Summary
Lists of verbal instructions were read aloud and each was enacted either by the subject (SPTs) or by the experimenter (EPTs). In Experiment 1 free recall was made of lists of SPTs and EPTs either immediately after presentation, after an empty 20-s delay interval, or after a 20-s delay interval filled with backward counting. The recall of recency items was unaffected by the empty delay interval, but was somewhat reduced by the counting task. In Experiment 2 free recall was made of lists of SPTs and EPTs either immediately after presentation or after a delay that was filled with a single SPT or a single EPT, 20 s in length. The recency effect evident in the immediate-recall condition was virtually wiped out in the delay conditions, irrespective of whether the delay task matched those in the free-recall list or not. These results are discussed in terms of the mnemonic similarity of the two types of action event.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baddeley, A. D., & Dale, H. C. A. (1966). The effect of semantic similarity on retroactive interference in long- and short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 417–420.
Bäckman, L., Nilsson, L.-G., & Chalom, D. (1986). New evidence on the nature of encoding action events. Memory & Cognition, 14, 339–346.
Cohen, R. L. (1981). On the generality of some memory laws. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22, 267–282.
Cohen, R. L. (1983). The effect of encoding variables on the free recall of words and action events. Memory & Cognition, 11, 375–582.
Cohen, R. L., Petersen, M., & Mantini-Atkinson, T. (1987). Interevent differences in event memory: Why are some events more recallable than others? Memory & Cognition, 15, 109–118.
Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1985). Motor programs and their relation to semantic memory. German Journal of Psychology, 9, 239–254.
Saltz, E. (1988). The role of motoric enactment (m-processing) in memory for words and sentences. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: current research and issues, Vol. 1, pp 408–414.
Saltz, E., & Dixon, D. (1982). Let's pretend: The role of motoric imagery in memory for sentences and words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 77–92.
Saltz, E., & Donnenwerth-Nolan, S. (1981). Does motoric imagery facilitate memory for sentences: A selective interference test. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 322–332.
Smyth, M. M., Pearson, N. A., & Pendleton, L. R. (1988). Movement and working memory: Patterns and positions in space. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40 A, 497–514.
Zimmer, H. D., & Engelkamp, J. (1985). An attempt to distinguish between kinematic and motor memory components. Acta Psychologica, 58, 81–106.
Zimmer, H. D., Engelkamp, J., & Sieloff, U. (1984). Motorische Gedächtniskomponenten als partiell unabhängige Komponenten des Engramms verbaler Handlungsbeschreibungen. Sprache & Kognition, 1, 70–85.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, R.L. The effects of interference tasks on recency in the free recall of action events. Psychol. Res 51, 176–180 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309145
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309145