Advertisement

Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 41–44 | Cite as

When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don’t

  • Eugene B. Zechmeister
  • John J. Shaughnessy
Article

Abstract

College students rated the likelihood of recall of individual words presented for free recall learning. Predictions were made using a 7-point scale immediately following an item’s presentation in the list. To-be-rated items included those presented one time, as well as items presented twice in either a massed (MP) or distributed (DP) manner. Twice-presented items were rated as more likely to be recalled than items presented once, and they were; MP items were judged more likely to be recalled than DP items, but they were not. The finding that subjects think that they know MP items when they do not suggests why processing may be less for massed than for distributed presentations. As such, these results provide support for the attenuation of attention hypothesis of the spacing effect in free recall.

Keywords

Free Recall List Item Spacing Effect Experimental List Study Block 
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.

References

  1. Arbuckle, T. Y., & Cuddy, L. L. Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Glenberg, A. M. Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 1979, 7, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Groninger, L. D. Predicting recall: The “feeling-that-I-will- know” phenomenon. American Journal of Psychology, 1979, 92, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hintzman, D. L. Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola symposium. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. Hintzman, D. L. Repetition and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Hintzman, D. L., Summers, J. J., Eki, N. T., & Moore, M. D. Voluntary attention and the spacing effect. Memory & Cognition, 1975, 3, 576–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacoby, L. L. On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnston, W. A., & Uhl, C. N. The contribution of encoding effort and variability to the spacing effect on free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1976, 2, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peterson, L. R., Wampler, R., Kirkpatrick, M., & Saltzman, D. Effect of spacing presentations on retention of a paired associate over short intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 206–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shaughnessy, J. J. Persistence of the spacing effect in free recall under varying incidental learning conditions. Memory & Cognition, 1976, 4, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shaughnessy, J. J., Zimmerman, J., & Underwood, B. J. Further evidence on the MP-DP effect in free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Spreen, O., & Schulz, R. W. Parameters of abstraction, meaningfulness, and pronunciability for 329 nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene B. Zechmeister
    • 1
  • John J. Shaughnessy
    • 2
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentLoyola University of ChicagoChicago
  2. 2.Hope CollegeHolland

Personalised recommendations