Item strength and input location in free-recall learning.

Conover, Jerry N.; Brown, Sam C.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.3.1.109

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Goodwin's findings, replicated by others (e.g. Maskarinec & Brown, 1974;Conover & Brown, 1977;Poltrock & MacLeod, 1977), are especially interesting from a problemsolving point of view because they tell something important about how the subject interprets the given task. As will be discussed later, the shift probably means that the list learning problem often becomes reformulated after the first trial.…”

Section: Reanalyses 1-3mentioning

confidence: 73%

Serial position phenomena: Training and retrieval effects

Helstrup

1984

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With successive free recall lists primacy items are usually among the first to be reported on the initial list. Recency items will then take over and be first reported on later lists. This retrieval shift was studied under varied list conditions designed to counteract ordinary position effects, and proved to be a stable and resistent effect. One experiment had subjects practice on five different free recall lists over three trials, and the results agreed with the hypothesis that primacy reduction is caused by proactive interference rather than by the primacy to recency report shift. Experiments of the usual one‐session laboratory type have consistently failed to show practice effects on serial lists with incompatible spatial and temporal order cues. In a case study of five subjects examined over a period of three months only slight improvement on single‐trial lists was observed. However, when naive subjects were given four successive trials with the same type of cue‐conflict list, prominent practice effects were easily demonstrated. Observations confirmed the assumption that repeated presentations of items located in middle list positions may counteract the privilege of primacy and recency positions. When repetitions were made within contracting and expanding lists, the results proved that active anchoring, making itself visible as primacy effects, is feasible with contracting lists but difficult with expanding lists. Active performance of list learning strategies generally results in primacy effects; whereas passive shortcut procedures, in learning and retrieval of information, produce recency effects. Predominant recency effects are symptoms of difficult task situations only partially mastered by the learner; primacy effects point to more successful elaboration. Overall, serial position effects do not seem to be due to structural memory stores so much as to the working of cognitive strategy factors. A problem‐solving theory was presented as an alternative to information‐processing models of serial learning and memory.

show abstract

Section: Reanalyses 1-3mentioning

confidence: 73%