Serial-position effect

Serial-position effect is the tendency of a person to recall the first and last
items in a series best, and the middle items worst.[1] The term was coined by
Hermann Ebbinghaus through studies he performed on himself, and refers to
the finding that recall accuracy varies as a function of an item's position within
a study list.[2] When asked to recall a list of items in any order (free recall),
people tend to begin recall with the end of the list, recalling those items best
(the recency effect). Among earlier list items, the first few items are recalled
more frequently than the middle items (theprimacy effect).[3][4]
Graph showing the U-shaped serial-
One suggested reason for the primacy effect is that the initial items presented
position curve, created by the serial-
are most effectively stored in dormant memory because of the greater amount
position effect.
of processing devoted to them. (The first list item can be rehearsed by itself;
the second must be rehearsed along with the first, the third along with the first
and second, and so on.) The primacy effect is reduced when items are presented quickly and is enhanced when presented slowly
(factors that reduce and enhance processing of each item and thus permanent storage). Longer presentation lists have been found to
reduce the primacy effect.[4]

One theorised reason for the recency effect is that these items are still present in activated memory when recall is solicited. Items that
benefit from neither (the middle items) are recalled most poorly. An additional explanation for the recency effect is related to
temporal context: if tested immediately after rehearsal, the current temporal context can serve as a retrieval cue, which would predict
more recent items to have a higher likelihood of recall than items that were studied in a different temporal context (earlier in the
list).[5] The recency effect is reduced when an interfering task is given. Intervening tasks involve working memory, as the distractor
fect.[6] Additionally, if recall comes immediately after
activity, if exceeding 15 to 30 seconds in duration, can cancel out the recency ef
test, the recency effect is consistent regardless ofthe length of the studied list,[4] or presentation rate.[7]

Amnesiacs with poor ability to form permanent long-term memories do not show a primacy effect, but do show a recency effect if
recall comes immediately after study.[8] People with Alzheimer's disease exhibit a reduced primacy effect but do not produce a
recency effect in recall.[9]

Contents
Primacy effect
Recency effect
Dual-store models
Single-store models
Ratio rule
Related effects
See also
Notes
References
Further reading

Primacy effect
The primacy effect, in psychology and sociology, is a cognitive bias that results in a subject recalling primary information presented
better than information presented later on. For example, a subject who reads a sufficiently long list of words is more likely to
remember words toward the beginning than words in the middle.

Many researchers tried to explain this phenomenon through free recall [null tests]. Coluccia, Gamboz, and Brandimonte (2011)
explain free recall as participants try to remember information without any prompting. In some experiments in the late 20th century it
was noted that participants who knew that they were going to be tested on a list presented to them would rehearse items: as items
were presented, the participants would repeat those items to themselves and as new items were presented, the participants would
continue to rehearse previous items along with the newer items. It was demonstrated that the primacy effect had a greater influence
on recall when there was more time between presentation of items so that participants would have a greater chance to rehearse
previous (prime) items.[10][11][12]

Overt rehearsal was a technique that was meant to test participants' rehearsal patterns. In an experiment using this technique,
participants were asked to recite out loud the items that come to mind. In this way, the experimenter was able to see that participants
would repeat earlier items more than items in the middle of the list, thus rehearsing them more frequently and having a better recall of
the prime items than the middle items later on.[13]

In another experiment, by Brodie and Murdock, the recency effect was found to be partially responsible for the primacy effect.[14] In
their experiment, they also used the overt-rehearsal technique and found that in addition to rehearsing earlier items more than later
items, participants were rehearsing earlier items later on in the list. In this way, earlier items were closer to the test period by way of
rehearsal and could be partially explained by the recency ef
fect.

In 2013, a study showed that primacy effect is also prominent in decision making based on experience in a repeated-choice paradigm,
a learning process also known as operant conditioning. The authors showed that importance attached to the value of the first reward
on subsequent behaviour, a phenomenon they denoted asoutcome primacy.[15]

In another study, participants received one of two sentences. For example, one may be given "Steve is smart, diligent, critical,
impulsive, and jealous." and the other "Steve is jealous, impulsive, critical, diligent, and smart." These two sentences contain the
same information. The first one suggests positive trait at the beginning while the second one has negative traits. Researchers found
[16]
that the subjects evaluated Steve more positively when given the first sentence, compared with the second one.

