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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1980 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The within-list lag effect in List 2 tested immediately did not interact with the same-different variable (F < 1), contrary to predictions from inattention and encoding-variability accounts. → Glenberg 1980 q3 i? In List 3 a significant same-different task effect emerged (mean recall .20 same vs .32 different), which the authors leave unexplained. → 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 test of the inattention (Underwood, 1969), superficial-processing (Jacoby, 1978), and encoding-variability interpretations against component-levels theory, using cost/size judgments with the same or different dimension at repetition.

"This within-list lag effect did not interact with the same-different variable (F < I). Apparently, the within-list lag effect was not the result of inattention or deficient processing at the second of two massed presentations."

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

Experiment 3 analysis of words repeated within List 3, presented and tested in the same session. The authors describe this same-different effect, and the absence of a lag effect in List 3, as "two mysteries".

"Second, there is a highly significant effect of same-different orienting task [F(l ,56) = 18.64, MSe = .75]. Average recall of words repeated with the same task was .20; for the different tasks, average recall was .32."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Preschoolers' recall of repeated items exceeds the maximum predicted by encoding variability theories assuming independent encodings — related
• 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 — related
• 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
• 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 — related
• Eliminating differential storage of structural components reduces the free-recall spacing effect at moderate to long lags — related
• Selective attention reduces encoding of unattended information and induces learned inattention that makes future learning more difficult — related
• Verbal learning tasks with intervals filled with other to-be-learned items test the discriminative-contrast hypothesis rather than the spacing effect — related
• Unintentional learning of word associations occurs when items co-occur in the focus of attention — related