Perceptual and MotorSkillr, 1992, 74, 1216-1218.
O Perceptual and Motor Skills
1992
CONTEXT EFFECTS IN RECALL AND RECOGNITION AT VARIOUS RETENTION INTERVALS ' RITA R. CULROSS Louisiana Stale University Summary.-This study investigated the differential effects of cuing in o number of contexts on recall and recognition at various retention intervals. Subjects were shown cue-target word pairs and were asked to recall the target words under three sets of cues, varying in relation to the original cue. All 80 subjects completed a recognition task following the final recall task. Results suggest type of cuing does not have differential effects on recall and recognition; both recall and recognition are hindered by cuing in a number of different conrexts, and the ability to recall improves over time, cuing, and exposure to the List. The role of context in human memory is a well-established thesis in the field of human memory (Horton & Mills, 1984). Frameworks proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972), Tdving and Thomson (1973), and Jenkins (1974), all argue for the effects of context on human memory. Davies' review (1986) documents substantial support for the effects of context on both recall and recognition. Similarly, retrieval processes are a major €ocus of research in the cognitive psychology ot human memory (Horton & Mills, 1984). Research (e.g., McDaniel, Kowitz, & Dunay, 1989) has been designed to explain memory as a function of the underlying processes involved in retrieval. Studies of the relationship between recall and recognition are central to the understanding of retrieval processes as well (Horton & Mills, 1984). What is readily apparent is that the study of context and retrieval processes often converge at both theoretical and empirical levels. Studies such as that by McDaniel, ef al. (1989) look at retrieval processing as a function of the context of original learning. The encoding specificity principle set forth by Tulving and Thomson (1973) is one theorerical framework advanced for explaining the relationship between context and retrieval processes. Reinsrating the encoding context at the time of retrieval facilttates retrieval. Asthana and Goel (1987) and Roediger and Payne (1983) have both shown that cues given at retrieval that are similar to those presented at the time of encoding are superior to unrelated or dissimilar cues in facilitating retrieval. Mixed results, however, have occurred when comparing context effects on recall and recognition (Asthana & Nagrani, 1984; Gardiner, Kaminska, Java, & Clarke, 1990) as well as when comparing context effecrs over various retention intervals (McDaniel, Pressley, & Dunay, 1987; McDaniel, et al., 1989). The present experiment was designed to investigate possible differential effects of cuing in a number of contexts on recall and recognition. I n addition, whether cuing in a number of contexts affects recall differently at different retention intervals was assessed. Method.-Subjects were 80 volunteers from introductory courses in psychology and educational psychology of the psychology department at a university offering doctoral research. The subjecrs, 40 men and 40 women, received course credit for participation. ALI subjects read and signed consent forms before participating in the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to conditions; all subiects in the same condition were rested at one time.
'Requests for reprints should be sent to Rita R. Culross, Ph.D., Louisiana State University, 388 Pleasant Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.
CONTEXT: RECALL, RECOGNITION AFTER INTERVALS The method used in the experiment was based on one used by Tulving (1982). Every subject was shown and tested on three successive lists. Each list consisted of 24 cue-target word pairs. The word pairs were shown to the subjects visually, one at a time, for three seconds per pair. In all lists the cue word appeared in lowercase letters above the target word, which was printed in uppercase letters. Subjects were instructed prior to the presentation of each list to remember the capitalized words but were told that paying attention to the cue words might be helpful on subsequent tasks. Immediately following the presentation of each of the first two lists, the subjects were given an unordered list of the original cue words and were asked to write down the corresponding target words. Three minutes were allowed for the recall of each list. The sole purpose of the first two lists was to induce the subjects to encode the target word in terms of the cue word, since the cue words presented at recall for the first two lists were the original cues. The third list provided the data for analysis. The third list of cue-target word pairs was shown three times to each subject. After each of the first two presentations, the subjects were given a sheet of paper listing either the 24 original cue words, no cues at all, or 12 extralist cues which were strong associates of the target words. The subjects were asked to write down as many of the target words as they could remernber, one opposite each of the cue words on the sheet (if cues were present). Subjects who received excralist cues were told that the extralist cues were related to the words that they learned but were not told the relationship between the excralist cues and the target words. Eight experimental conditions were identified as receiving (1) Original Cues-Original Cues, (2) Extralist Cues-No Cues, (3) Free Recall-Free Recall, (4) No Cues-Extralist Cues, (5) No Cues-Free Recall, (6) Free Recall-No Cues, (7) Extralist Cues-Free Recall, and (8) Free Recall-Extralist Cues. Ten subjects were tested per cell for a total of 80 subjects in all. Following the thud presentation of the list, all subjects received the 24 original cues and were again asked to recall the target words. Immediately following this recall task, the subjects were given a list of 24 words, 12 of which were target words, and were asked to circle those words they recognized as being target words from the third list. Resulh.-The proportion of correct responses in both the recognition and recall tasks was computed and two separate analyses of variance were carried out: a 2 x 8 repeated-measures analysis between the recall and recognition scores of the eight groups and a 3 x 8 repeated-measures analysis for the three recall scores over the eight groups. The 2 x 8 repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated a significant main effect for the groups ( p < O 05) Mean percent words correctly recalled or recognized by the eight groups were 65%, 52%, 54%, G5%, 62%, 62%, 60%, and 57%, indicating the No Cues-Extralist Cues and E x t r a k t Cues.No Cues groups had lower recall and recognition scores than any of the other six groups. Type of task was not a significant factor, however, indicating there was no difference between recall and recognition scores. A significant main effect of groups (p
