JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR 12,
Negative Effects
43-50 (1973)
of Using List Items as Recall Cues 1
DEWEY RUNDUS2
The Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10021
It is proposed that recall of an item from a free recall list interferes with subsequent
retrieval of other list items. Experiments by Slamecka (Journal of Experimental Psychology
1968, 76, 504-513) showing that providing part of a free recall list at the time of test impaired
recall of the remaining list items illustrate this effect. Two experiments were performed
examining the decrement in recall resulting from providing various numbers of list items to
the subject at the time of test. Both studies found a negative relationship between the number
of items given and the recall probability of the remaining list items. A model combining a
general organizational structure of memorywith a retrieval process and a rule for terminating
recall is proposed and the way in which this model accounts for the obtained data is described.
ticular examine the effect of the recall of an
item on subsequent recall of other list items.
A possible model of the events occurring during recall will first be outlined to provide a
framework for interpretation of the obtained
results and also to indicate how retrieval may
interact with organization to limit utilization
of the information stored in memory.
There is an almost universal reaction of surprise among subjects when they first attempt to
free-recall a list of words. Although a subject
may feel he has "memorized" most of the list
items during study, he discovers that he can
retrieve only a few items during recall. What
are the features of the recall process that might
account for this apparent failure to fully utilize
the information stored in memory ?
Most of the attempts to deal quantitatively
with questions about the level of performance
in free recall have been directed toward
storage variables (such as, total-time hypothesis, Murdock, 1962). When search processes
have been considered (for example, Shiffrin,
1970) only minimal attention has been given
to one of the more obvious features of subjects' recall protocols--organization. H o w
might the subject-controlled organization of
list items during study interact with some
subject-controlled search processes and rules
for terminating recall ?
The experiments to be described deal with
the search process during recall and in par-
TIlE MODEL
A description of the model must begin with
a consideration of the subject's activity during
study of a list. It will be assumed that while
he is studying a list he is attempting to organize
the words of the list. This organization may
take the form of attempts to form chunks
(Miller, 1956; Mandler, 1967), to discover
common feature markers (Kintsch, 1970), or
to group together subsets of the list items in
some unspecified way. The exact organizational methods employed (such as, association,
mnemonic strategies, imagery) need not be
specified. What will be assumed is that the
organization of the list is under the subject's
control and, as a corollary, that some "reasons
for groupings" or "organizing ideas" are used
as bases for his organization of the list. The
particular organizing idea the subject has used
to form any given grouping will be assumed
This research was supported by National Institute
of General Medical Sciences Grant GM16735. A preliminary report of these data was presented at the 1971
meeting of the Psychonomic Society.
2 Present address: Psychology Department, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620.
43
Copyright © 1973 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
44
RUNDUS
to be a retrieval cue (Tulving, 1966) for that
subset of list items. The term "retrieval cue"
seems particularly appropriate since the subject is assumed to have formed the item subsets
so that the organizing idea behind each grouping will be useful later as a cue to the retrieval
of items belonging to that subset (Dong &
Kintsch, 1968).
The identification of groups of words and
retrieval cues is perhaps most obvious for lists
composed of members of several categories.
Examination of rehearsal protocols (Rundus,
1971) has shown that subjects tend to group
items from the same category during list study.
The retrieval cue for the members of each
between members of a group and the RQ for
that group will, in general, not be equal due,
at least in part, to differential amounts Of
rehearsal of the items during list study.
The RQs are themselves assumed to be
associated with some general "temporalcontextual" cues that serve to specify the list
being considered. The strength of association
between RQ~ and the list cues is assumed to be
the sum of the strengths of association between
RQi and the items associated with it.
Assuming that the list has been studied and
organized in the manner just described it is
now possible to outline the proposed retrieval
process. An experienced subject will usually
List
RQ1
RQ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A12
wl
w2
RQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.25
w3
w4
I
w 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
',
RQ.
/\
w. ........................
wN
l
FIG. 1. Proposed organization in memory of items (W) and retrieval cues (RQ) after study of a list.
category can then be identified with the subject's name for the category.
Figure 1 provides an illustration of the proposed organizational structure after list study.
