China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
ISQ – Psychology
Published in Bhaskar Punukollu, Michael Phelan, Anish Unadkat, MRCPsych Part 1 In a Box, 2019
Bhaskar Punukollu, Michael Phelan, Anish Unadkat
True – Primacy effect: the tendency to remember the first few items on a list better than subsequent items. The first few items are most rehearsed and receive undivided attention and are therefore more likely to be stored in long term memory. Recency effect: the tendency to remember the last few items on a list. This is associated with storage of information in short term memory. For example, if asked to read a list of 15 items, there will be a tendency to remember the first and last few items on the list better than the middle items. This is because of the above effects. Primacy allows the first few items to be remembered better in the long term also. If there is a delay in recalling the items, the recency effect will be lost as items are only stored in short term memory.
Memory
Published in Andrea Utley, Motor Control, Learning and Development, 2018
In free recall of this list, your friend is more likely to remember the first few items (ball, coach) and last few items (goal, crowd) compared to those in the middle of the list. These phenomena are accounted for by the primacy effect and recency effect respectively (Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968). It is argued that the primacy effect happens because the person is able to rehearse the first few words and put them in the long-term memory. In addition, the recall of the words or digits is also influenced by the interval between words; short intervals = less ability for recall, long interval = greater ability for recall. Thus, the longer the interval the greater the amount of time you have for rehearsal. The recency effect occurs as the information is still active within the STM. This has important implications for the coach. As we now know, rehearsal must occur before the short-term memory can pass information to the long-term memory. However, due to its limited capacity, information is often lost before the learner can use it. To avoid this, the instructions a coach gives should be brief, succinct and given when the learner is paying attention. In addition, it may be better if the more important points are placed at the beginning or the end of the list of instructions. Other research has shown that our capacity for storing information is in fact constant at about seven items (Cowan et al. 2004, Papagno 2018).
Questionnaires
Published in Louis Cohen, Lawrence Manion, Keith Morrison, Research Methods in Education, 2017
Louis Cohen, Lawrence Manion, Keith Morrison
Similarly, the recency effect can bias a response (discussed earlier: respondents remember the last item in a list, rather than the entire list in, for example, a multiple-choice question or a rating scale, particularly in a telephone interview). Hence, for example, a telephone questionnaire should contain short rather than long lists of choices.
“Think about what you’re doing and why you’re doing it”: Coach feedback, athlete self-regulation, and male youth hockey players
Published in Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2022
Dallas B. Ansell, Nancy L. I. Spencer
There are a few limitations that should be mentioned in regard to this study. First, the nature of the interview setting could be critiqued as lending to social presentation bias (Jeffery-Tosoni & Fraser-Thomas, 2015), which may have motivated players to share only the most positive aspects of their experiences. Similarly, the team in the study was among the top teams in their league; this may have contributed to the presence of a team halo effect (Naquin & Tynan, 2003) that caused athletes to attribute only positive aspects of their experience to their team. The study was completed during the season; although this could be seen as an advantage due to the recency effect in answering questions, it is also possible that the athletes were hesitant to provide critical feedback regarding their current experience and also relied heavily on the current season in their recall rather than a collective of experiences. In regard to Boekaerts (1996) model, asking more questions specific to the target constructs might have resulted in more findings directly related to self-regulation.
The Prominence of Self-referential Processing across ERP and Memory Consolidation in Children
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2021
Anna Hudson, Emma S. Green, McLennon J.G. Wilson, Roxane J. Itier, Heather A. Henderson
The main effect of Referent was not significant, F(1,60) = .000, MSE = 7.91, p > .999, ηp2 = .000. The main effect of Valence was significant, F(1,60) = 4.05, MSE = 2.45, p = .049, ηp2 = .063, with participants remembering slightly more positive relative to negative items regardless of referent (Figure 2). The Referent by Valence interaction was not significant, F(1, 60) = .093, MSE = 2.95, p = .761, ηp2 = .002, but the three-way interaction with Order was significant, F(1, 60) = 18.29, MSE = 2.95, p < .001, ηp2 = .234. Follow up analyses demonstrated that self-positive (t(60) = .215, p = 830) and other-negative (t(55.45) = .730, p = .468) recall were unaffected by order, but self-negative items were significantly better remembered when the Self condition was presented second, reflecting a recency effect, t(45.09) = −2.90, p = .006. Additionally, memory for other-positive information was better remembered when the Other condition was completed first, reflecting a primacy effect, t(44.90) = −2.83, p = .007 (Figure 3).
Verbal learning and memory in prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2018
William G. Kronenberger, Shirley C. Henning, Allison M. Ditmars, Adrienne S. Roman, David B. Pisoni
The CVLT-C also provides several measures that assess processing operations used during memory, learning and recall of the word list (“process measures”). Primacy Recall for the current study was defined as the percentage of the first four words on the list (either List A or List B) that were recalled after each trial or set of trials; for example, if two words from the first four words of List A were recalled for a Trial, the List A Primacy Recall score would be 2/4 = 50%. Conversely, Recency Recall was defined as the percentage of the final four words on the list that were recalled for each trial or set of trials; Prerecency Recall was defined as the percentage of the middle 7 words on the list that were recalled for each trial or set of trials. Hence, Primacy Recall scores reflect rehearsal of early items on the list, secondary memory (durable, cue-dependent search component of working memory that is not actively rehearsed/maintained (Unsworth and Engle 2007)), or a primacy effect (tendency to remember information presented first) in verbal learning and memory. In contrast, Recency Recall scores reflect retrieval of items from auditory sensory memory, primary memory (maintenance of specific memory representations using active, controlled attention) or a recency effect (tendency to remember the most recent information presented).