Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 121–124 | Cite as

First impressions are lasting impressions: A primacy effect in memory for repetitions

  • Gregory J. DigirolamoEmail author
  • Douglas L. Hintzman
Brief Reports


Two experiments demonstrated that the encoding of a repeated object is biased toward the attributes of its first presentation. In Experiment 1, subjects saw objects five times each, but either the first presentation or the fifth presentation was the mirror reverse of the standard orientation seen on the other four trials. When recognition was tested with both orientations simultaneously, subjects reported seeing only the single mirror-reverse orientation more often if it was the first presentation than when it was the fifth presentation, and seeing only the standard orientation more often if it was presentations 1–4 than when it was presentations 2–5. A second experiment demonstrated that this primacy effect generalized to size changes. This pattern of results is consistent with the hypothesis that top-down biases affect what subjects learn: The first representation established for a stimulus is likely to influence the encoding of subsequent repetitions.


Recognition Memory Study List Adaptive Resonance Theory List Position Standard Orientation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ausubel, D. P. (1963).The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  2. Baylis, G. C., &Rolls, E. T. (1987). Responses of neurons in the inferior temporal cortex in short term and serial recognition memory tasks.Experimental Brain Research,65, 614–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Culler, E., &Girden, E. (1951). The learning curve in relation to other psychometric functions.American Journal of Psychology,64, 327–349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Desimone, R., Miller, E. K., &Chelazzi, L. (1994). The interaction of neural systems for attention and memory. In C. Koch & J. L. Davis (Eds.),Large-scale neuronal theories of the brain (pp. 75–91). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Estes, W. K. (1950). Toward a statistical theory of learning.Psychological Review,57, 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldstone, R. L. (1995). Effects of categorization on color perception.Psychological Science,6, 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grossberg, S. (1987). Competitive learning: From interactive activations to adaptive resonance.Cognitive Science,11, 23–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1995). When encoding fails: Instructions, feedback, and registration without learning.Memory & Cognition,23, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hintzman, D. L., Curran, T., &Oppy, B. (1992). Effects of similarity and repetition on memory: Registration without learning?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 667–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hintzman, D. L., Summers, J. J., Eki, N. T., &Moore, M. D. (1975). Voluntary attention and the spacing effect.Memory & Cognition,3, 576–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacoby, L. L., Allan, L. G., Collins, J. C., &Larwill, L. K. (1988). Memory influences subjective experience: Noise judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnston, W. A., &Hawley, K. J. (1994). Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kanwisher, N., &Driver, J. (1992). Objects, attributes, and visual attention: Which, what, and where.Current Directions in Psychological Science,1, 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Piaget, J. (1952).The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rao, K. V., &Proctor, R. W. (1984). Study-phase processing and the word frequency effect in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 386–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rugg, M. D., Soardi, M., &Doyle, M. C. (1995). Modulation of event-related potentials by the repetition of drawings of novel objects.Cognitive Brain Research,3, 17–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. A. (1980). A standard set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,6, 174–215.Google Scholar
  18. Sokolov, E. N. (1963).Perception and the conditioned reflex. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Tulving, E., &Kroll, N. (1995). Novelty assessment in the brain and long-term memory encoding.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 387–390.Google Scholar
  20. Tulving, E., Markowitsch, H. J., Kapur, S., Habib, R., &Sylvain, H. (1994). Novelty encoding networks in the human brain: Positron emission tomography data.Neuroreport,5, 2525–2528.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugene

Personalised recommendations