Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)

Aim

to investigate the serial position effect, specifically how the position of words in a list influences recall and test hypothesis that there’s two separate stores for short and long-term memory

Procedure

• Participants: 240 army enlisted men

• Participants were presented with a list of words being shown one at a time, then they’re asked to freely recall any words they remember

• Same list of 20 words (monosyllabic)

• Two groups:

  • GROUP 1 [Control] Immediate Recall - recalled the words immediately after presentation in a free recall (any order they wish)

  • GROUP 2 [Experimental] Delayed condition - participants engaged in distraction task to prevent active recall/rehearsal, which was expected to affect STM recall

    
    

Results

• Findings supported hypothesis of two separate memory stores

• Primary effect (Group 1)

• Recency effect (Group 2)

Conclusion

• Serial position effect supports existence of STM and LTM

• Primary effect is linked to LTM

• Recency effect is linked to STM

Strengths

1. The study significantly contributed to our understanding of memory processes, particularly the primacy and recency effects

2. Offers evidence of two memory stores, provides high internal validity.

3. Use of monosyllabic nouns ensured familiarity and ease of pronunciation and recall

Weaknesses

1. Lack of generalisation - participants were a specific population

2. Study did not examine individual differences in cognitive abilities and prior knowledge and how might it influence primacy/recency effects

3. Examining the use of only verbal materials limits findings of other types of encoding information (e.g. visual, spatial memories)