Primacy and Recency Effects
Name
Institution

Abstract
The present research study has been carried out to determine the processes that are involved in memory management, proving that the three stores present in multistore models are valid. It will do that by collecting evidence on both short- and long-term memory, by calculating the recency and primacy effects with regards to words recollection. Meeting this objective involved engaging 65 participants of both genders and were between 17 and 34 years of age. The participants were subjected to recall tests the included both high- and low-frequency words. The results showed that 75% of the respondents were female with the average participants’ age being 19.49 years and 81.5% of them being native English speakers. The results further showed that there were higher recall rates for both the first and last items, as opposed to the middle items that reported lower recall rates. Additionally, the high-frequency words reported higher recall rates for the first-word items than the low-frequency words. The research concludes that memory management makes use of both short- and long-term memory.

Table of Contents

Abstract 2 Introduction 4 Methodology 6 Participants 6 Apparatus 7 Design 7 Procedure 7 Results 8 Discussion 10 Conclusion 12 References 14 Appendix I 15

Primacy and Recency Effects
Introduction
From as early as mid 1960’s, there have been increasing evidence to support the suggestions that memory processes required different cognitive components (Parkin, 2014). The suggestions have been modelled on the notion that memory consists of discrete storage units that are independent but allow for a unidirectional flow of information that acts as the memory. The models have been dubbed ‘multistore models’. A typical multistore model has three stores that include sensory buffer; short-term memory; and long-term memory (Brain, 2000; Parkin, 2014). In this respect, there is evidence to support the unidirectional flow of information between nodes to form a memory, with multistore models, advanced to explain the flow and stores.
As earlier indicated, there are three stores that act as the nodes for information flow and memory formation within the brain. The first store is the sensory buffer that principally acts as a transitory node. It denotes the sensory systems that record the information stimuli (Ornstein, 2014; Parkin, 2014). For instance, sound acts as stimuli to trigger the ear into acting as a sensory buffer. In another example, heat will act as stimuli to trigger the skin into noting higher temperatures in the environment. The sensory buffer has a large capacity that includes all the body’s sensory systems, and uses the stimuli as the code. It also has a fast trace duration that is as short as 0.25 seconds although the trace decays, and it does not store the information (Ornstein, 2014; Parkin, 2014; Puri & Treasaden, 2009). The second store is the short-term memory that includes information that has been deemed important in the sensory buffer and thereby worthy of further attention. In fact, it acts as the transition point between the sensory buffer and long term memory. It has a small capacity since information is only stored for as long as the individual pays attention and rehearses the information. Its other characteristics include use of visual and sound structures to code the information, and trace duration of not more than 30 seconds. The trace decay and displacement occurs as soon as new information is received (Parkin, 2014; Upton, 2013). The final store is the long term memory. It has an unlimited capacity, uses both visual and auditory coding, and has a trace duration from between minutes to years. In addition, long-term memory has no possibility of forgetting, although there is a possibility of experiencing retrieval problems (Parkin, 2014; Upton, 2013). Therefore, there are three stores concerned with information collection and memory management.
There have been a lot of research on the three stores correlation with memory. In fact, since the development of multistore models in 1960’s, short- and long-term memory have been the focus of numerous memory researches. Neurophysiological research determined that short- and long-term memory were controlled by different parts of the brain. It was evidenced by the fact that some of the individuals who suffered brain damage reported either short- and long-term memory loss in the form of amnesia. Besides, the same neurophysiological researches could not be used to either disapprove or approve the multistore models since they violated the foundations of the models by either causing short- or long-term memory loss. Information was expected to flow from the short-term memory to the long-term memory (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2003; Groome, 2013). Thus, there has not been extensive research to either approve or disapprove the multistore models with emphasis on distinguishing between the short- and long-term memory stores.
Still, the absence of definitely structured research studies to either disapprove or approve the multistore models does not imply that research cannot be conducted. One of the research designs that can put to rest the argument is the ‘serial position effects in free recall experiment’. The experiment involves subjecting selected participants to controlled memory test situations in which they are presented with selected words that they are then asked to recall, with no particular word recollection order. The results are then presented in a recall against a serial position curve. Previous research shows that individuals will tend to recall the words they saw first and the last. The participants often had difficulty in recalling the words they saw in the middle of the list. The recall of the first words represented the primacy effect while the recall of the last words represented the recency effect (Parkin, 2014; Rowem, 2013). The experiments made it clear that the probability of recall was a function of when the item was presented. In this case, the words, that were presented last, would often be recalled first thereby representing the recency effect. The same is also true for the words that were presented at the beginning of the experiment thereby representing the primacy effect. Applying the multistore models to the experiments results intones that the recency effect represented the short term memory while the primacy effect represented the long term memory. Therefore, the current research study will determine the processes that are involved in memory management, collecting evidence on both short- and long-term memory by calculating the recency and primacy effects with regards to words recollection.
Methodology
Participants
65 participants were recruited as participants for the experiment, with no incentive provided for participation. The participants were first informed of the experiment’s purpose before asking them on whether they would be amenable to participating in the experiment. The other condition for participation was gender and language variation. The participants were from both genders – both male and female – with some of them reported as non-native English speakers. The participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 34 years.
Apparatus
The experiment applied three primary apparatuses to review and collect the data. Firstly, 90 words were presented in two-word lists. The first-word list contained 45 words that acted as the high-frequency words due to their high frequency of use in daily conversations. The second-word list contained 45 words that acted as the low-frequency words due to their low frequency of use in normal conversations. All the words had six letters. Secondly, a timer was used to record the time it took for the participant to recall a particular word. Finally, a table was applied to record the data. The table’s key features were the words position in the word list, its identification as both low- or high-frequency and how long it took to recall the word. Thus, the key apparatuses applied in the experiment were two-word lists, timer to record seconds, and a results table.
Design
The design included a demographic data collection before the participants were subjected to the frequency lists recall tests. The participants were first asked to state their gender, age and English speaking proficiency. Secondly, the low- and high-frequency words were applied in the experiment with the participants asked to memorise the 45 words in each of the lists before they were asked to recall the words in no particular order. The demographic data would then be used to correlate the demographic characteristics with the memory. Obviously, the word position in the list and the length of time it took to recall the word was of importance in developing the primacy and recency characteristics.
Procedure
As earlier indicated, two-word lists were presented to the participants. They were asked to read the words then recall them in no particular order. Each of the 65 participants was subjected to the two-word lists independently of the other participants. The recalls were then recorded against the time it took the participant to remember the words. In addition, the participants were asked to record their demographic data – which included their ages, gender and English language proficiency – before the experiment began.
Results
There was a 100% response rate since the 95 participants completed the tasks for both the low frequency and high-frequency word lists. 24.6% (16/65) of the participants were of the male gender while the remaining 75.2% (49/65) were of the female gender (see Table 1). The participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 34 years with the mean age being 19.49 years. 81.5% (53/65) of the participants are native English speakers while the remaining 18.5% (12/65) are non-native English speakers (see Table 2).
Table 1. Participant’s gender frequency table | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Male | 16 | 24.6 | 24.6 | 24.6 | Female | 79 | 75.2 | 75.2 | 100.0 | Total | 65 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |

