The effects of intralist cues, extralist cues, and category names on categorized recall

Hudson, Robert L.; Davis, Jerry L.

doi:10.3758/bf03336571

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We encouraged them to use email, calendars, diaries etc. as these act as "cues" [39] and have been shown to reduce interview and survey measurement error [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. We then asked interview participants to list additional activities that they engage in, regardless of frequency or duration.…”

Section: Survey Development Using Preliminary Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Today Was a Good Day: The Daily Life of Software Developers

Meyer

Barr

Bird

et al. 2021

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is a good workday for a software developer? What is a typical workday? We seek to answer these two questions to learn how to make good days typical. Concretely, answering these questions will help to optimize development processes and select tools that increase job satisfaction and productivity. Our work adds to a large body of research on how software developers spend their time. We report the results from 5971 responses of professional developers at Microsoft, who reflected about what made their workdays good and typical, and self-reported about how they spent their time on various activities at work. We developed conceptual frameworks to help define and characterize developer workdays from two new perspectives: good and typical. Our analysis confirms some findings in previous work, including the fact that developers actually spend little time on development and developers' aversion for meetings and interruptions. It also discovered new findings, such as that only 1.7% of survey responses mentioned emails as a reason for a bad workday, and that meetings and interruptions are only unproductive during development phases; during phases of planning, specification and release, they are common and constructive. One key finding is the importance of agency, developers' control over their workday and whether it goes as planned or is disrupted by external factors. We present actionable recommendations for researchers and managers to prioritize process and tool improvements that make good workdays typical. For instance, in light of our finding on the importance of agency, we recommend that, where possible, managers empower developers to choose their tools and tasks.

show abstract

Section: Survey Development Using Preliminary Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Today Was a Good Day: The Daily Life of Software Developers

Meyer

Barr

Bird

et al. 2021

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So it is not clear that the extrapolation of the one situation to the other is warranted. Hudson and Davis (1972) found that presentation of either one word or two from each of 15 three-word categories on a list had equally facilitative effects on the recall of the remaining words. The words in this case were all relatively highly associated with the name of the category to which they belonged.…”

Section: Varying the Number Ofinstance Cues Per Categorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is likely to increase the probability that items will be recalled from the cued category, provided that the categorical structure of the list is known to the subjects and the number of categories is large enough that subjects are unlikely to recall all of them in the absence of cues. There is also some evidence that the stronger the association between a word and a category, the more effectively that word will function as a cue to that category (Hudson & Davis, 1972;Nelson, McEvoy, & Friedrich, 1982).…”

Section: Cuing With Category Instances From the Listmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an experiment designed, in part, to investigate the effects of cuing with category instances not on the study list, Hudson and Davis (1972) used lists composed of four words from each of 10 categories. For some subjects the category instances were highly associated with their category names, and for others they were not.…”

Section: Cuing With Category Instances Not On the Listmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrieval inhibition from part-set cuing: A persisting enigma in memory research

Nickerson¹

1984

Memory & Cognition

244

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Part-set cuing provides a clear demonstration of how a test time variable can influence subjects' memory for word lists; the effect is robust, having been observed with noncategorized lists (see, e.g., Roediger, Stellon, & Tulving, 1977;Slamecka, 1968) as well as categorized lists (e.g., Basden & Basden, 1995;Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966). Furthermore, researchers have manipulated a number of variables, such as the number of cues provided at test (e.g., Hudson & Davis, 1972) and the type of cues provided-for example, category names (e.g., Pollio & Gerow, 1968) and category instances (e.g., Bellezza & Hartwell, 1981). The primary finding from the many part-set cuing studies performed to date is that providing subjects with retrieval cues at test often hinders recall performance.…”

Section: Part-set Cuing Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Part-set cuing of false memories

Reysen

Nairne

2002

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Part-set cuing inhibition describes the common finding that re-presenting items from a word list can reduce subjects' overall recall performance for studied items. Do part-set cuing effects occur for false memories as well? In the present experiments, subjects studied lists of words drawn from Roediger and McDermott (1995). After studying each list, subjects completed math problems and then recalled the list items either with or without accompanying list cues. In Experiment 1, the recall cues consisted of items drawn randomly from the original list. In Experiment 2, an additional type of cued recall task was added in which the even numbered list items were used as cues. Taken together, these experiments demonstrate robust part-set cuing effects for critical nonpresented items. In addition, they show that whereas recall of critical words is reduced by the presence of cues at test, retrieval cues do not affect critical words and studied words in exactly the same manner.

show abstract

The effects of intralist cues, extralist cues, and category names on categorized recall

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Today Was a Good Day: The Daily Life of Software Developers

Today Was a Good Day: The Daily Life of Software Developers

Retrieval inhibition from part-set cuing: A persisting enigma in memory research

Part-set cuing of false memories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About