Claims

In Experiment 1, the type-of-recall by varied-constant by distribution interaction was significant, with a massed-distributed effect only in constant cued recall and a distribution effect in both free-recall conditions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1979 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The three-way interaction between type of recall, varied-constant repetition, and distribution was statistically significant, supporting the prediction that descriptive cues eliminate the massed-distributed effect in varied conditions while contextual cues preserve it in free recall. → Glenberg 1979 q3 i? In cued recall, varied-constant repetition, distribution, and their interaction were all significant; in free recall, varied-constant and distribution were significant but their interaction was not (F ratio of only .18). → Glenberg 1979 (2)

Evidence

Glenberg 1979

Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7(2), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197590

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Experiment 1 assigned 64 introductory psychology students to free or cued recall of repeated paired associates under massed or distributed presentation, with constant or varied stimulus terms. The three-way interaction was statistically significant; no effect size is printed.

"The interaction between type of recall, varied-constant, and distribution was statistically significant."

Glenberg 1979 (2)

Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7(2), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197590

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Two identical 8 by 2 by 2 ANOVAs (counterbalancing by varied-constant by distribution, within subjects) were run on the cued and free recall data. Cued recall showed all three effects significant; free recall showed main effects significant but an interaction F ratio of only .18. No effect sizes are printed.

"For cued recall, the effects of varied-constant repe­tition [F(l ,24) =10.69, MSe =1.35], distribution [F(1 ,24) = 5.81, MSe = .84], and their interaction [F(1 ,24) =5.44, MSe =.63] were all significant. For free recall, the effect of varied-constant [F(1 ,24) = 6.29, MSe = 1.61] and distribution [F(1,24) = 5.67, MSe = 1.41] were significant. The F ratio for the interaction was only .18."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id cued-free-recall-interaction-varied-constant-distribution
title In Experiment 1, the type-of-recall by varied-constant by distribution interaction was significant, with a massed-distributed effect only in constant cued recall and a distribution effect in both free-recall conditions
description In Experiment 1, the type-of-recall by varied-constant by distribution interaction was significant, with a massed-distributed effect only in constant cued recall and a distribution effect in both free-recall conditions
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 1979
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — glenberg-1979, glenberg-1979-2

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.