Abstract
If several items are associated with a common cue, the cued recall of an item is often supposed to decrease as a function of the increase in strength of its competitors’ associations with the cue. Evidence for such a list-strength effect has been found in prior research, but this effect could have been caused both by the strength manipulations and by retrieval-based suppression, because the strengthening and the output order of the items were confounded. The experiment reported here employed categorizable item lists; some categories in each list contained strong items only, some contained weak items only, and some contained both strong and weak items. Strengthening was accomplished by varying the exposure time of the items. The testing sequence of the items from each category was controlled by the use of category-plus-first-letter cues. When the typical confounding of strengthening and output order was mimicked, list-strength effects were found, which is consistent with prior research. However, when this confounding was eliminated, the list-strength effects disappeared: The recall of neither strong nor weak items varied with the strengths of the other category exemplars. This pattern of results indicates that the list-strength effect is not the result of strength-dependent competition, but is caused by output-order biases and a process of suppression.
Article PDF
References
Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., &Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1063–1087.
Anderson, M. C., &Spellman, B. A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case.Psychological Review,102, 68–100.
Barnes, J. M., &Underwood, B. J. (1959). “Fate” of first-list associations in transfer theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 95–105.
Battig, W. F., &Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80 (3, Pt. 2), 1–46.
Bäuml, K.-H. (1996). Revisiting an old issue: Retroactive interference as a function of the degree of original and interpolated learning.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 380–384.
Briggs, G. E. (1957). Retroactive inhibition as a function of the degree of original and interpolated learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 60–67.
DaPolito, F. J. (1966).Proactive effects with independent retrieval of competing responses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Mannhaupt, H.-R. (1983). Produktionsnormen für verbale Reaktionen zu 40 geläufigen Kategorien.Sprache & Kognition,4, 264–278.
Mensink, J.-G., &Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1988). A model of interference and forgetting.Psychological Review,95, 434–455.
Postman, L., Stark, K., &Fraser, J. (1968). Temporal changes in interference.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,7, 672–694.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory.Psychological Review,88, 93–134.
Ratcliff, R., Clark, S. E., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1990). The list-strength effect: 1. Data and discussion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 163–178.
Roediger, H. L., III (1974). Inhibiting effects of recall.Memory & Cognition,2, 261–269.
Roediger, H. L., III (1978). Recall as a self-limiting process.Memory & Cognition,6, 54–63.
Roediger, H. L., III, &Neely, J. H. (1982). Retrieval blocks in episodic and semantic memory.Canadian Journal of Psychology,36, 213–242.
Rundus, D. (1973). Negative effects of using list items as recall cues.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 43–50.
Scheithe, K., &Bäuml, K.-H. (1995). Deutschsprachige Normen für Vertreter von 48 Kategorien.Sprache & Kognition,14, 39–43.
Smith, A. D. (1971). Output interference and organized recall from long-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 400–408.
Watkins, M. J. (1978). Engrams as cuegrams and forgetting as cue-overload: A cuing approach to the structure of memory. In C. R. Puff (Ed.),The structure of memory (pp. 347–372). New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Thanks are extended to M. Anderson, A. Glenberg, H. L. Roediger III, and one anonymous referee for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bäuml, Kh. The list-strength effect: Strength-dependent competition or suppression?. Psychon Bull Rev 4, 260–264 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209403
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209403