Further evidence on the MP-DP effect in free-recall learning

Shaughnessy, John J.; Zimmerman, Joel; Underwood, Benton J.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80053-7

Cited by 79 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1970). In addition, the data from Experiments 1 and 3 agree with the differential-rehearsal results reported by Rundus (1971) and Shaughnessy et al (1972).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…According to the differential-rehearsal notion, the MP·DP effect occurs because Ss pay less attention to the second MP presentation than they do to the second DP presentation. The variable-encoding hypothesis asserts that more new information is encoded on successive presentations in DP than in MP and that this variable encoding increases as lag increases.Since both of these hypotheses refer to aspects of the storage process, it isnot surprising that current evidence indicates that both differential rehearsal and variable encoding contribute to the MP·DP effect (D'Agostino & DeRemer, 1972): MP-DP differences in recall result from differential rehearsal, whereas improved recall with increases in lag results from variable encoding.The present experiments are addressed to the differential-rehearsal account of the better recall observed under DP than under MP.Both Rundus (1971) and Shaughnessy. Zimmerman, and Underwood (1972) report that Ss rehearse MP items less than they rehearse DP items.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present experiments are addressed to the differential-rehearsal account of the better recall observed under DP than under MP.Both Rundus (1971) and Shaughnessy. Zimmerman, and Underwood (1972) report that Ss rehearse MP items less than they rehearse DP items.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Isolation of massed- and distributed-practice items

1973

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four experiments, massed-practice (MP) or distributed-practice (DP) items were isolated from other items in a list presented either visually or auditorially for free recall. For three independent groups, the first, second, or both presentations of an item were isolated. Locus of isolation had a marginal influence on recall. When MP items were isolated, they were recalled better than DP items. Isolating the DP items enhanced the MP·DP effect. The results are congruent with the idea that the MP-DP effect in free recall results, in part, from differential rehearsal.Distributed practice (DP) on verbal events presented for free recall results in higher levels of recall than does massed practice (MP). In addition, a frequent finding has been that the recall of DP items increases as the lag (separation) between repetitions increases. Support for these two assertions comes from several experiments that differed widely along such parameters as rate of presentation, frequency of item presentation, and kind of to-be-remembered items (e.g., D 'Agostino & DeRemer, 1972;Elmes, Greener, & Wilkinson, 1972;Melton, 1970;Underwood, 1970).The two most viable explanations of the MP-DP effect (Elmes et al, 1972) seem to be the differential-rehearsal (e.g., Underwood, 1970) and the variable-encoding (e.g., Melton, 1970) hypotheses. According to the differential-rehearsal notion, the MP·DP effect occurs because Ss pay less attention to the second MP presentation than they do to the second DP presentation. The variable-encoding hypothesis asserts that more new information is encoded on successive presentations in DP than in MP and that this variable encoding increases as lag increases.Since both of these hypotheses refer to aspects of the storage process, it isnot surprising that current evidence indicates that both differential rehearsal and variable encoding contribute to the MP·DP effect (D'Agostino & DeRemer, 1972): MP-DP differences in recall result from differential rehearsal, whereas improved recall with increases in lag results from variable encoding.The present experiments are addressed to the differential-rehearsal account of the better recall observed under DP than under MP.Both Rundus (1971) and Shaughnessy. Zimmerman, and Underwood (1972) report that Ss rehearse MP items less than they rehearse DP items. It follows, therefore, that increased rehearsal of MP items should attenuate the MP-DP effect. Conversely, increased rehearsal of DP items should *This research was supported by a R. E. Lee Research Grant. Portions of these data were presented by the second author at the meetings of the Virginia Academy of Science, Lexington, May 1972. Requests for reprints should be sent to David G. Elmes, Department of Psychology. Washington and Lee University. Lexington. Virginia 24450. 77 enhance the MP·DP effect. Differential rehearsal was effected in the present studies by isolating the appropriate MP or DP items from the remaining items in the list. The assumption behind the use of isolation as a rehearsal variable is that the is...

show abstract

“…1970). In addition, the data from Experiments 1 and 3 agree with the differential-rehearsal results reported by Rundus (1971) and Shaughnessy et al (1972).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Isolation of massed- and distributed-practice items

