Glanzer And Cunitz 1966 Serial Position Effect Hypothesis
In this study, we examined mechanisms that underlie free-recall performance in bilinguals’ first language (L1) and second language (L2) through the prism of serial-position effects. On free-recall tasks, a typical pattern of performance follows a U-shaped serial-position curve, where items from the beginning of the list (the primacy effect) and items from the end of the list (the recency effect) are recalled with higher accuracy than items from the middle of the list. The present study contrasted serial-position effects on the free-recall task in Korean-English bilinguals’ L1 vs. L2 and examined the relationship between an independent working memory (WM) measure and serial-position effects in bilinguals’ two languages. Results revealed stronger pre-recency (primacy and middle) effects in L1 than in L2, but similar recency effects in the two languages.
Serial position information is consistent with the hypothesis that position is a cue in multiple-trial serial learning (Young, 1968). Third, the shape of the curve of Fig. 1, with its strong primacy effect, bears a striking resemblance to the serial position curve of delayed free recall (e.g., Glanzer & Cunitz, 1966, Fig. This suggests a. A primacy effect has also been shown in the domain of television commercials: Participants viewing a television program that was interrupted by blocks of commercials showed better memory for the first three commercials than for commercials broadcast later in the block. Reference: Glanzer, M., & Cunitz, A. Repetition, however, did not have any effect that could not be ascribed to presentation rate. Glanzer, M., & Cunitz, A. 2 experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that the bimodal serial position curve in free recall is.
A close association was observed between WM and recall performance in the pre-recency region in the L1 but not in the L2. Together, these findings suggest that linguistic knowledge constrains free-recall performance in bilinguals, but only in the pre-recency region. Short-term memory (STM) enables us to encode and retain information for a short period of time. The structure and the function of verbal short-term memory (STM) has been the focus of active and productive research over the past century (e.g.,;;;; ). However, the vast majority of this work has focused on monolingual speakers. Although a number of studies have examined the role of verbal memory in second language acquisition (;; ), relatively little is known about the actual underlying mechanisms of verbal short-term memory function in bilingual individuals. For example, one common measure of STM is a free word-recall task where participants listen to lists of words and are asked to recall as many of the words as possible in any order (e.g., ).
A classic finding is that performance on the free-recall task is characterized by a unique U-shaped serial-position curve, where items from the beginning of the list (the primacy effect) and items from the end of the list (the recency effect) are recalled with higher accuracy than items from the middle of the list (e.g.,; ). However, no previous study has examined whether such classic U-shaped effects can be obtained in bilingual speakers, and whether these effects are rooted in the same fundamental mechanisms when examined in bilinguals’ native vs. Second language.A traditional explanation of the U-shaped serial-position curve observed when performance on the free-recall task is plotted as a function of the location of the item on the list is the dual-component model of recall (e.g.,;; ). The dual-component model was proposed to suggest that two memory systems, short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM), were involved in performance on the free-recall task. The primacy effects on the free-recall task were interpreted to reflect the involvement of the LTM system in free-recall performance; that is, successful recall of the first few items on the list was attributed to the participants’ ability to rehearse these items and to transfer them into the LTM (e.g., ). The recency effects on the free-recall task were interpreted to reflect the involvement of the STM in free-recall performance; that is, successful recall of the last few items on the list was attributed to the participants’ ability to store these items temporarily in the STM rather than in the LTM (e.g., ).Support for the dual nature of the free-recall task came from classic experiments where variables known to influence the LTM vs.
The STM were pitted against each other (;;;; ). For instance, demonstrated that a faster presentation rate reduced recall performance for items in the pre-recency position (primacy and middle regions) but did not affect recall of items in the recency position of the serial-position curve. Conversely, the increased delay between the end of the list and recall reduced recall performance for items in the recency position while it did not affect the recall of items in the pre-recency position. Many subsequent studies supported the dissociation between the STM and the LTM in modulating performance on free-recall tasks by showing that variables known to influence LTM function, such as list length (e.g., ), word frequency (e.g., ) and semantic similarity (e.g., ) affected recall performance of items in the primacy position while variables known to influence STM function, such as phonological similarity (e.g., ) affected recall performance of items in the recency position. More recently, the dual nature of the memory mechanisms supporting free-recall performance was instantiated in the context-activation model (e.g., ). This model suggests that two memory components are involved in free-recall performance: One is a changing context/episodic long-term memory system and the other is an activation-based short-term buffer.However, a number of studies challenged this STM-LTM dissociation model for explaining the U-shaped effects in free-recall data (e.g.,;; ).
