Effect of Delayed Recall on Serial Position Effec
Effect Of Delayed Recall on Serial Position Effects
By Paul Thevathayan
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this experiment was to test whether a delay before recall would affect the serial position effect. The experiment was done by getting participants to take part in a simple tests; hearing words read out, then after they are read out, recalling them and writing them down. Two of these tests took place, one without a gap before recall, and one with. The results only partly supported previous research, with both tests showing a higher number of people remembering words at the start of the list, but unlike previous research findings, the last words of the list were not remembered significantly more than the middle in either test. The results indicate that there were certain extraneous variables that were not controlled.
The serial position effect is defined as “The tendency for items at the beginning and end of a list to be remembered better in immediate free recall than those in the middle.” (Glazner and Cunitz 1966; Postman and Phillips 1965)
The Serial Position effect comprises of two parts: The Primacy effect (when words at the start are remembered better than those in other parts of the list) and the Recency effect (When words at the end of the list are better remembered.
One suggested theory for the Primacy effect is because of the longer length of time allowed before recall, resulting in more processing and the better recollection.
A theorized idea for why the Recency effect works is that words at the end of a list are better remembered than others because they are still in working memory when recall happens. People have the tendency to perform poorly on words in the middle of the list as neither of these two effects are present (Glazner and Cunitz 1966; Postman and Phillips 1965).
To observe the Serial Position Effect however, the words in the list must be of similar characteristics and
By Paul Thevathayan
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this experiment was to test whether a delay before recall would affect the serial position effect. The experiment was done by getting participants to take part in a simple tests; hearing words read out, then after they are read out, recalling them and writing them down. Two of these tests took place, one without a gap before recall, and one with. The results only partly supported previous research, with both tests showing a higher number of people remembering words at the start of the list, but unlike previous research findings, the last words of the list were not remembered significantly more than the middle in either test. The results indicate that there were certain extraneous variables that were not controlled.
The serial position effect is defined as “The tendency for items at the beginning and end of a list to be remembered better in immediate free recall than those in the middle.” (Glazner and Cunitz 1966; Postman and Phillips 1965)
The Serial Position effect comprises of two parts: The Primacy effect (when words at the start are remembered better than those in other parts of the list) and the Recency effect (When words at the end of the list are better remembered.
One suggested theory for the Primacy effect is because of the longer length of time allowed before recall, resulting in more processing and the better recollection.
A theorized idea for why the Recency effect works is that words at the end of a list are better remembered than others because they are still in working memory when recall happens. People have the tendency to perform poorly on words in the middle of the list as neither of these two effects are present (Glazner and Cunitz 1966; Postman and Phillips 1965).
To observe the Serial Position Effect however, the words in the list must be of similar characteristics and
References: Glanzer, M. & Cunitz, A. R. (1966). Two storage mechanisms in Free Recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 5,351-360. Von Restorff, H. (1933). "Über die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld (The effects of field formation in the trace field)". Psychological Research 18 (1): 299–342. APPENDIX