O Perceptual and Motor Skills
1992
CONTEXT EFFECTS IN RECALL AND RECOGNITION AT VARIOUS RETENTION INTERVALS ' RITA R. CULROSS Louisiana Stale University Summary.-This study investigated the differential effects of cuing in o number of contexts on recall and recognition at various retention intervals. Subjects were shown cue-target word pairs and were asked to recall the target words under three sets of cues, varying in relation to the original cue. All 80 subjects completed a recognition task following the final recall task. Results suggest type of cuing does not have differential effects on recall and recognition; both recall and recognition are hindered by cuing in a number of different conrexts, and the ability to recall improves over time, cuing, and exposure to the List. The role of context in human memory is a well-established thesis in the field of human memory (Horton & Mills, 1984). Frameworks proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972), Tdving and Thomson (1973), and Jenkins (1974), all argue for the effects of context on human memory. Davies' review (1986) documents substantial support for the effects of context on both recall and recognition. Similarly, retrieval processes are a major €ocus of research in the cognitive psychology ot human memory (Horton & Mills, 1984). Research (e.g., McDaniel, Kowitz, & Dunay, 1989) has been designed to explain memory as a function of the underlying processes involved in retrieval. Studies of the relationship between recall and recognition are central to the understanding of retrieval processes as well (Horton & Mills, 1984). What is readily apparent is that the study of context and retrieval processes often converge at both theoretical and empirical levels. Studies such as that by McDaniel, ef al. (1989) look at retrieval processing as a function of the context of original learning. The encoding specificity principle set forth by Tulving and Thomson (1973) is one theorerical framework advanced for explaining the relationship between context and retrieval processes. Reinsrating the encoding context at the time of retrieval facilttates retrieval. Asthana and Goel (1987) and Roediger and Payne (1983) have both shown that cues given at retrieval that are similar to those presented at the time of encoding are superior to unrelated or dissimilar cues in facilitating retrieval. Mixed results, however, have occurred when comparing context effects on recall and recognition (Asthana & Nagrani, 1984; Gardiner, Kaminska, Java, & Clarke, 1990) as well as when comparing context effecrs over various retention intervals (McDaniel, Pressley, & Dunay, 1987; McDaniel, et al., 1989). The present experiment was designed to investigate possible differential effects of cuing in a number of contexts on recall and recognition. I n addition, whether cuing in a number of contexts affects recall differently at different retention intervals was assessed. Method.-Subjects were 80 volunteers from introductory courses in psychology and educational psychology of the psychology department at a university offering doctoral research. The subjecrs, 40 men and 40 women, received course credit for participation. ALI subjects read and signed consent forms before participating in the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to conditions; all subiects in the same condition were rested at one time.
'Requests for reprints should be sent to Rita R. Culross, Ph.D., Louisiana State University, 388 Pleasant Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.
CONTEXT: RECALL, RECOGNITION AFTER INTERVALS The method used in the experiment was based on one used by Tulving (1982). Every subject was shown and tested on three successive lists. Each list consisted of 24 cue-target word pairs. The word pairs were shown to the subjects visually, one at a time, for three seconds per pair. In all lists the cue word appeared in lowercase letters above the target word, which was printed in uppercase letters. Subjects were instructed prior to the presentation of each list to remember the capitalized words but were told that paying attention to the cue words might be helpful on subsequent tasks. Immediately following the presentation of each of the first two lists, the subjects were given an unordered list of the original cue words and were asked to write down the corresponding target words. Three minutes were allowed for the recall of each list. The sole purpose of the first two lists was to induce the subjects to encode the target word in terms of the cue word, since the cue words presented at recall for the first two lists were the original cues. The third list provided the data for analysis. The third list of cue-target word pairs was shown three times to each subject. After each of the first two presentations, the subjects were given a sheet of paper listing either the 24 original cue words, no cues at all, or 12 extralist cues which were strong associates of the target words. The subjects were asked to write down as many of the target words as they could remernber, one opposite each of the cue words on the sheet (if cues were present). Subjects who received excralist cues were told that the extralist cues were related to the words that they learned but were not told the relationship between the excralist cues and the target words. Eight experimental conditions were identified as receiving (1) Original Cues-Original Cues, (2) Extralist Cues-No Cues, (3) Free Recall-Free Recall, (4) No Cues-Extralist Cues, (5) No Cues-Free Recall, (6) Free Recall-No Cues, (7) Extralist Cues-Free Recall, and (8) Free Recall-Extralist Cues. Ten subjects were tested per cell for a total of 80 subjects in all. Following the thud presentation of the list, all subjects received the 24 original cues and were again asked to recall the target words. Immediately following this recall task, the subjects were given a list of 24 words, 12 of which were target words, and were asked to circle those words they recognized as being target words from the third list. Resulh.-The proportion of correct responses in both the recognition and recall tasks was computed and two separate analyses of variance were carried out: a 2 x 8 repeated-measures analysis between the recall and recognition scores of the eight groups and a 3 x 8 repeated-measures analysis for the three recall scores over the eight groups. The 2 x 8 repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated a significant main effect for the groups ( p < O 05) Mean percent words correctly recalled or recognized by the eight groups were 65%, 52%, 54%, G5%, 62%, 62%, 60%, and 57%, indicating the No Cues-Extralist Cues and E x t r a k t Cues.No Cues groups had lower recall and recognition scores than any of the other six groups. Type of task was not a significant factor, however, indicating there was no difference between recall and recognition scores. A significant main effect of groups (p