For instance, observed recency effects in their free-recall data when recall was tested after a significant delay – a finding that is at odds with the idea that recency effects arise within the STM system. To solve these problematic findings associated with recency data, unitary-component approaches of recall performance have been formulated. The basic premise of the unitary approaches is that the probability of recalling an item is proportional to the ratio of the inter-presentation interval (the interval between items) to the retention interval (the interval between the item and its recall). Supporting this unitary component view, several alternative models have been suggested. For instance, the Temporal Context Model (TCM; ) posits that words are associated with mathematically formulated temporal contexts, and words from the end of the list are recalled better because the context vector (in the just–presented item’s representation) is used as a retrieval cue, with the ensuing recall advantage for the associated nearby items. Alternatively, the Scale-Invariant Memory, Perception, and Learning model (SIMPLE; ) posits that items that are temporarily distinctive are advantaged at recall, and therefore, the last few items are recalled better because there are fewer interfering neighbors in the end of a list.
Yet, just like dual-component models, single-component models do not fully explain the U-shaped serial-position curve associated with free-recall performance (for instance, the ratio rule cannot explain primacy effects) and the debates between the proponents of single-component models (e.g.,; ) and dual-component models (e.g.,;;; ) of free-recall performance continue.The goal of the present study was not to differentiate between single- and dual-component models of free recall. Instead, we took the dual-component model as our starting theoretical point, because dual-component models explicitly posit influences from the LTM and the STM on free recall. This then makes them suitable to examining free recall performance in bilinguals, for whom the LTM and the STM influences on free recall may be more dissociable than in monolinguals. In cognitively-intact, adult speakers of a single language, the LTM and the STM systems function in tandem to support recall, such that is often difficult to dissociate performance patterns associated with LTM vs. Examining free-recall performance in bilinguals may be useful not only because such examinations are woefully lacking in the literature, but also because LTM vs. STM influences on verbal recall may be more dissociable in bilingual speakers, especially when their performance in the native language is contrasted with their performance in the second language.There is reason to hypothesize that serial-position effects on a free-recall task may be different in bilingual speakers’ native vs.
Second language. Not surprisingly, a number of previous studies (e.g.,; ) revealed that bilinguals tend to perform more successfully on language-based tasks in their native language (L1) vs. The second language (L2).
Further, bilinguals also tend to perform better on verbal STM tasks when these are administered in their L1 vs. Their L2 (e.g., ). Such findings are interpreted as evidence for the link between long-term linguistic knowledge and STM function: That is, the more robust long-term linguistic knowledge associated with the L1 (vs. The L2) helps maintain the representations of L1 items (more so than of L2 items) presented on the STM task.In the present study, we capitalized on prior literature indicating a link between bilinguals’ LTM system and STM performance to examine the mechanisms that may underlie free recall in bilingual speakers. Specifically, we examined serial-position effects in L1 vs.
L2 free-recall performance in late sequential bilingual speakers of Korean and English, who acquired their stronger native language, Korean, at birth, and who acquired their weaker second language, English, in their teens. ParticipantsTwenty Korean-English bilinguals ( Mean Age = 29.7, SD = 4.9; Mean Years of Ed = 19.8, SD = 3.7; Mean Non-Verbal IQ = 115.8, SD = 11.1) were recruited from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. All participants spoke Korean as their native language and acquired English as their second language in early teen years, with a mean acquisition age of 11.3 years ( SD = 2.8). Detailed data were obtained regarding the participants’ length of residence in Korea and the United States, the contexts in which they acquired Korean and English, and the contexts in which they were exposed to Korean and English at the time of the study levels (as reported on the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire, LEAP-Q; ). Participants also completed standardized tests of English vocabulary knowledge ( Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – IV Mean = 88.5, SD = 10.4; Expressive Vocabulary Test Mean = 97.1, SD = 13.2). Examination of self-reported data indicated that our participants were late, sequential bilingual speakers, whose self-reported language skills in Korean were more robust than their self-reported language skills in English. However, participants’ knowledge of English was quite robust, as indicated both by their self-reports and by their performance on the standardized measures of English vocabulary knowledge.