1973

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the experiment was conducted over a period of two semesters. In brief, the attention hypothesis was formulated by Shaughnessy, Zimmerman, and Underwood (1972), who proposed that MP-DP differences can be attributed to the decrease in the total time that the subject attends to MP as compared to DP items. Note that while the first study involved a list learning situation, the subjects in Experiment 2 were asked to attend to a statement about a specified target item and to make the appropriate response.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The within-list distributed practice effect: Tests of the varied context and varied encoding hypotheses

Maskarinec

Thompson

1976

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present studies provided separate tests of the varied context and varied encoding hypotheses of the MP-DP effect. The investigation of varied encoding used an incidental learning procedure in which the nature ofthe orienting task was manipulated such that the subject attended to diHerent attributes of words (varied encoding) or only one attribute (same encoding). While the prediction that the reeall ofMP-DP items should becomparable under comparable levels of encoding was not supported, diHerenees were obtained in recall of items under same and variable orienting task conditions. An MP-DP effect was obtained under the incidental learning procedure. Tests of varied context involved the presentation of target items in list contexts which were the same or different from list contexts on previous occurrences of the item. The prediction that recall of items surrounded by different context should exceed that of items surrounded by the same context was not supported.

show abstract

“…The amount of time that each presentation was studied was recorded. Although study time is affected by a number of variables (Dunlosky & Thiede, 1998), this measure should provide us with a rough method for quantifying how much attention is paid to each presentation of the object (Rao & Proctor, 1984;Shaughnessy, Zimmerman, & Underwood, 1972;Zimmerman, 1975). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are first impressions lasting impressions? An exploration of the generality of the primacy effect in memory for repetitions

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The beneficial effects of repetition on memory have been well documented (e.g., Ebbinghaus, 1885/1964; for reviews, see Crowder, 1976, andGreene, 1992). Although memory usually improves with repetition of a stimulus, researchers have documented several instances in which increased repetition does not facilitate memory performance. For example, an early study by Nickerson and Adams (1979) showed that participants were unable to properly configure the features of a penny, despite countless repeated exposures to this object.Recent examples of repetition's failing to facilitate memory performance can be found in studies by Hintzman, Curran, and Oppy (1992) and Hintzman and Curran (1995). In these studies, participants viewed long lists of stimuli, with some stimuli presented as many as 25 times. Later, the participants were given a memory test that included the previously seen items, as well as highly similar lures. The participants were asked to make a frequency judgment for each test item. The results showed that although the participants could report with great accuracy how many times a given stimulus had appeared on a list, repetition did not increase their ability to discriminate a stimulus presented on the list from a highly similar lure. Hintzman et al. (1992) termed their finding registration without learning because, although it seemed that the repetition was registered by the participants (as indicated by the increased frequency judgments for repeated items), there was no evidence that the participants learned the details of the stimulus to a degree sufficient to discriminate between the repeated stimulus and a highly similar alternative. For example, the participants were able to report accurately how many times the word frog had appeared on a list; however, they failed to discriminate between the words frog and frogs in a recognition memory test, even when the word frog had appeared many times.Additional evidence in support of this conclusion was reported in a study by DiGirolamo and Hintzman (1997). In their study, participants studied multiple presentations of simple line drawings of common objects. The study list was constructed so that half of the objects were presented in different left-right orientations. For the objects that were presented in different left-right orientations, either the first presentation or the last presentation was different from all of the others. Immediately following the study phase, the participants were given a forced choice memory test in which both versions of an object from the study list were presented, and the participants' task was to judge whether both versions of the object or only one of the versions had been presented previously. A second experiment, in which stimulus size, rather than orientation, was manipulated was also conducted.The results of both experiments revealed that errors on the recognition test were biased toward the first presentation of the object. That is, when the participants incorrectly responded that only one version had appeared on the study...

show abstract

Further evidence on the MP-DP effect in free-recall learning

Cited by 79 publications

References 8 publications

Isolation of massed- and distributed-practice items

Isolation of massed- and distributed-practice items

The within-list distributed practice effect: Tests of the varied context and varied encoding hypotheses

Are first impressions lasting impressions? An exploration of the generality of the primacy effect in memory for repetitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About