A hierarchical model of structure was chosen
both because of its consonance with several
recently proposed descriptions of the organization of memory (for example, Collins &
Quillian, 1969; Mandler, 1969; Miller, 1969)
and because of recent experimental evidence
(Rourke, 1971)showing a hierarchical model
to be superior to an associative network model
in predicting output order in free recall. The list
items (W) are grouped into subsets according
to their association with retrieval cues (RQ).
The strength of association between RQi and
W-j is l a l g d ~ Aij. The strengths of association
begin recall by retrieving those items that he
had been rehearsing just prior to the recall
signal. This is usually interpreted as recall of
items from a highly available but temporary
short-term storage (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968)
or as the use by the subject of temporal and
acoustic retrieval cues that provide ready
access to those items most recently rehearsed
(Tulving, 1968). After these initial few retrievals, the subject will begin the following
process of retrieval from long-term storage.
An RQ will be retrieved; words associated
with the RQ will be retrieved; the first RQ will
be abandoned and an RQ will again be chosen;
words associated with the newly chosen cue
will be retrieved; and so on until further
effort seems in vain. Recall will then stop.
45
LIST ITEMS AS RECALL CUES
A block diagram of the proposed model of
the subject's activity during retrieval from
long-term storage is shown in Figure 2. The
I
"I
following rules are assumed to govern the
retrieval of specific items and RQs from longterm storage. The process begins with the
Choose a retrieval
cue Rqi
I
I
I
,1 aetrieveaoitem ]
.-| associated,, with RQi
Increment the association I "
between the item and Rqi
I
No
/
the item
in the
Yes
Has
the item
already been
recalled?
~ - - - - No
Yes
the past k
retrievals yielded
no new
items ?
No
Yes
../__
No
the past m
cues used yielded
no
~
new
~
Yes
FIo. 2. Routine for retrieval from long-term storage.
.[
Output the
item
46
RUNDUS
retrieval of one of the RQs. The probability
of choosing a particular cue is assumed to be
the ratio of the strength of association of that
cue with the list cue to the sum of the strengths
of association of all RQs to the list cue. This is
the familiar ratio rule.
After retrieval of one of the RQs, the subject
will then attempt to retrieve the items associated with that cue. Here again the probability of retrieving a particular word on a given
retrieval attempt is governed by the ratio rule
(that is, the probability of choosing the item
is equal to the strength of association of that
item to the cue, divided by the sum of strengths
of association of all items to that cue).
If the retrieved item has not already been
recalled, the subject will respond with that
item and will then return to the RQ to continue recall. If the retrieved word has already
been recalled, he will note that fact and return
to the RQ. Sampling is always assumed to be
with replacement so that previously retrieved
items may be re-retrieved. Retrieval of an
item is assumed to increase the strength of
association between that item and its RQ. This
assumption seems quite compatible with the
results of studies which have shown (a) that a
test trial is roughly comparable to a study trial
in increasing the probability of subsequent
recall of items in a free recall list (Tulving,
1967; Lachman & Laughery, 1968), and (b)
that the locus of the facilitory effects of a test
trial is in the consolidation of higher-order
memory units (Rosner, 1970; Donaldson,
1971). The assumptions of sampling with
replacement and the competition in retrieval
between items strengthened by prior recall
and items remaining to be retrieved have also
been posited as reasons for the negative transfer observed in part-whole free recall studies
(Brown, 1968).
Attempts to retrieve items using the chosen
RQ will continue until a series o f k consecutive
retrievals of already recalled items suggests to
the subject that continued use of that cue will
be of little value. At this point he returns to
the list cues, again retrieves an RQ, and begins
retrieving items in the manner just described.
Sampling among RQs is also assumed to be
with replacement. Recall is assumed to stop
when a series of m consecutively retrieved RQs
have each yielded no new items for recall. The
parameters k and m are assumed to be under
the subject's control within limits imposed by
the length of time allotted to him for recall.
The parameter k represents the criterion the
subject uses to decide that search for another
RQ may be more productive than continued
retrievals using the current RQ. The parameter m represents the number of consecutively sampled unproductive RQs the subject
will tolerate before deciding that further attempts to recall new list items will be of little
or no use.
One implication of the retrieval process just
described is that recall of one of the items
associated with an RQ will lower the probability of recall for other items associated with
that cue. Two factors contribute to this effect.
