Negative effects of recency in recall and recognition

McCabe, Linda L.; Madigan, Stephen

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(71)80059-2

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Why should there be this decline across lists for SI Ss, who presumably rehearse each last only at input ? Comparing the two curves of the SI Ss, for end-of-session vs. one-week recall, the pattern is reminiscent (except for different tame scales) of "negative recency" phenomena reported recently by Craik (1970), McCabe & Madigan (1971), and others. However, extant explanations of the "negative-recency" phenomenon (e.g., immediate "dumping" after recall of items in short-term memory) seem inapplicable to the conditions of the present experiment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Mnemonic elaboration in multilist learning

Bower

Reitman

1972

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study inquires whether retroactive interference (RI) from learning multiple word lists can be altered through mnemonic strategies The Ss learned five successive hsts of 20 words each by associating the words with 20 conceptual pegs via visual imagery Some Ss were instructed to visuahze the words from the successive hsts in entirely new associative scenes; other Ss were to incorporate the current list's words into the appropriate scenes from the earher hsts. Although equwaleut in immediate recall, the Separate Images (SI) group recalled less than the Progressive Elaboration (PE) group at the end of the session, and showed a strict RI curve across lists where the PE group did not. Recall at a one-week test, however, favored earlier hsts for the PE group only, explicable in terms of cumulative rehearsal of earher 1terns with the PE method. Numerous recent researches [reviewed by Palvio (1971, p. 332 ff)] have proven the etficacy of the "pegword mnemomc" system for learning lists of unrelated items. In th~s procedure, the person first learns a series of concrete words (the "pegs") associated with the first 20 or so integers. Oft-clted examples are the rhyming pegs "1 is a bun, 2 is a shoe, 3 is a tree .... " and so on, up to 20 or more. To learn any new list of items, the person is instructed to imagine-the referent of the nth to-be-remembered word m vivid interaction with the referent of the nth pegword. When asked to recall the list, the S implicitly recites his known pegword list, with each peg cuing recall of its associated item.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Mnemonic elaboration in multilist learning

Bower

Reitman

1972

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Findings for immediate recall in a free recall task show greater recall for initial and final inputted items, the familiar positive primacy and recency phenomena. In contrast, delayed recall exhibits the phenomenon of negative recency, initially reported by Craik (1970) and confirmed in several subsequent studies (Rundus & Atkinson, 1970;McCabe & Madigan, 1971;Darley & Murdock, 1971). These studies found that the positive recency effect apparent in immediate free recall disappeared with delayed recall and that performance over the last serial positions was poorer than that for the initial and middle positions.…”

Section: Stanford University Stanford Calif 94305supporting

confidence: 65%

The serial position function for lists learned by a narrative-story mnemonic

Herrmann

Geisler

Atkinson

1973

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As previously noted, practice retrieving items from secondary memory results in substantial benefits to long-term retention (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). In contrast, reporting items directly from primary memory does not provide practice that benefits delayed tests, as demonstrated by the negative recency effect and the relative ineffectiveness of rote rehearsal as a mnemonic technique (Craik, 1970; Craik, Gardiner, & Watkins, 1970; Craik & Watkins, 1973; Jacoby & Bartz, 1972; Madigan & McCabe, 1971; Mazuryk & Lockhart, 1974; L. McCabe & Madigan, 1971; Rundus, Loftus, & Atkinson, 1970; Smith, Barresi, & Gross, 1971). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarities and differences between working memory and long-term memory: Evidence from the levels-of-processing span task.

Rose

Myerson

Roediger³

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments compared the effects of depth of processing on working memory (WM) and long-term memory (LTM) using a levels-of-processing (LOP) span task, a newly developed WM span procedure that involves processing to-be-remembered words based on their visual, phonological, or semantic characteristics. Depth of processing had minimal effect on WM tests, yet subsequent memory for the same items on delayed tests showed the typical benefits of semantic processing. Although the difference in LOP effects demonstrates a dissociation between WM and LTM, we also found that the retrieval practice provided by recalling words on the WM task benefited long-term retention, especially for words initially recalled from supraspan lists. The latter result is consistent with the hypothesis that WM span tasks involve retrieval from secondary memory, but the LOP dissociation suggests the processes engaged by WM and LTM tests may differ. Therefore, similarities and differences between WM and LTM depend on the extent to which retrieval from secondary memory is involved and whether there is a match (or mismatch) between initial processing and subsequent retrieval, consistent with transfer-appropriate-processing theory.

show abstract

Negative effects of recency in recall and recognition

Cited by 19 publications

References 7 publications

Mnemonic elaboration in multilist learning

Mnemonic elaboration in multilist learning

The serial position function for lists learned by a narrative-story mnemonic

Similarities and differences between working memory and long-term memory: Evidence from the levels-of-processing span task.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About