Recency effect
Two traditional classes of theories explain the recency ef
fect.

Dual-store models
These models postulate that later study list items are retrieved from a highly accessible short-term buffer, i.e. the short-term store
(STS) in human memory. This allows items that are recently studied to have an advantage over those that were studied earlier, as
earlier study items have to be retrieved with greater ef
fort from one’s long-term memory store(LTS).

An important prediction of such models is that the presentation of a distractor, for example solving arithmetic problems for 10–30
seconds, during the retention period (the time between list presentation and test) attenuates the recency effect. Since the STS has
limited capacity, the distractor displaces later study list items from the STS so that at test, these items can only be retrieved from the
LTS, and have lost their earlier advantage of being more easily retrieved from the short-term buffer. As such, dual-store models
successfully account for both the recency effect in immediate recall tasks, and the attenuation of such an effect in the delayed free
recall task.

A major problem with this model, however, is that it cannot predict the long-term recency effect observed in delayed recall, when a
distractor intervenes between each study item during the interstimulus interval (continuous distractor task).[17] Since the distractor is
still present after the last study item, it should displace the study item from STS such that the recency effect is attenuated. The
existence of this long-term recency effect thus raises the possibility that immediate and long-term recency effects share a common
mechanism.[18]

Single-store models
According to single-store theories, a single mechanism is responsible for serial-position effects. A first type of model is based on
relative temporal distinctiveness, in which the time lag between the study of each list item and the test determines the relative
competitiveness of an item’s memory trace at retrieval.[17][19] In this model, end-of-list items are thought to be more distinct, and
hence more easily retrieved.

Another type of model is based on contextual variability, which postulates that retrieval of items from memory is cued not only based
on one’s mental representation of the study item itself, but also of the study context.[20][21] Since context varies and increasingly
changes with time, on an immediate free-recall test, when memory items compete for retrieval, more recently studied items will have
more similar encoding contexts to the test context, and are more likely to be recalled.

Outside immediate free recall, these models can also predict the presence or absence of the recency effect in delayed free recall and
continual-distractor free-recall conditions. Under delayed recall conditions, the test context would have drifted away with increasing
retention interval, leading to attenuated recency effect. Under continual distractor recall conditions, while increased interpresentation
intervals reduce the similarities between study context and test context, the relative similarities among items remains unchanged. As
long as the recall process is competitive, recent items will win out, so a recency fect
ef is observed.

Ratio rule
Overall, an important empirical observation regarding the recency effect is that it is not the absolute duration of retention intervals
(RI, the time between end of study and test period) or of inter-presentation intervals (IPI, the time between different study items) that
matters. Rather, the amount of recency is determined by the ratio of RI to IPI (the ratio rule). As a result, as long as this ratio is fixed,
recency will be observed regardless of the absolute values of intervals, so that recency can be observed at all time scales, a
phenomenon known as time-scale invariance. This contradicts dual-store models, which assume that recency depends on the size of
STS, and the rule governing the displacement of items in the STS.

Potential explanations either then explain the recency ef

fect as occurring through a single, same mechanism, or re-explain it through a
different type of model that postulates two different mechanisms for immediate and long-term recency effects. One such explanation
is provided by Davelaar et al. (2005),[22] who argue that there are dissociations between immediate and long-term recency
phenomena that cannot be explained by a single-component memory model, and who argues for the existence of a STS that explains
immediate recency, and a second mechanism based on contextual drift that explains long-term recency
.