First, retrieval of an item is assumed to
strengthen the association between that item
and the RQ. Since the probability of retrieving
an item on any given retrieval attempt is
governed by the ratio rule, strengthening the
association between a retrieved item and its
RQ will cause the probability of re-retrieving
the recalled item to increase with a concomitant decrease in the probability of retrieving
some other item associated with the RQ. The
second way in which recall of an item lowers
the probability of recalling other items associated with the same RQ is by increasing the
probability of ceasing to sample using that
RQ. This occurs because as more items
associated with a particular cue are recalled,
the probability of retrieving a series of already
recalled items, and consequently abandoning
the RQ, increases.
If, following the study of a list of words, the
subject is given a subset of the list just studied
(that is, if some of the items are printed on the
recall sheet) and then asked to free-recall the
remaining list items, what might be the expected effect ? One possibility is that recall of the
LIST ITEMS AS RECALL CUES
nongiven items should be improved since the
given items might be expected to provide
access to the RQs the subject has established.
Alternatively, by the argument just outlined,
it might be expected that recall o f the nongiven items would be impaired since the g i v e n
items should have a tendency to be reretrieved, thus blocking access to other words
f r o m the list.
Experiments like the one described were
first reported by Slamecka (1968, 1969) and
further examined by others (see, Allen, 1969;
H u d s o n & Austin, 1970; Luek, McLaughlin,
& Cicala, 1971). C o n t r a r y to what might be
expected from an association theory interpretation, the given items did not facilitate
recall o f the remainder o f the list. In fact recall o f the nongiven list items was impaired
when some of the words from the list were
provided on the subject's recall sheet. Unfortunately, characteristics o f the design o f the
Slamecka studies made it difficult to quantitatively examine the negative effects o f the given
items. In particular, for those studies in which
the n u m b e r o f given items was varied, there
was a possible confounding o f recall from
short-term storage with the presence or
absence of given items to be examined and
possible effects o f the time required to read
varying numbers o f given words.
EXPERIMENT I
Experiment I was designed to provide a set
o f data free o f some of the interpretational
difficulties just mentioned: (a) The effects o f
recall f r o m short-term storage were minimized
by interpolating a counting task between study
and recall, and (b) the n u m b e r o f words in the
set given to the subject at the time o f recall was
held constant. The manipulated variable in
this study was the n u m b e r o f words in the
given set that were associated with each o f the
assumed RQs for a list.
Procedure
Eleven college age subjects were paid for their
participation in individual 50-minute experimental
47
sessions. A within-subject design was used with each
subject receiving a single study-test trial on each of
eight 40-item lists of nouns. Each list was composed of
four 10-item categories with different categories used
for each list. The category members were chosen from
the norms of Battig and Montigne (1969) with the restriction that none of the six most frequently given
members of a category were included in the lists. The
lists were presented auditorily at a rate of 3 seconds per
item. The order of presentation of items in a list was
randomized for each subject. Immediately following
study of a list, a three-digit number was read to the
subject and he was required to begin with that number
and count forward aloud rapidly by threes for 30 seconds. Following the interpolated counting task, he was
given a recall sheet upon which were printed a random
ordering of eight of the items from the list just studied.
These items were read aloud by the subject and then
he was given 2 minutes for written free recall of the
remaining 32 list items.
The experimental manipulation involved the choice
of the eight list items that appeared on each recall sheet.
The items were chosen such that each of the categories
of a list contributed either 0, 1,2, 3, or 4 items to the set
of eight given items. There are eight possible combinations of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 that yield a total of eight
items (e.g., 4, 3, 1, 0; 3, 2, 2, 1). For each subject seven
of these combinations were randomly assigned to
Lists 2-8. The combination 2, 2, 2, 2 was always
assigned to List 1, which was used as a practice list and
not included in the data analysis.
Results and Discussion
The data o f primary concern are those
relating recall o f the nongiven items o f a
category to the n u m b e r o f given items chosen
from that category. The mean numbers o f nongiven items recalled from categories that
contributed 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 items to the given
set were 3.82, 3.85, 3.36, 2.51, and 2.27,
respectively. Since the n u m b e r o f potential
candidates for recall decreases as the number
given from a category increases, the data are
more easily interpreted when they are converted to probabilities o f recalling a nongiven
item. These probabilities were .38, .43, .42,
.36, and .38 for categories contributing 0, 1, 2,
3, and 4 items, respectively, to the given set.
