When the orienting task prevented interitem associations, the within-list lag effect was attenuated after long retention intervals and this attenuation was not a floor effect¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1980 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 3 the lag-by-list-by-retention-interval interaction only approached significance (F(1,56) = 3.37, p = .07), but the lag effect in List 2 tested immediately was significant [F(1,28) = 6.67]. → Glenberg 1980 q3 i? After a 1-day retention interval, twice-presented words were recalled significantly better than once-presented words, ruling out a floor-effect explanation for the absent lag effect. → Glenberg 1980 (2)

Evidence¶

Glenberg 1980¶

Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S. (1980). Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Memory & Cognition, 8(6), 528-538. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213772

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 3, 64 subjects using a cost/size judgment task with constant standards designed "to prevent differential (as a function of within-list lag) storage of interitem associations". The lag effect appeared only at short retention intervals.

"A separate analysis of the recall of the words repeated in List 2 and recalled after a O-day retention interval demonstrated that the lag effect in that list was signifi­cant [F(I,28) = 6.67, MSe = .42]. This within-list lag effect did not interact with the same-different variable (F < I)."

Glenberg 1980 (2)¶

Glenberg, A. M., & Lehmann, T. S. (1980). Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Memory & Cognition, 8(6), 528-538. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213772

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Floor-effect check in Experiment 3 comparing twice-presented to once-presented word recall. The authors conclude that when interitem associations are eliminated, the lag effect attenuation "is not an artifact of low levels of recall".

"After a l-day retention interval, however, average recall of the twice-presented words was significantly greater than the recall of the once-presented words [for List I, F(l ,56) = 10.13, MSe=.951; for List2, F(l,56) = 5.71, MSe= 1.055]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A within-list lag effect persisted at all retention intervals (up to 7 days) when the orienting task allowed interitem associations, contrary to what a context-only retrieval account predicts for that condition — related
• Eliminating differential storage of structural components reduces the free-recall spacing effect at moderate to long lags — a broader claim this one bears on
• With incidental orienting tasks that focus processing on individual words and give no incentive to form associations, distributed presentations produce better free recall than massed presentations — reports the opposite
• Recall of words repeated across lists spaced up to 1 week follows a proportionality rule: recall is better after short spacing at short retention intervals but better after long spacing at long retention intervals — related
• With constant judgment standards, the same-different orienting task at repetitions did not affect the within-list lag effect, arguing against inattention and encoding-variability explanations — related
• Unintentional learning of word associations occurs when items co-occur in the focus of attention — related