Two Determinants of the Effect of Primacy

Raffel, Gertrude

doi:10.2307/1416518

Cited by 42 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the subject has the ability to retrieve the first items in order to rehearse them during the delay interval, then why can this same retrieval not serve as the basis for the correct response when tested immediately? This finding of emergence of the primacy effect with increasing probe delay is a problem for all theories that use rehearsal to explain the primacy effect (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968;Raffel, 1936;Waugh & Norman, 1965;Welch & Burnett, 1924).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Monkey memory: Same/different concept learning, serial probe acquisition, and probe delay effects.

Wright¹,

Santiago²,

Sands³

1984

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three rhesus monkeys were trained and tested in a same/different task with six successive sets of 70 item pairs to an 88% accuracy on each set. Their poor initial transfer performance (55% correct) with novel stimuli improved dramatically to 85% correct following daily item changes in the training stimuli. They acquired a serial-probe-recognition (SPR) task with variable (1-6) item list lengths. This SPR acquisition, although gradual, was more rapid for the monkeys than for pigeons similarly trained. Testing with a fixed list length of four items at different delays between the last list item and the probe test item revealed changes in the serial-position function: a recency effect (last items remembered well) for 0-s delay, recency and primacy effects (first and last list items remembered well) for 1-, 2-, and 10-s delays, and only a primacy effect for the longest 30-s delay. These results are compared with similar ones from pigeons and are discussed in relation to theories of memory processing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Monkey memory: Same/different concept learning, serial probe acquisition, and probe delay effects.

Wright¹,

Santiago²,

Sands³

1984

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, free recall and serial recall are identical tasks save for a small change in instructions. It has long been established that this small change in instructions produces very different serial position curves (SPC; Raffel, 1936;Jahnke, 1965;Anderson & Crosland, 1933), even when the instructions are not given until after the list has been studied (Deese, 1957). Subtler changes of instruction also influence the size of the primacy and recency effects, such as asking subjects to initiate recall from different parts of the list (e.g., the beginning, the middle, the end) and then allowing free recall after this constrained-initiation (e.g., Craik, 1969;Murdock, 1968;Dalezman, 1976;Katz, 1968).…”

Section: Task Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of control processes in temporal and semantic contiguity

Healey

Uitvlugt

2019

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) argued that performance on any memory task reflects the combined influence of both the fixed structure of the memory system and control processes tailored to the specific task. We investigated the role of control processes in governing the temporal contiguity and semantic contiguity effects in free recall-tendencies to organize recall based on proximity in the study list and pre-existing semantic associations. Subjects studied lists that contained four "clusters", each composed of four semantically associated words but presented in random order such that associates were not in adjacent serial positions. Subjects were given either standard free-recall instructions, instructions to focus on order-based associations (i.e., the original order of presentation), or meaning-based associations (i.e., preexisting semantic relationships). Replicating previous work, lists with strong semantic relationships resulted in a reduced overall temporal contiguity effect when recalled under standard free-recall instructions. However, under meaning-based recall instructions, the temporal contiguity effect was nearly eliminated. Detailed analyses of within-cluster transitions and an order reconstruction task revealed that temporal information was encoded, but control processes prevented it from dominating memory search. These results point to a need for more empirical work exploring how control processes change recall dynamics and for more theoretical work modeling the computational basis of these processes.

show abstract

“…Some form of the classical serial position curve is found for a considerable variety of verbal material and conditions of testing; the essential restriction seems to be that the learning and/or recall be by the method of serial anticipation or some modification of it (5). Several studies (4,8) show that there is quite a different form of the serial position effect when free recall is the method of testing employed. With the method of free recall, the middle items are less frequently recalled, the first items are moderately well recalled, and the last items are most frequently recalled.…”

Section: Serial Effects In Recall Of Unorganized and Sequentially Orgmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material.

Deese

Kaufman²

1957

Journal of Experimental Psychology

337

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two Determinants of the Effect of Primacy

Cited by 42 publications

References 0 publications

Monkey memory: Same/different concept learning, serial probe acquisition, and probe delay effects.

Monkey memory: Same/different concept learning, serial probe acquisition, and probe delay effects.

The role of control processes in temporal and semantic contiguity

Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About