was developed as an expression of this general rela- tion, specifically applied to memory (Bransford, Franks, Morris, & Stein, 1979; Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977). Initial research demonstrated that explicit memory was facilitated by the degree of overlap between processes engaged during a first study exposure and those engaged during a second test exposure. More recently, the TAP framework has been extended to implicit memory phe- nomena (e.g., Blaxton, 1989; Graf & Ryan, 1990; Roedi- ger & Blaxton, 1987; Roediger, Weldon, & Challis, 1989; Srinivas, 1996), The applications of TAP within the implicit memory domain have generally been oriented toward considera- tions ofthe differences and dissociations between implicit and explicit memory, For example, Roediger and his col- leagues (e.g., Roediger & McDermott, 1993) have devel- oped TAP explanations couched in terms of distinguish- ing perceptual and conceptual processes. They related these process differences to performance differences be- tween implicit and explicit memory, although acknowl- edging that a complete account involves more than a sim- ple one-to-one correspondence between these processes and memory performance differences. Graf and his asso- ciates (e.g., Graf & Ryan, 1990; Graf & Schacter, 1985, 1987; Schacter & Graf, 1986) have developed an alter- The authors thank David Gorfein, Peter Graf, Michael Masson, and Henry Roediger 1IIfor helpful comments on earlier drafts of this man- uscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to 1. 1. Franks. 301 Wilson Hall, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240 (e-mail: jeff.franks@vanderbilt.edu). native TAP framework that suggests that integrative and elaborative processes are correlated with enhancements of implicit and explicit memory, respectively. Reflecting on these and related developments of the TAP framework, Gorfein and Bubka (1997) note that al- though transfer-appropriate processing "seems to be the best model of repetition priming at this time," it "lacks specificity" and "fails to specify in advance when ap- propriate processing will be engaged, rendering it almost untestable" (p. 236), These remarks are quite appropriate if one considers TAP to be a model of repetition priming or any other memory phenomena. However, TAP was orig- inally proposed as a principle, not as a model, of memory- processing relations (Bransford et al., 1979; Morris et al., 1977), As such, TAP can be seen as a complement to the encoding specificity principle (ESP), which is a principle related to encoded representations of properties of stim- uli and their context (Tulving, 1972, 1979; Tulving & Thomson, 1973). From this perspective, TAP and ESP are construed to be methodological and conceptual rules for reasoning about and investigating memory phenomena, not as specific process or structural models for particular memory phenomena, The TAP principle states that mem- ory performance will tend to be maximized when the par- ticipants in an experiment engage in the same intentional act during initial exposure to the items and during later opportunities for showing memory for the items, In a com- plementary fashion, the ESP principle states that memory performance will tend to be maximized when participants are presented with the same stimulus situation during ini- tial exposure and during later memory opportunities for items. Together, TAP and ESP can be construed to claim that the coded memory of an event represents the unique interaction of a particular intentional act engaged with a particular stimulus situation. Copyright 2000 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1140