Related effects
In 1977, William Crano decided to outline a study to further the previous conclusions on the nature of order effects, in particular
those of primacy vs. recency, which were said to be unambiguous and opposed in their predictions. The specifics tested by Crano
were:

Change of meaning hypothesis

The items on the beginning of a list establish a theme that the participants expect the rest of
the list to fall into. The participant modified the meaning of some of the words on the list to fit
with the expectation he or she established. Watkins and Peynicioglu (1984) explain this as
participants changing the meaning of words, deviating from the established theme, to reduce
the amount of deviation in the information presented.
Inconsistency discounting
Participants would disregard information that was not consistent with previous items
presented to them. In other words, discounting involves thinking of inconsistent information
as having less value than information that is consistent with other information presented
(Devine & Ostrom, 1985).
Attention decrement hypothesis
Information presented first has a greater influence on participants than information that is
presented later, causing a primacy effect to occur, even if the information is consistent.
Steiner and Rain (1989) explain people pay more attention to information presented at the
beginning, but progressively pay less attention to the information presented to them. The
primacy effect occurs because participants pay attention to the beginning information and
ignore the information presented later. On the other hand, if participants are in a situation
where they have to continuously pay attention to information, a recency effect may occur.

The continuity effect or lag-recency effect predicts that having made a successful recall, the next recalled item is less likely to come
from a remote serial position, rather than a nearby serial position (Kahana, Howard, Zaromb & Wingfiend, 2002). The difference
between the two items' serial position is referred to as serial-position lag. Another factor, called the conditional-response probability,
is the likelihood of recalling a certain serial-position lag. A graph of serial-position lag versus conditional response probability
reveals that the next item recalled minimizes absolute lag, with a higher likelihood for the adjacent than the previous one.

See also
Clive Wearing
Free recall
Henry Molaison
Law of primacy in persuasion
Learning curve
List of memory biases
List of cognitive biases
Outcome primacy
Principles of learning
Peak–end rule
Reminiscence bump