A test o f these data indicated that the effect o f
n u m b e r o f given items on recall was only
marginally significant [F(4, 40) = 2.12, .05 <
p < .10].
48
RUNDUS
It had been expected that the number of
items given from a category would be negatively correlated with the probability of recall
for the nongiven members of the category.
This appears to be the case for 1-4 given items
while recall in the 0 condition is much lower
than would be expected. This pattern of results
can be interpreted as illustrating a combination of both the positive and the negative
effects of the given items. A further analysis of
the data showed that the probability of recalling at least one nongiven item from a category
was lower for the 0 condition than for condition 1-4 (.87 and .96, respectively). Thus, it
appears that providing the subject with at
least one member of a category at recall increased the likelihood that he would access
that category. This result is in agreement with
other cueing studies (see Tulving & Pearlstone,
1966; Hudson & Austin, 1970; Tulving &
Psotka, 1971).
It is possible to provide a post hoc control
for the access problem by including in analysis
only those instances when the subject recalled
at least one nongiven item from a category.
The probability of recall for the nongiven
members of a category, conditional upon recall of at least one nongiven member from the
category, is shown in Figure 3 as a function of
0.40
0-.
the number of members of that category in the
given set. The negative effect of the given items
now becomes apparent. The effect of the number of given items on recall for this conditionalized set of data is significant [F(4, 4 0 ) =
2.70, p < .05]. Thus, the given items appear
to produce two effects: A given item increases
the probability of accessing the RQ to which
it is associated, and decreases the recall probability of other items associated with that RQ.
In addition to correct recalls of study words,
the subjects also produced a small number of
intrusion errors (a mean of .69 extra-list items
p e r subject list), all of which were members of
one of the categories appropriate for the list
being tested. Occasionally subjects would
write one or more of the given items in his
recall, but this occurred with a probability of
only .03. Both of these types of errors bore
no systematic relationship to the number of
items given from a category.
EXPERIMENT II
Due to the marginal significance of the
unconditionalized results of Experiment I, a
partial replication of that study was performed. In Experiment II only two conditions
were employed--either 1 or 4 given items per
category--and an attempt was made to minimize the access problem by always providing
at least one instance of each category among
the set of given items.
~0~
--
0.35
.o
t3
.Q
o
x
\
&
--
x
0.30
"~.
nr
° l
0.25
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
2
3
4
Number given from celecjory
FIG. 3. Probability of recall of nongiven items in a
category as a function of the number of given items for
that category, conditional upon the recall of at least
one nongiven item from that category.
Procedure
Thirteen paid subjects of college age each participated in single 1-hour sessions. The details of procedure
were the same as in Experiment I with the following
two exceptions. First, only seven lists were used with the
first list treated as a practice list and not included in
analysis, and second, there were 10 items given on the
subject's recall sheet, four items from each of two of the
list categories and one item from each of the two
remaining two categories.
Results
As in Experiment I, the probability of recalling a nongiven member of a category was
49
LIST ITEMS AS RECALL CUES
reduced as the n u m b e r o f items given from that
category increased: The observed recall probabilities were .350 and .305 for nongiven items
f r o m categories which contributed 1 and 4
items, respectively, to the given set. The effect
o f n u m b e r of given items on recall was significant, p < .05.
REFERENCES
ALLEN,M. M. Cueing and retrieval in free recall. Journal
of ExperimentalPsychology, 1969, 81, 29-35.
ATKINSON,R. C., & SHIFFRIN,R. M. Human memory:
A proposed system and its control process. In
K. W. Sl~nce & J. T. Spence (Eds.), Thepsychology
of learning and motivation, New York: Academic
Press, 1968, Vol. 2.
