Search

Seven experiments demonstrate the robustness of the revelation effect, which is the tendency to call recognition test items old if they are distorted when they initially appear and if they are revealed before the recognition judgment. With anagrams as the distortion, a revelation effect was found in within- and between-subjects designs, in a frequency-judgment task, in a list-discrimination task, when new items were used as targets, when the study list and the test were presented in different modalities, and when the word that was revealed did not match the word that was recognized. These results challenge accounts that attribute the revelation effect either to an increase in the familiarity of the revealed test word or to a positive response bias.

The Ranschburg effect refers to the finding of impaired serial recall of items repeated on a list. One account attributes this effect to the use of a strategy where subjects avoid using as guesses stimuli that they had recalled elsewhere on the list. Support for this interpretation is reported here. The Ranschburg effect is eliminated when subjects are instructed to avoid guessing. Also, the Ranschburg effect is found in partial report only when subjects are told that the crucial item occurred elsewhere on the list.

Substantial recency effects are found in immediate serial recall of auditory items. These recency effects are greatly reduced when an irrelevant auditory stimulus (a stimulus suffix) is presented. A number of accounts that have been proposed to explain these phenomena assume that auditory items are susceptible to masking or overwriting in memory. Later items overwrite earlier items, leading to an advantage for the last item, unless it is masked by a suffix. This assumption is called into question by evidence that presenting list items in two voices has no beneficial effect in immediate serial recall. In addition, it is shown that suffix effects on both terminal and preterminal list items are influenced by the physical similarity of the suffix to the terminal item and not by the physical similarity of the suffix to preterminal items.

Seven experiments are reported in which subjects were tested for immediate serial recall of mixed-modality lists. On mixed auditory-visual lists, there was an advantage for auditory items at all serial positions. This was due to both a facilitation of auditory items and an inhibition of visual items on mixed lists, as compared with single-modality lists. When presented on a list containing items read silently, recall of items that were silently mouthed by the subject demonstrated patterns similar to those found with auditory items. When presented on a list containing items read aloud, recall of mouthed items showed patterns similar to those found with silently read items. The auditory advantage on mixed lists was found even when the list items were acoustically similar or identical and was not reduced by midlist auditory suffixes. The results suggest that modality differences in recall of mixed-modality lists are based on information different from that responsible for modality differences in recall of single-modality lists.