Abstract
Tulving and Wiseman (1975) reported that there was a systematic relationship between the proportion of words recognized and the proportion of recallable words recognized. This relationship indicates a moderate positive covariation between recognition and recall across subject items, when each subject is given both types of test, recognition followed by recall. In this paper it is shown that the theoretical enterprise of trying to account for this relationship is fruitless unless the data are corrected for sequential testing effects. Evidence on the existence of these effects is reviewed, and then it is shown how they introduce a measure of dependency between recognition and recall. When the data are corrected, the theories proposed by Begg (1979) and Flexser and Tulving (1978) are shown to be poorly supported. The utility of the general enterprise of determining the relationship between recognition and recall by these means is also questioned.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Note
Humphreys, M. S., & Bowyer, P. A.Familiarization trials on one member of a study pair: The effects on the other member. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1979.
References
Begg, I. Trace loss and the recognition failure of unrecalled words.Memory & Cognition, 1979,7, 113–123.
Bowyer, P.Priming of unrecognized items on a subsequent cued recall test. Unpublished master’s thesis, Northwestern University, 1977.
Bowyer, P. A., &Humphreys, M. S. The effect of a recognition test on a subsequent cued recall test.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1979,5,348–3599.
Flexser, A. V., &Tulving, E. Retrieval independence in recognition and recall.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 153–171.
Humphreys, M. S. Item and relational information: A case for context independent retrieval.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978,17, 175–187.
Jones, G. V. Recognition failure and dual mechanisms in recall.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 464–469.
Kintsch, W. More on recognition failure of recallable words: Implications for generation-recognition models.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 470–473.
Martin, E. Generation-recognition theory and the encoding specificity principle.Psychological Review, 1975,82, 150–153.
Postman, L. Tests of the generality of the principle of encoding specificity.Memory & Cognition, 1975,3, 663–672.
Reder, L. M., Anderson, J. R., &Bjork, R. A. A semantic interpretation of encoding specificity.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,102, 648–656.
Salzberg, P. M. On the generality of encoding specificity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1976,2, 586–596.
Tulving, E. Ecphoric processes in recall and recognition. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition. London: Wiley, 1976.
Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review, 1973,80, 352–373.
Tulving, E., &Wiseman, S. Relation between recognition and recognition failure of recallable words.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975,6, 79–82.
Vining, S. K., &Nelson, T. O. Some constraints on the generality and interpretation of the recognition failure of recallable words.American Journal of Psychology, 1979,92, 257–276.
Watkins, M. J., &Tulving, E. Episodic memory: When recognition fails.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975,104, 5–29.
Wiseman, S., &Tulving, E. Encoding specificity: Relation between recall superiority and recognition failure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1976,2, 349–361.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Humphreys, M.S., Bowyer, P.A. Sequential testing effects and the relationship between recognition and recognition failure. Memory & Cognition 8, 271–277 (1980). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197615
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197615