Specifically, self-reported speaking proficiency levels in English ranged between adequate and good, and scores on the vocabulary measures placed the participants firmly in the average performance range. See for the participants’ background characteristics.
Stimuli for the Working Memory Nonword Repetition (WM-NWR) Task in L1 and in L2To measure participants’ WM capacity, complex NWR tasks in both English and Korean were constructed, where participants were asked to repeat nonwords, while also completing a secondary animacy judgment task. For the English WM-NWR task, 48 English nonwords were selected from corpus.
Of these, 16 were 2-syllable nonwords, 16 were 4-syllable nonwords, and 16 were 6-syllable nonwords. For the Korean WM-NWR task, 48 Korean nonwords were created, following phonologically plausible syllables in Korean.
Serial Position Effect Definition
For a secondary judgment task, 48 nouns were selected in each language, with half of the nouns being animate and half of the nouns being inanimate. The nonword stimuli followed language-specific phonotactics, such that English nonwords followed English phonotactics while Korean nonwords followed Korean phonotactics. The nonwords across two languages were matched on acoustic duration. Stimuli for the Free-Recall Task in L1 and in L2One hundred and thirty five English nouns were selected. The nouns were 1, 2, and 3 syllables in length, grouped into lists of 10, 15, and 20 words. There were three 10-word lists, three 15-word lists, and three 20-word lists for each syllable-length. Across lists and syllables, nouns were matched on lexical frequency and on concreteness (MRC Psycholinguistic Database).
One hundred and thirty five Korean nouns were selected and grouped based on the same criteria as the English nouns. Across lists and syllables, Korean nouns were matched on lexical frequency ( Modern Korean Usage Frequency Survey) and on concreteness (based on their English translations). See and for English and Korean words lists. The English nouns were recorded by a female native speaker of English while the Korean nouns were recorded by a female native speaker of Korean. Task parameters were matched for the English and the Korean word-recall tasks, and speed of presentation was controlled across list lengths within each syllable length, with the average speed of 1.1 words/sec.
ProcedureAll participants completed the free-recall tasks and the WM-NWR tasks in both languages during different sessions, and the procedure for each task was identical for both languages. Participants completed the Korean tasks first and completed the English tasks a week later. This order of sessions was fixed because the English tasks were more taxing for the participants than the Korean tasks. In order to avoid attrition, it was decided to maintain the order across participants, with Korean always being the language of the first session. The instructions were always administered in Korean (across both sessions) to ensure understanding.For the WM-NWR task, the 2-syllable nonwords were presented first, followed by 4-syllable nonwords, and 6-syllable nonwords.
The order of nonwords at each syllable length was randomized for each participant. Each participant heard a nonword first, followed by the noun (animate/ inanimate), and was asked to judge the animacy of each noun by pressing “/” for an animate noun, and “z” for an inanimate noun. The participant then repeated the nonword as accurately as possible after a cue. The time between the presentation of the nonword and the cue to repeat it was set to 4000 msec. Each participant’s productions were recorded and coded off-line.For the free-recall task, each participant heard 1-syllable words in 10-word, 15-word, and 20-word lists; followed by 2-syllable words in 10-word, 15-word, and 20-word lists; etc.
The order of words in each list was randomized for each participant. After listening to each list of words, participants were cued to recall as many words as possible regardless of their order. Each participant’s productions were recorded and coded off-line.All participants were administered two English vocabulary measures, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ( PPVT-III, ) and the Expressive Vocabulary Test ( EVT, ), as well as the non-verbal IQ measure, the Visual Matrixes subtest of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2, ). Finally, all participants were asked to complete the LEAP-Q to elicit data regarding their language background. Coding and analysesCoding was done by a native speaker of English for English tasks and a native speaker of Korean for Korean tasks. For the WM-NWR task, proportion correct score was obtained for each nonword by calculating the proportion of correctly recalled phonemes out of total number of phonemes per nonword. Phonemes correct rather than syllables or nonwords correct was used because the nonword repetition task was quite difficult, and more global measures of accuracy may have underestimated participants’ levels of performance.
