Abstract
Ss learned a single list of words to which two sets of cues were relevant. For both sets of cues, number of items per cue ranged from 2 to 16. Cues for which relevant items were relatively high-frequency free associates (conceptual cues) led to higher recall than did cues to which list items were relatively low-frequency responses (alphabetical cues). Free-recall instructions led to higher recall than did alphabetical cues to which more than six items were relevant, but recall from large conceptual categories was not inferior to free recall of the same items. The results suggest that rather than sharing a common limit on the number of items they can retrieve, cues vary in effectiveness. Thus, free-recall performance will be affected by the particular S units into which S organizes a set of words, as well as by the number of such units he uses.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
BOUSFIELD, W. A., PUFF, C. R., & COWAN, T. M. The development of constancies in sequential organization during repeated free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3, 489–495.
COHEN, B. H., BOUSFIELD, W. A., & WHITMARSH, G. A. Cultural norms for verbal items, in 43 categories. Technical Report No. 22, ONR Contract Nonr-631 (00), University of Connecticut, 1957.
COHEN, B. H., SAKODA, J. M., & BOUSFIELD, W. A. The statistical analysis of the incidence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Technical Report No. 10, ONR Contract Nonr-631 (00), University of Connecticut, 1954.
EARHARD, M. Cued recall and free recall as a function of the number of items per cue. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 257–263.
MANDLER, G. Organization and memory. In K. W. Spence and J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1967. Pp. 327–372.
TULVING, E. Subjective organization in free recall of “unrelated words.” Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 344–354.
TULVING, E., & PEARLSTONE, Z. Availability vs. accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 381–391.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This report is based on part of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree at the University of Southern California. The author wishes to thank Dr. Norman Cliff for his encouragement and guidance.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Loeb, J. Differences between retrieval cues in effectiveness as recall aids. Psychon Sci 21, 193–194 (1970). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03332437
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03332437