Passer & Smith (2001) described the primacy effect, as being the “superior recall of early words” and the recency effect as the “superior recall of the most recent words”
The three-stage model derived by Atkinson & Shiffren (1968) can be used to explain the two components described by Passer & Smith (2001) in relation to the findings of Glanzer & Cunitz (1968). According to the three stage model, the recency portion of the list is held only in short term memory and is therefore recalled straight away whilst the information is still contained, where as a strong primacy effect is due to rehearsal of the early items in the list, which can then be transferred into the long term memory store (cited in Ashcraft M.H 1994)
The findings of Glanzer & Cunitz (1968) therefore support the theory of Atkinson & Shiffren (1968) as the subjects who were asked to perform a counting task show a significantly less proportion of recency then the control group, as the information has been given time to decay.
Based on the original findings of Glanzer & Cunitz (1968) the current experiment aimed to show that accurate recall depends on the serial position in which a word occurs, creating a hypothesis that the words at the beginning and the end of the list, will more likely be recalled than the words in the middle.
Method
Design
The experiment was carried out using a repeated measures design. The independent variable was the serial position of the word on the list. The dependant variable was the amount of recall.
Participants
An opportunity sample of 19 participants was used. The sample consisted of level 1 students from Southampton Institute, aged between 18 and 20. There were no Psychology students tested as this may have affected the results through demand characteristics i.e. knowing what the experiment aimed to find. All participants recruited consisted mostly of friends of the experimenters.
Materials
A list of 20 words were created (appendix 1), each list was randomly differentiated from each other, to maximise the validity of results. A set of standardised instructions were compiled (appendix 2) to read to participants in order to maximise understanding and gain a high level of data, this was also used to stop each experimenter biasing their own results. A consent form was also produced to be signed by all participants (appendix 3), and ethical approval was gained prior to the investigation (appendix 4).
Procedure
Prior to any testing, participants were asked to read and sign a consent form. Participants were tested in groups of five, all groups were tested separately, but were all tested in the same location, and their data was viewed only by the experimenters. Once consent was obtained the standardised instructions were read to the participants who were then given the word list, to read for 60 seconds. A serial recall procedure was used in which participants were asked to recall the words as they appeared on the list, they were asked to begin this task immediately after they had finished reading the word list. There was no time limit enforced on the recall procedure, participants were instructed to inform experimenters when they had completed the task.
At the end of the experiment participants were debriefed and given an opportunity to ask any questions, they were also informed of where they could obtain the results.
Results
The proportion of correct words at the beginning and the end of the list were significantly higher than those in the middle section, as displayed in figure 1. The raw data can be seen in (appendix 5).
Figure 1. Line graph to show the serial position curve.
The graph clearly shows that the correct recall was higher in the first three words and the last two words than it was for the middle section of the list.
Discussion
The results obtained show support for the hypothesis and also the findings of Glanzer(1968), that the words at the beginning and the end of the list were more likely to be remembered. By plotting the proportion of correctly recalled words onto a graph (see figure.1) it is clear to see a noticeable difference between the first words and the last words compared to the words in the middle section.
This suggests that the serial position effect is indeed aided by primacy and recency factors; therefore the original hypothesis made by Glanzer (1968) can be used as an integral part of the explanation process for why participants remembered the more of the words at the beginning and the end than in the middle.
Although fairly conclusive in displaying primacy and recency effects, the findings only shoe recency in a small proportion compared to the original study, therefore the results can also be seen to support the hypothesis of Atkinson & Shiffrn (1968) on the capacity of the short-term memory, they believed that only a few items could be stored for a limited time of only 30 seconds (cited in Searlman, Herrman 1994). This could be used to explain why some participants went against the hypothesis by not successfully recalling the last few words, as they probably spent a lot of time remembering the first words, therefore allowing the decay of information stored within the short-term memory store.
In order to support this view in could have been worth asking participants about the technique in which they used to remember the words, as one participant mentioned during debriefing that they had figured it impossible to remember all 20 words, so concentrated solely on remembering the first 10 words. This systematic approach could have been used by more of the participants, therefore creating a confounding variable that would effect the reliability of the results, and if so would also provide the findings with support as to why recency among participants was very low in comparison to the original study.
It may also be considered that the methodology may have affected the reliability of the findings, as not all participants were tested at the same time, or by the same experimenter. The participants were split into three groups of five, and one group of four, the imbalance due to an illness on the day. However because they were not all tested at the same time and by the same experimenter this could have effected the concentration of participants therefore their amount of recall towards the end of list and explain why they showed low recency.
A possible direction for future research would be to support the hypothesis of Glanzer & Cunitz (1968) that the recency effect could be eliminated by wiping out the last words from short-term memory, using a distraction technique delaying the test by 30 seconds. By using an independent measures design, a comparison could be made between one group completing a numeric task and the other group being tested immediately. This would provide the appropriate results to determine whether the recency effect could be eliminated.
In conclusion, the findings supported Glanzers hypothesis and the hypothesis of the current experiment. The proportion of correct recall was higher for the first and last words of the list compared to the middle section, suggesting that accurate recall is created by the serial posistion in which a word occurs.
References
Ashcraft, H.M (1994). Human memory and cognition. New York : Harper Collins College Publishers.
Passer, M.W & Smith, R.E (2001) Psychology :Frontiers and applications. New York: Van Hoffman Press, Inc
Searlmann, A. Hermann, D.J (1994) Memory of from a broader perspective . Boston: Mcgraw Hill.
