SERIAL POSITION CURVE
Neelima Ranjith
Union Christian College
Aluva, Ernakulam, Kerala
India
[email protected]
Synonyms
U shaped learning curve
Definition
Serial position curve is a 'U' shaped learning curve that is normally
obtained while recalling a list of words due to the greater accuracy of
recall of words from the beginning and end of the list than words from the
middle of the list. First described by Nipher (1878), the serial position
curve can be defined as a "U-shaped relationship between a word's position
in a list and its probability of recall". This occurs due to a phenomenon
known as Serial Position Effect. The serial position effect consists of two
phenomena viz. primacy effect and recency effect. Primacy effect refers to
the better recall of items from the beginning of list (first three or four
items) whereas recency effect refers to the better recall of items from the
end of the list (last three or four items) than middle items of the list.
Theoretical Background
The theoretical construct of serial position curve is that the primacy
effect represents recall from a more remote memory or long term memory
which is better consolidated than the recency effect which represents
recall from a more recent memory or working memory (Glanzer & Cunitz,
1966). One of the ways to demonstrate serial position curve is by means of
using a free recall task using a verbal learning test such as Rey Auditory
Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). In this method the subject is given a list of
various items (words of the same length) that should be remembered. The
items to be remembered are presented on a manner of reading the list to the
subject. Each item is introduced at a regular interval. The subject is then
asked recall the items that he /she remembered in any order. The frequency
of recall is plotted against the position an item takes in a list. The thus
obtained graph, Figure 1 Nipher (1878), has become known as the serial
position curve of single-trial free recall. Typical is that the last and
first few items –the recency and primacy effect – SPE'S – are more readily
recalled than items in the middle of the list, which gives the graph its
typical U shape as represented below. The primacy effect corresponds to the
tail of the U on the left. It is called the primacy effect because these
items were the ones presented first to the subject in the memory
experiment. The recency effect corresponds to the tail of the U on the
right. It is called the recency effect because these items were the ones
presented most recently to the subject in the memory experiment.
Figure 1: Serial Position Curve
Important Scientific Research and Open Questions
A common explanation of the primacy and recency effects were introduced by
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968). According to this viewpoint the primacy effect
is a result of the greater amount of attention and rehearsal allocated to
the first few items on a list. This advantage in processing given to those
items allows them to be transferred into the long-term memory store and
thus have a higher probability of being retrieved out of long-term memory.
They (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968) attributed the recency effect to signify
output from what they referred to as primary memory in the form of a short-
term memory buffer. Thus, the most recent items viewed in a list are still
in short-term memory and are recalled there. Evidence that the primacy
effect is due to a greater amount of rehearsal to the first few items is
clear in a study done by Rundus (1971). In this study subjects were asked
to rehearse out loud and it was recorded. After reviewing the recordings
Rundus (1971) found that participants devoted more overt rehearsal to the
first few items on the list. Research done by Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) also
showed that primacy is reduced when the items are presented at a faster
rate, thus eliminating opportunity for extensive rehearsal by the
participants.
Research has also been done to demonstrate the use of short-term memory in
explaining the recency effect. Because the recency effect is explained by a
retrieval of items from short-term memory, it should be eliminated if a
person is asked to do another task before they are asked to recall the
items on the list. This was demonstrated in experiments by both Postman &
Phillips (1965) and Glanzer & Cunitz (1966). Both studies provided evidence
in support of the short-term memory account for the recency effect by
having their participants perform a "distractor activity" after the last
item on the list but before they were signaled to begin recalling the list
items.
The reason for recency effect is also explained in terms of the the
retroactive interference during encoding, i.e., the earlier items suffering
interference from the later ones in the list (Oberauer, 2003). Thus the
items towards the end of the list interfere with the recall of midlist
items producing a recency effect. Retroactive interference during a series
of outputs (output interference), on the other hand, provides an advantage
for items retrieved first, because the early items interfere with the later
items in the output sequence. This should generate a primacy effect over
output position: Items retrieved earlier interfere with items yet to be
retrieved, regardless of input or spatial position. Interestingly, the
serial position curve can be obtained in a free recall task of word list in
all individuals even in the cognitively impaired.
Cross-References
…Working memory and information processing
…Variations on U shaped learning
…
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). "Chapter: Human memory: A
proposed system and its control processes". In Spence, K.W.; Spence,
J.T. The psychology of learning and motivation. (Volume 2). New York:
Academic Press., pp. 89–195.
Glanzer, M., & Cunitz, A. R. (1966). Two storage mechanisms in free recall.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior(5), 351-360.
Nipher, F. E. (1878). On the distribution of errors in numbers written from
memory. Transactions of the Academy of Science of St. Louis(3), CCX-
CCXI.
Oberauer, K. (2003). Selective attention to elements in working memory. Exp
Psychol, 50(4), 257-269.
Postman, L., & Phillips, W. (1965). Short term temporal changes in free
recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 132-138.
Rundus, D. (1971). Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 89, p. 63-77.
Abstract:
Previous evidence that repetition of an item in a list enhances that
item's recency relative to other items has been interpreted as
favoring a memory strength theory of recency discrimination. However,
serious doubt has been cast upon the validity of the strength theory by
experiments such as that of D. L. Hintzman and R. A. Block which instead
favor a multirace representation for repetitions of an item. The present 2
experiments, with a total of 80 16-31 yr old Ss, tested 2 plausible
interpretations of the effect of frequency on relative recency judgments.
The 1st, that low frequencies result in poor recognition memory, hence
poorer recency discrimination, was discounted in Exp I, which still found
sizable frequency effects on relative recency judgments even when
considering only recognized items. A multiple-trace theory of contextual
time tagging was then proposed to account for the effects of event
frequency on subjective recency. Exp II, which collected event frequency as
well as relative recency judgments, yielded data which were fit
quantitatively by the multiple-trace time tagging theory. It was found that
relative "distance" judgments were not psychologically
symmetric to relative recency judgments-a result not predicted by the time
tagging model.
Publication Date: 1974
Publication Name: Journal of experimental psychology
Research Interests:
Experimental Psychology, Research Methodology, Data Analysis, Visual
perception, Time Perception, and 10 more
https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Experimental_Psychology?page=8
https://www.academia.edu/20650068/Retrieval_strategies_in_recall_of_natural_
categories_and_categorized_lists
Abstract:
ABSTRACT A total of 280 undergraduates participated in 3 experiments
concerned with ordinal recall. Ss recalled the serial position of an item
by writing it in the appropriate space on a numbered answer sheet with no
constraint on the order in which items were recalled. Exps I and II
compared ordinal recall to free recall with both within- and between-Ss
designs and with method of recall specified before and after list
presentaton. Results indicate that (a) retention of item information was
unaffected by retention of order information as reflected by nearly
equivalent item retention for both methods of recall, (b) not knowing which
method of recall would be used before list presentation had little
influence on retention of item information but had substantial effects on
the shape of the serial position curve, and (c) order information was
retained at high levels in both experiments. In Exp III, the effects of
presentation rate, list length, and total time on ordinal recall were
investigated. Increases in item retention were mainly attributable to
longer total study times, while increases in order retention were solely a
function of study time per item. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c)
2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Publication Date: 1974
Publication Name: Journal of Experimental Psychology
Research Interests:
Experimental Psychology
https://www.academia.edu/19797951/Order_information_in_short-term_memory