A similar approach to coding nonword repetition data was used by other studies (e.g.,; ). Data were collapsed across syllable lengths to obtain a measure of verbal working memory capacity in each language.For the free-recall task, all productions were transcribed word-for-word and coded for correctness. Omissions, semantic associates, and duplications were scored as incorrect.
Initially, each list was divided into three regions: Primacy, middle, and recency. The visual representation of bilinguals’ free-recall performance in the L1 vs. The L2 can be found in. Performance in each language clearly followed the traditional U-shaped serial-position curve. However, in order to boost power and to reduce the number of follow-up comparisons, primacy and middle region data were collapsed to yield pre-recency region data. This approach is in line with prior studies where pre-recency and recency effects (rather than primacy and recency effects) were contrasted. Each list was thus divided into the pre-recency region and the recency region.
Specifically, for 10-word lists, the first 7 words were denoted as the pre-recency region, and the last 3 words were denoted as the recency region. For 15-word lists, the first 10 words were denoted as the pre-recency region and the last 5 words were denoted as the recency region.
Finally, for 20-word lists, the first 13 words were denoted as the pre-recency region and the last 7 words were denoted as the recency region. The proportion correct scores were obtained for each region in each list. Data were collapsed across lists and syllable lengths to boost power. U-shaped serial-position curves of free-recall performance in bilinguals’ L1 and L2.
Error bars represent Standard Deviations. Asterisks. are used to mark a significant difference between L1 and L2 at p. WM-NWR performance in bilinguals’ L1 vs. L2A comparison between bilinguals’ performance on the WM-NWR task in English vs. Korean revealed a significant difference between bilinguals’ two languages, t (19) = 9.32, p. Bilinguals’ free-recall performance in L1 vs.
L2The repeated-measures ANOVA yielded a main effect of position, F (1, 19) = 65.01, p. Free-recall performance in bilinguals’ L1 and L2 in the pre-recency and recency regions. Error bars represent Standard Deviations.
Asterisks. are used to mark a significant difference between L1 and L2 at p. CorrelationsIn the L1, there was a significant relationship between WM capacity and free recall in the pre-recency region ( r = 0.53, p.
DiscussionThe purpose of the current study was to examine whether (1) bilinguals’ encoding and retrieval patterns on the free-recall task would be shaped by different levels of linguistic knowledge, as instantiated by the differences between bilinguals’ L1 and L2, and (2) whether recall performance from the different regions of the lists would be differentially related to WM capacity. We found that some aspects of free-recall performance in bilinguals are similar across the L1 and the L2. Bilinguals’ performance on a free-recall task followed the typical U-shaped serial-position curve both in the L1 and the L2. Furthermore, bilinguals showed better performance when recalling items from the recency regions than from pre-recency regions both in the L1 and the L2, suggesting that in general, bilinguals in this study adopted a global recency recall strategy.
Finally, bilinguals demonstrated list-length effects in both the L1 and the L2, such that free recall of shorter lists was more successful than of longer lists (consistent with;; ). However, we also observed distinct patterns of free-recall performance in the L1 and the L2, suggesting an effect of language experience on the mechanisms that underlie free-recall performance in bilinguals.Bilinguals’ performance on the free-recall task was characterized by a stronger pre-recency effect in the L1 than in the L2. Bilinguals in our study were late, sequential bilinguals with stronger language skills (as indexed by broad self-ratings of proficiency speaking, understanding, and reading) in their L1 (Korean) than in their L2 (English). According to the dual-component model of U-shaped free-recall performance, pre-recency effects are considered to be rooted in the LTM system (e.g.,; ), and stronger pre-recency effects in the L1 than in the L2 observed in the present study are consistent with this view. That is, it appears that bilinguals were better able to take advantage of their linguistic knowledge (LTM) to scaffold free recall in their L1. Since bilinguals tested here were more proficient in their L1 than their L2, it is likely that they were able to rehearse the first items on the list more effectively when the task was conducted in the L1, their more proficient language, than in the L2, their less proficient language. This finding is also in line with the more recent context-activation model of free recall (e.g., ) that construes primacy effects to be the result of an interaction between a dynamic activation buffer that stores phonological and semantic information and selective updating supported by the attentional control system.
