Preschool children do not exhibit a spacing effect in free recall, although they benefit from repetition¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1984 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · 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? Preschool children recalled massed and spaced repetitions of pictures equally well in free recall. → Thomas C. Toppino and William DiGeorge 1984 q3 i? The absence of a spacing effect in preschoolers was replicated in Experiment 2, where massed and spaced repetitions did not differ despite a reliable repetition benefit. → Thomas C. Toppino and William DiGeorge 1984 (2)

Evidence¶

Thomas C. Toppino and William DiGeorge 1984¶

Thomas C. Toppino and William DiGeorge. (1984). The spacing effect in free recall emerges with development. Memory & Cognition, 12(2), 118-122. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=The+spacing+effect+in+free+recall+emerges+with+development+Memory+%26+Cognition+1984

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1, a single-factor within-subjects experiment with 20 nursery-school children (mean age 4 years 4 months) recalling pictures presented at a 5-sec rate, found that "the spacing between repetitions had no effect on performance"; preschoolers recalled 46.7% of both massed and spaced repetitions.

"The mean percentages of correct recall of repeated items are presented in Table 1. Clearly, the spacing between repetitions had no effect on performance"

Thomas C. Toppino and William DiGeorge 1984 (2)¶

q3 · i? · causal · r1

In Experiment 2's planned comparisons on 18 nursery-school children, repetition helped (F = 10.02, p < .01) but "there was no difference between recall of massed and spaced repetitions" (F < 1.00); means were 34.7% massed vs 32.0% spaced.

"repeated items were recalled better than once-presented items [F(l,34) = 10.02, p < .01] , but there was no difference between recall of massed and spaced repetitions [F(I,34) < 1.00]"

Discussion¶

First-grade children show the typical spacing effect in free recall with the same picture procedures — related
Grade level and repetition spacing interact significantly in children's free recall — related
Preschool children benefit from repetition in free recall, recalling repeated pictures better than once-presented ones — related
A rehearsal-based deficient-processing account cannot explain the developmental emergence of the spacing effect — related
Spaced Retrieval Improves Retention — a broader claim this one bears on
Spaced Practice Improves Retention — a broader claim this one bears on
Distributed presentations are recalled better than massed presentations in free recall (the spacing effect), and requiring likelihood ratings does not alter this effect — reports the opposite

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`preschoolers-no-spacing-effect-free-recall`
`title`	`Preschool children do not exhibit a spacing effect in free recall, although they benefit from repetition`
`description`	`Preschool children do not exhibit a spacing effect in free recall, although they benefit from repetition`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`1984`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-19`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-16`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `thomas-c-toppino-and-william-digeorge-1984`, `thomas-c-toppino-and-william-digeorge-1984-2`

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