Notes
1. Coleman, Andrew (2006).Dictionary of Psychology (Second Edition). Oxford University Press. p. 688.
2. Ebbinghaus, Hermann (1913).On memory: A contribution to experimental psychology
. New York: Teachers College.
3. Deese and Kaufman (1957)Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material
, J Exp
Psychol. 1957 Sep;54(3):180-7
4. Murdock, Bennet (1962)."Serial Position Effect of Free Recall" (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f518/20619ca42c57
99f3c5acc3855671b905419c.pdf)(PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology. 64 (5): 482–488.
doi:10.1037/h0045106 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0045106).
5. Howard, Marc W.; Michael J. Kahana (2002)."A Distributed Representation of Temporal Context". Journal of
Mathematical Psychology. 46: 269–299. doi:10.1006/jmps.2001.1388(https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fjmps.2001.1388).
6. Bjork, Robert A.; William B. Whitten (1974). "Recency-Sensitive Retrieval Processes in Long-T
erm Free Recall".
Cognitive Psychology. 6: 173–189. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90009-7(https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0010-0285%287
4%2990009-7).
7. Murdock, Bennet; Janet Metcalf (1978). "Controlled Rehearsal in Single-T
rial Free Recall". Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior. 17: 309–324. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(78)90201-3(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0022
-5371%2878%2990201-3).
8. Carlesimo, Giovanni; G.A. Marfia; A. Loasses; C. Caltagirone (1996). "Recency fect
ef in anterograde amneisa:
Evidence for distinct memory stores underlying enhanced retrieval of terminal items in immediate and delayed recall
paradigms". Neuropsychologia. 34 (3): 177–184. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(95)00100-x(https://doi.org/10.1016%2F00
28-3932%2895%2900100-x).
 9. Bayley, Peter J.; David P. Salmon; Mark W. Bondi; Barbara K. Bui; John Olichney; Dean C . Delis; Ronald G.
Thomas; Leon J. Thai (March 2000). "Comparison of the serial-position ef
fect in very mild Alzheimer's disease, mild
Alzheimer's disease, and amnesia associated with electroconvulsive therapy". Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society. 6 (3): 290–298. doi:10.1017/S1355617700633040(https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS135561
7700633040).
10. Glenberg, A.M; M.M. Bradley, J.A. Stevenson, T.A. KrausM.J. Tkachuk, A.L. Gretz (1980). "A two-process account of
long-term serial position effects". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory
. 6: 355–369.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.4.355(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0278-7393.6.4.355) .
11. Marshall, P.H.; P.R. Werder (1972). "The effects of the elimination of rehearsal on primacyand recency". Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 11: 649–653. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80049-5(https://doi.org/10.1016%2
Fs0022-5371%2872%2980049-5).
12. Rundus, D. "Maintenance rehearsal and long-term recency".Memory and Cognition(8(3)): 226–230.
13. Rundus, D (1971). "An analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall".Journal of Experimental Psychology. 89: 63–
77. doi:10.1037/h0031185 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0031185).
14. Brodie, D.A.; B.B. Murdock. "Effects of presentation time on nominal and functional serial-position curves in free
recall". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 16: 185–200. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(77)80046-7(https://d
oi.org/10.1016%2Fs0022-5371%2877%2980046-7) .
15. Shteingart, Hanan; Tal Neiman; Yonatan Loewenstein (2013)."The Role of First Impression in Operant Learning"(htt
p://elsc.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/476.pdf)(PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 142 (2): 476–488.
doi:10.1037/a0029550 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0029550). PMID 22924882 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm
ed/22924882).
16. Asch, S (1946). "Forming impressions of personality".Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 41: 258–290.
doi:10.1037/h0055756 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0055756).
17. Bjork & Whitten (1974).Recency sensitive retrieval processes in long-term free recall
, Cognitive Psychology, 6, 173–
189.
18. Greene, R. L. (1986). "Sources of recency ef
fects in free recall". Psychological Bulletin. 99 (12): 221–228.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.221(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.99.2.221) .
19. Neath, I.; Knoedler, A. J. (1994). "Distinctiveness and serial position effects in recognition and sentence processing".
Journal of Memory and Language. 33: 776–795. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1037(https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fjmla.1994.
1037).
20. Howard, M. W.; Kahana, M. (1999). "Contextual variability and serial position effects in free recall". Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition . 24 (4): 923–941. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.923(http
s://doi.org/10.1037%2F0278-7393.25.4.923).
21. Howard, M. W.; Kahana, M. J. (2002). "A distributed representation of temporal context".Journal of Mathematical
Psychology. 46 (3): 269–299. doi:10.1006/jmps.2001.1388(https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fjmps.2001.1388).
22. Davelaar, E. K.; Goshen-Gottstein, Y.; Ashkenazi, A.; Haarmann, H. J.; Usher, M. (2005). "The demise of short-term
memory revisited: Empirical and computational investigations of recency fects".
ef Psychological Review. 112: 3–42.
doi:10.1037/0033-295x.112.1.3(https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295x.112.1.3) . PMID 15631586 (https://www.ncbi.n
lm.nih.gov/pubmed/15631586).

References
Coluccia, E.; Gamboz, N.; Brandimonte, M. A. (2011). "Normative data for a battery of free recall, cued recall and
recognition tests in the elderly Italian population".Neurol Sci. 32: 1103–1114. doi:10.1007/s10072-011-0747-5.
Frensch, P.A. (1994). "Composition during serial learning: a serial position effect". Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 20 (2): 423–443. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.423.
Healy, A.F.; Havas, D.A.; Parkour, J.T. (2000). "Comparing serial position effects in semantic and episodic memory
using reconstruction of order tasks".Journal of Memory and Language. 42: 147–167. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2671.
Howard, M. W.; Kahana, M. (1999). "Contextual Variability and Serial Position Effects in Free Recall". Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition . 25 (4): 923–941. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.923.
Kahana, M. J.; Howard, M. W.; Polyn, S. M. (2008). "Associative Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory".
Psychology.
Kahana, M. J.; Howard, M. W.; Zaromb, F.; Wingfield, A. (2002). "Age dissociates recencyand lag recency effects in
free recall". Journal of Experimental Psychology. 28: 530–540. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.530.
Further reading
Liebermann, David A. Learning and memory: An integrative approach.Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2004,
ISBN 978-0-534-61974-9.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serial-position_ef

fect&oldid=807124917"

This page was last edited on 26 October 2017, at 01:54.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.