Therefore, bilinguals’ stronger pre-recency effects in the L1 may be interpreted to suggest that bilinguals can selectively update and activate items from the beginning of the list in a buffer system more effectively in the L1 than in the L2 because of the more robust semantic and phonological knowledge associated with the native language.In contrast to the language effects in the pre-recency region, bilinguals in the present study recalled items from the recency regions equally well in the L1 and the L2. That is, bilinguals were able to maintain and retrieve items from the ends of the lists in their weaker language as efficiently as they did in their native language. However, this finding is qualified by the fact that we observed a three-way interaction among language, list length, and position effects. This interaction appears to be driven by two patterns of results. First, the position effect (i.e., better recall in the recency than the pre-recency region) was observed across all list lengths in the L2 but only for the longer lists (15- and 20-word lists) in the L1.
Previous studies have also reported list-length effects in serial position curves, such that primacy effects are dominant for shorter lists (i.e., 3–4 word lists) while recency effects are dominant for longer lists (e.g., Ward, Tan, & Grenfell-Essam, 2010). The broad recency effects observed in our data across list lengths is likely due to the fact that in our study, shorter lists (10-word lists) may in fact exceed the length of lists that yields dominant primacy effects. The finding that the recency effect was not significant for 10-word lists in the L1 indicates that 10-word lists operated as “shorter lists” in the bilinguals’ native language and as “longer lists” in the bilinguals’ second language.Second, the native-language recall advantage was observed in the pre-recency region for shorter lists (10- and 15-word lists) but in the recency region for the longest list (20-word list). This therefore accounts for the broad finding of L1 advantages in the pre-recency but not the recency region, since the recency effect in the L1 for 20-word lists was washed out by non-significant recency effects in the L2 for 10- and 15-word lists.
List-length effects in recall tasks may reflect involvement of different processes, such that performance on longer lists shares a great deal of variance with performance on complex span task, while performance on shorter lists does not. That is, recall of longer lists (but not shorter lists) likely involves reliance on focus-of-attention mechanisms. We observed an L1 recall advantage for shorter list lengths in the pre-recency region likely because the robust L1 knowledge in the LTM enabled participants to rehearse the first few items on these shorter lists more efficiently in the L1. Conversely, we observed an L1 recall advantage for longer lists in the recency region likely because longer lists demanded recruitment of additional attentional resources, and these resources were utilized more efficiently in the L1 than in the L2.
An alternative (or an additional) possibility is that redintegration processes acted upon recall performance for the longer lists but not the shorter lists, with more effective redintegration occurring in the L1. Redintegration is posited to underlie the ability to reconstruct incomplete language representation from the memory trace when retrieving verbal materials from the STM (e.g.,; ).When the temporal capacity of the STM exceeds the limit for longer lists, the items stored in the LTM are replaced by newly entered items from the STM. It may be that the redintegration process is more active for longer lists in the L1 than in the L2 because the LTM is more robust and stable in the L1. The reconstruction process in the L1 may therefore be more efficient than in L2, resulting in L1 recall advantages for longer list.While it is difficult to pinpoint the exact mechanisms that underlie the interactions among language, list-length, and serial-position effects in our data, it is clear that serial recall in bilinguals is a highly dynamic system, characterized by complex relationships between linguistic knowledge and basic parameters of free recall. Our findings both converge and diverge with the previous data regarding LTM influences on serial recall, likely because previous studies have not dissociated pre-recency and recency effects (; ). The finding that there were clear L1 recall advantages in the pre-recency region converge with previous studies of L1 advantages, and reiterate the involvement of the LTM in recall performance, with stronger L1 facilitating recall. The finding that there were no L1 advantages in the recency region diverge from previous studies of L1 advantages, and indicate that other cognitive processes (i.e., the focus of attention) can overtake L1 influences on STM, especially for longer list lengths.
