Order information and free recall: Evaluating the item-order hypothesis

Abstract

The item-order hypothesis proposes that order information plays an important role in recall from long-term memory, and it is commonly used to account for the moderating effects of experimental design in memory research. Recent research (Engelkamp, Jahn, & Seiler, 2003; McDaniel, DeLosh, & Merritt, 2000) raises questions about the assumptions underlying the item-order hypothesis. Four experiments tested these assumptions by examining the relationship between free recall and order memory for lists of varying length (8, 16, or 24 unrelated words or pictures). Some groups were given standard free-recall instructions, other groups were explicitly instructed to use order information in free recall, and other groups were given free-recall tests intermixed with tests of order memory (order reconstruction). The results for short lists were consistent with the assumptions of the item-order account. For intermediate-length lists, explicit order instructions and intermixed order tests made recall more reliant on order information, but under standard conditions, order information played little role in recall. For long lists, there was little evidence that order information contributed to recall. In sum, the assumptions of the item-order account held for short lists, received mixed support with intermediate lists, and received no support for longer lists.

Enactment and retrieval

“…Second, IO scores were significantly above chance in the separate condition [averaged over tests; M .54; t(79) 2.72] but not significantly different from chance in the combined condition [M .50; t(69) 0.29]. Given that the functional study list was longer in the combined condition, this pattern is consistent with the finding that longer lists exhibit less IO correspondence (Mulligan & Lozito, 2007). Third, for the separate condition, IO scores for the VT condition exceeded chance [M .56; t(79) 3.04], whereas those for the SPT condition did not [M .52; t(79) 1.63].…”

“…This measure assesses the extent to which recall output corresponds to serial input position, with a chance-level value of .5. In the present case, this measure is likely to be suggestive rather than definitive, since IO scores tend to be near chance level for lists of 16 items or more, indicative of little reliance on serial order information (Engelkamp, Jahn, & Seiler, 2003;Mulligan & Lozito, 2007). In the combined condition, the two study lists were treated as a single list for purposes of computing IO.…”

Assessing a retrieval account of the generation and perceptual-interference effects

“…The artifact accounts (e.g., displaced rehearsal) are not supported, because these views predict no differential processing across sponds to serial input position, with a chance-level value of .5. In the present case, this measure is likely to be suggestive rather than definitive, since IO scores tend to be near chance level for lists of 16 items or more, indicative of little reliance on serial-order information (Mulligan & Lozito, 2007). In the combined condition, the two study lists were treated as a single list for purposes of computing IO scores.…”

“…Second, there is evidence that it is easier to form interitem associations with random lists of simple items (e.g., individual words), as opposed to more complex items (e.g., sentences; cf. Engelkamp, Jahn, & Seiler, 2003;Mulligan & Lozito, 2007). This might lead to greater sensitivity of simple materials to manipulations that disrupt interitem processing (in ways posited by the item-order and multifactor accounts).…”

“…However, the IO scores were not much above chance, and key comparisons were not significantly different. In sum, there is little indication that order information was a key determinant of recall (not unexpected, given the length of the study lists used; Mulligan & Lozito, 2007).…”