An experiment to look at the primacy and recency effect on recalling a word list
Introduction:
Background
Atkinson and Shiffrin suggested the multi-store model of memory; it consisted of 3 main stores; the sensory store, short term store, and long term store. Information which we obtain from our senses is kept in our sensory store, if enough attention is paid to it, the information will enter our short term memory, and then if the information is rehearsed then it will cross the threshold into the long term memory.
Murdock (1962) presented participants with a list of words, they were required to recall as many of the words as possible. Murdock found that the words at the end of the list (recency effect) and the beginning of the list (primary effect) that were more likely to be remembered than those in the middle of the list.
Murdock found that the longer information is held in Short Term Memory (STM) and rehearsed, the greater the likelihood of it passing into Long Term Memory (LTM). Information from the middle of the list perished as there is little time to rehearse it. In conclusion Murdock came to the assumption that information that was remembered came from two separate stores, the STM and the LTM.
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) used free recall (where the participants can remember the words in any order) of a list of 20 words combined with an interference task to show that there are 2 processes involved in retrieving information.
They showed lists of 20 words one at a time and had subjects recall the words under one of 3 conditions.
- With 0 seconds delay.
- 10 second delay, in which the participants would count backwards, acting as an interference task.
- 30 second delay with interference task
With a 0 second delay the first 5 and last 3 words were recalled best but with a 10 or 30 second delay during which the subject counted backwards there was little effect on the early words but poor recall of later items.
This suggests that the later words were held in short term storage and were lost due to interference whereas the earlier words had been passed to long-term storage.
Rationale
I am interested in finding out whether the recency effect is destroyed by an interference task. Glanzer and Cunitz found that that the recency effect could be destroyed if an interference task were to be introduced. I am adapting Glanzer and Cunitz study by using a different interference task; I will use maths problems, instead of counting backwards as I think this will be a more challenging interference task. I expect to find the recency effect to be completely destroyed.
Aim
The aim of my experiment is to see if an interference task can destroy the recency effect of recalling a list of 30 words.