By considering the STM system in a more nuanced way, and by zeroing in on serial-position effects in free-recall performance, here we observe that pre-recency effects in free recall (which are likely influenced by the LTM system more than recency effects) are constrained by linguistic knowledge.Correlation analyses used to examine the relationship between recall performance and WM capacity revealed that cognitive processes that underlie bilingual recall may differ across L1 and L2, especially for sequential bilinguals whose L2 was acquired later in life. The positive correlation obtained between WM capacity and pre-recency effects is consistent with previous studies suggesting that high WM capacity is linked to better strategic memory retrieval (e.g., ), especially of the items from the pre-recency regions (e.g., ). However, finding such a relationship only in the L1 but not in the L2 indicates that the ability to draw upon the WM system to support free recall is less viable in the context of a relatively weak linguistic knowledge base associated with the L2.One caveat to this interpretation is that the current study cannot dissociate the effects of L1 vs.
L2 on free recall from language-specific effects. That is, it may be that these findings characterize free recall in Korean vs. English rather than free recall in the native vs. The second language. In an effort to inform this issue, we analyzed pilot data collected for this study from 19 monolingual speakers of English. Because the goal of the study was not to compare monolingual and bilingual free-recall performance, this group of monolingual participants did not match the bilingual group in demographic characteristics ( Mean Age = 24.73; Mean Years of Education = 15.89; Mean Non-Verbal IQ = 105.87). However, we conducted correlation analyses between the monolinguals’ WM data and free-recall data in order to examine whether the pattern would be similar to the pattern observed for bilinguals’ L1 (Korean) or L2 (English).
The logic was that if the pattern of results observed for the bilingual participants is reflective of native- vs. Second-language dynamics, the monolingual data would resemble bilingual L1 data. Conversely, if the pattern of results observed for bilingual participants is reflective of Korean vs.
English differences, the monolingual data would resemble bilingual L2 data. When correlation analyses were conducted between monolinguals’ performance on the WM-NWR task and the free-recall task, we found a significant relationship between WM capacity and free recall in the pre-recency region ( r = 0.5, p.
’OURSAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEI-IAVIOR 5, ( ). Two Storage Mechanisms in GLANZER AND CUNITZ long-term storage. Glanzer and Cunitz study. Mirto Mezini. Updated 8 October Transcript. This experiment lacks ecological validity as this.
Glanzer and Cunitz presented two groups of participants with the same list of words. One group recalled the words immediately after.Author:Turg NikoshoCountry:MayotteLanguage:English (Spanish)Genre:TechnologyPublished (Last):7 March 2005Pages:191PDF File Size:11.23 MbePub File Size:3.45 MbISBN:576-1-75892-309-1Downloads:38196Price:Free.Free Regsitration RequiredUploader:Glanzer & Cunitz by Jasmine Anyanwu on PreziJournal of Experimental Psychology64 5— Words in the middle of the list had been there too long to be held cumitz short term memory STM due to displacement and not long enough to be put 166 long term memory LTM. Murdock suggested that words early in the list amd put into long term memory primacy effect because the person has time to rehearse each word acoustically.Two storage mechanisms in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior5 4 Saul McLeodpublished Both groups could free recall the words in any order.The psychology of learning and motivation Volume 2.
The words at the end of the list are only remembered if recalled first and tested immediately. This is known as the serial position effect. This is known as serial position effect. Experiments show that when participants are presented with a list of words, they tend to remember nad first few and last few words and are more likely to forget those in the middle of the list. One group recalled the words immediately after presentation, while the other group recalled the words after waiting 30 seconds. Words presented either early in the list or at the end were more often recalled, but the ones in the middle were more often forgotten.A proposed system and its control processes.
Serial Position Effect Psychology Example
This is referred as a asymptote. Each word was presented for one to two seconds.The serial position effect of free recall. Delaying recall by 30 seconds prevented the recency effect. In a nutshell, when participants remember primary and recent information, it is thought that they are recalling information from two separate stores STM and LTM.glanzrr These participants had to count backwards in threes the Brown-Peterson techniquewhich prevented rehearsal and caused the recency effect to disappear. The tendency to recall earlier words is called the primacy effect; the tendency to recall the later words is called the recency effect.Murdock asked participants to learn a list of glanxer that varied in length from 10 to 40 words and free recall them. This recency effect exists even when the list is lengthened to 40 words.
Words from the end of the list went into short term memory recency effect which can typically hold about 7 items.