BATTIG,W. F., & MONTI~UE,W. E. Category norms
for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication
DISCUSSION
and extension of the Connecticut category norms.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph,
The question posed at the beginning of this
1969, 80, No. 3, Pt. 2.
paper was " W h y does recall stop ?". The re- BROWN, J. Reciprocal facilitation and impairment of
free recall. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 10, 41-42.
sults o f Experiments I and II provide at least a
partial answer to this question: Recall of some COLLINS,A. M. & QUILLIAN,M. R. Retrieval times
from semantic memory. Journalof FerbalLearning
o f the items o f a list reduces the probability o f
and Verbal Behavior, 1969, 8; 240-247.
recall for the remaining list items. The model DONALDSON,W. Output effects in multitrial free recall.
outlined in the introduction illustrates one way
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
1971, 10, 577-585.
o f incorporating this partial answer into a
more general framework describing the re- DONe, T., & KINXSCH,W. Subjective retrieval cues in
free recall. Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal
trieval process and in particular pointing out
Behavior, 1968, 7, 813-816.
why recall m a y stop prior to exhausting all of HUDSON, R. L., & AUSXIN,J. B. Effect of context and
the information stored in memory,
category name on the recall of categorized word
A computer simulation o f this model was
lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,
86, 43-47.
written and tested. N o systematic attempt was
made to fit the data from Experiments I and KINTSCH, W. Models for free recall and recognition.
In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Models of human memory.
I I ; instead, a variety of parameter combinaNew York: Academic Press, 1970.
tions were examined. Details o f the various LACHMAN,R., & LAUGHERY,K. R. Is a test trial a trainsimulations will not be described, but the
ing trial in free recall learning ? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 76, 40-50.
following general results o f the model simulaLUEK,
S. P., MCLAUGHLIN,J. P., & CICAEA, G. A.
tions should be noted. First, the model does
Effects of blocking of input and blocking of repredict that recall will stop with the resulting
trieval cues on free recall learning. Journal of
levels o f recall in the range to be expected. The
ExperimentalPsychology, 1971, 91, 159-161.
model predicts both the direction and the MANDLER, G. Organization and memory. In K. W.
Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of
magnitude o f the effects observed in Experilearning and motivation. New York: Academic
ments I and II. The simulation also produces
Press, 1967. Vol. 1.
actual output protocols, which include com- MANDLER,G. Words, lists, and categories: An experimonly observed features such as a high degree
mental view of organized memory. In J. L. Cowan
o f clustering o f items during the initial part o f
(Ed.), Thought and language. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1969.
the recall period with the appearance o f isoMILLER,
G. A. The magic number seven, plus or minus
lated single members o f already recalled catetwo: Some limits on our capacity for processing
gories appearing at the end o f recall. The
information. Psychological Review, 1956, 63,
model that has been outlined has been limited
81-97.
in scope so as to provide a minimally compli- MILLER, G. A. A psychological method to investigate
verbal concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychocated f r a m e w o r k i n which the results o f Experilogy, 1969, 6, 169-191.
ments I and II might b e interpreted. More
MURDOCK,B. B., JR. The serial position effect of free
general versions o f the model are currently
recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962,
under study.
64, 482-488.
50
RUNDUS
ROSNER, S. R. The effects of presentation and recall
trials on organization in multi-trial free recall.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
1970, 9, 69-74.
ROUR~E,D. L. Hierarchical organization in free recall.
Technical Report No. 35, Department of Psychology, Perceptual Systems Laboratory, University
of California, Los Angeles, CA, 1971.
RUNDUS, D. Analysis of rehearsal processes in free
recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,
89, 63-77.
SHIFFRIN, R. M. Memory search. In D. A. Norman
(Ed.), Models of human memory. New York:
Academic Press, 1970.
SLAMECKA,N. J. An examination of trace storage in
free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1968, 76, 504-513.
SLAMECKA, N. J. Testing for associative storage in
multitrial free recall. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1969, 81, 557-560.
TULVING,E. Subjective organization and the effects of
repetition in multitrial free recall learning.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
1966, 5, 193-197.
TULVING,E. The effects of presentation and recall of
material in free-recall learning, Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 175-184.
TtrLV~NG,E. Theoretical issues in free recall. In T. R.
Dixon &D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbalbehaviorand
general behavior theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J:
Prentice-Hall, 1968.
TULVING, E., & PEARLSTONE,Z. Availability versus
accessibility of information in memory for words.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
1966, 5, 381--391.
TULVING, E., & PSOTKA,J. Retroactive inhibition in
free recall: Inaccessibility of information available
in the memory store. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1971, 87, 1-8.
(Received June 9, 1972)