The distinctiveness of the word-length effect.

Abstract

The authors report 2 experiments that compare the serial recall of pure lists of long words, pure lists of short words, and lists of long or short words containing just a single isolated word of a different length. In both experiments for pure lists, there was a substantial recall advantage for short words; the isolated words were recalled better than other words in the same list, and there was a reverse word-length effect: Isolated long words were recalled better than isolated short words. These results contradict models that seek to explain the word-length effect in terms of list-based accounts of rehearsal speed or in terms of item-based effects (such as difficulty of assembling items).

Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: Similar patterns of rehearsal and similar effects of word length, presentation rate, and articulatory suppression

“…These similar patterns of rehearsal in the two tasks complexity to the word length effect (Neath & Nairne, 1995). However, regardless of the preferred alternative, our data must surely be consistent with factors other than solely differential rehearsal's contributing to the word length effect (e.g., Brown & Hulme, 1995;Hulme et al, 2006;Hulme et al, 2004;Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2000;Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2008;Nairne, 2002;Tehan & Tolan, 2007).…”

“…These data suggest that the differences in the shapes of the serial position curves were due more to the retrieval characteristics of the different tasks than to differences in strategic encoding. it provides evidence in support of the concept of trace decay (Baddeley, 2007;Cowan, 2005;Mueller, Seymour, Kieras, & Meyer, 2003;Schweikert & Boruff, 1986), although many alternative explanations have since been proposed (e.g., Brown & Hulme, 1995;Hulme et al, 2006;Hulme, Suprenant, Bireta, Stuart, & Neath, 2004;Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2000;Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2008;Nairne, 2002;Neath & Nairne, 1995;Tehan & Tolan, 2007). The working memory model (Baddeley, 1986) assumes that the word length effect is a key empirical finding supporting the existence of the phonological loop mechanism of working memory that is used for both rehearsal and recall in ISR.…”

Backward recall and benchmark effects of working memory

“…Hulme, Surprenant, Bireta, Stuart, and Neath (2004; see also Hulme et al, 2006) first described how SIMPLE could account for word length effects, but their model required three dimensions. Neath and Brown (2006) demonstrated a revised model that required only two dimensions.…”

Phonological, visual, and semantic coding strategies and children's short-term picture memory span

“…spoken duration or differences in phonological complexity -see Hulme, Neath, Stuart, Shostak, Surprenant & Brown, 2006;Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2008;Mueller, Seymour, Kieras & Meyer, 2003;Romani, McAlpine, Olson, Tsouknida & Martin, 2005). Word length effects in picture span tasks emerge at 7-9 years (Halliday et al, 1990;Henry, Turner, Smith & Leather, 2000;Hitch, Halliday, Dodd & Littler, 1989;Hitch et al, 1991), although there is debate about the precise cognitive processes responsible for this development in relation to verbal rehearsal and verbal output (Cowan, Day, Saults, Keller, Johnson & Flores, 1992;Henry, 1991;Henry et al, 2000;Yuzawa, 2001).…”

“…Others doubt that word length effects require articulatory processes (e.g. Hulme et al, 2006;Romani et al, 2005), but for current purposes, word length effects were examined as an additional indication of phonological coding.…”