While items learned immediately before testing are generally remembered better than prior items in a study list, in delayed testing this relationship is reversed, yielding a negative recency effect. To adjudicate between the strategic rehearsal and spacing accounts of this phenomenon, we examined performance of 169 participants on a delayed recognition test following multiple sessions requiring the study and immediate free recall testing of 16 lists of 16 words. This revealed a strong effect of the amount of spacing between initial study position and initial free recall position on the degree of negative recency, supporting the spacing account. Furthermore, these spacing effects were nonmonotonic, suggesting that they are mediated by consolidation processes. Additional analyses indicate that strategies and rehearsal opportunities may also contribute to the effects of within-list encoding position on subsequent long-term memory, but for recall more than for recognition.

Studies of reconsolidation interference posit that reactivation of a previously consolidated memory via a reminder brings it into an active, labile state, leaving it open for potential manipulation. If interfered with, this may disrupt the original memory trace. While evidence for pharmacological reconsolidation interference is widespread, it remains unclear whether behavioural interference using the presentation of competing information can engender it, especially in declarative memory. Almost all previous studies in this area have employed between-subjects designs, in which there are potential confounds, such as different retrieval strategies for the multiple conditions. In the current studies, within-subjects paradigms were applied to test the effects of reconsolidation interference on associative recognition and free recall. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in pair-associate learning of unrelated object pictures on Day 1, and after a reminder, interference, reminder + interference, or no manipulation (control) on Day 2, were tested on associative recognition of these pairs on Day 3. In Experiments 2 and 3, memoranda were short stories studied on Day 1. On Day 2, stories were assigned to either control, reminder, interference by alternative stories, or reminder + interference conditions. On Day 3 participants recalled the Day 1 stories, and answered yes/no recognition questions. Reminders improved subsequent memory, while interference was effective in reducing retrieval in differing degrees across the experiments. Importantly, the reminder + interference condition was no more effective in impairing retrieval than the interference-alone condition, contrary to the prediction of the behavioural reconsolidation-interference approach.