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¶

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? In Experiment 2 (superordinate generation task), a significant within-list lag effect appeared in almost every list regardless of retention interval, and the predicted four-way interaction was far from significant (F < 1). → Glenberg 1980 q3 i? In Experiment 1 (pair-relation task), the predicted four-way interaction was significant, with the lag effect present at short retention intervals and absent where recall was near floor. → 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 2 within-list analysis on 96 subjects. The result ran contrary to the component-levels prediction; the authors attribute the persistence of the lag effect to incidental storage of interitem associations acting as extra retrieval cues, noting subjects reused superordinates and sometimes generated previous list words as associates, and say the finding "can be accommodated within component-levels theory" if such associations are stored. It challenges a context-only account under these conditions, not context retrieval generally.

"Contrary to the predic­tion from components-levels theory, there was a within­list lag effect in almost every list, regardless of the retention interval. The effect was significant [F(1 ,48) = 64.35, MSe =.90], and it did not interact with any variable in a way that changes these conclusions. The predicted four-way interaction was far from significant (F < 1)."

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 1 analysis of 48 subjects revealed a significant four-way interaction [F(1,44) = 9.45, MSe = 2.26], "exactly as predicted by component-levels theory", but the absence of the effect elsewhere may reflect floor effects, motivating Experiment 2.

"There was a substan­tial within-list lag effect in both lists in Con­dition 0-0 and in the second list in Condition 7-0, whereas the effect was absent in all other lists. Unfor­tunately, recall in these latter lists was so low that the absence of a lag effect may simply reflect a floor effect."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• 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
• Verbal learning tasks with intervals filled with other to-be-learned items test the discriminative-contrast hypothesis rather than the spacing effect — 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