Table 2. Participants’ English speaking proficiency table | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Non-native English speaker | 12 | 18.5 | 18.5 | 18.5 | Native English speaker | 53 | 81.5 | 81.5 | 100.0 | Total | 65 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |

A position and time-frequency table was then developed for the first 15 words in the list. The table was then subjected to statistical analysis that showed how the word position and its frequency affected the recall trends (see Appendix I). It statistical analysis results was presented in the time against serial position graph. The most significant aspect of the graph was its clear depiction of the primacy and recency effects. There is a clear decrease in the recall times towards the middle of the word list. All the words had similar recall time trends although more of the participants could recall the first and last words, with fewer of them able to recall the middle words (see Figure 1). Additionally, a graph of frequency averages shows that there was greater primacy effect in the high-frequency words with greater recency effect in the low-frequency words. The graph further reinforces the perception that the first and last words had more recall rates as opposed to the words in the middle of the list (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Graph of response times, frequency, and word position in the list for both low- (LF) and high-frequency (HF) words

Figure 2. Graph of averages for the recall frequency and word position in the list of both low- and high-frequency words
Discussion
All the respondents were between 17 and 34 years of age with the mean age reported at 19.49 years. The age results showed that the participants were of a mature age, with their cognitive processes fully functional. In addition, they young age was an indication that the participants were not affected by age-related cognitive declines typical of aging older adults. Females formed the larger percentage of respondents – at 75.2% – showing that the results were more applicable to a female population as opposed to a male population.
The results of the present study show that an individual’s memory was a factor of time. In fact, occurrences at the beginning and end were easier to recall as opposed to occurrences in between the beginning and end. The research participants showed a high propensity for recalling the first and last words, as opposed to the words found in the middle of lists. These results match those presented by Parkin (2014), and Rowen (2013) who claimed that primacy and recency effects were evidence of both short-term and long-term memory stores. As earlier indicated, the recency effect is a situation in which the last items are recalled first and best. It was true for the present results since the graph of average recalls for both low-and high-frequency words clearly shows that the last items had a greater number of recalls. The same is true for the primacy effect, which was defined as the ability to recall items at the beginning of the list. In this case, the words found at the beginning of the list had a high recall rate.
Contrastingly, there were no clear differences between the primacy and recency effects. It would have been expected that words found at the end of the list would have had a higher recall rate as opposed to words at the beginning of the list. The present results show that, on average, the words at the beginning of the list had equitable recall rates to the words at the end of the list. In essence, both the primacy and recency effects were equal. Interpreting the results shows both short- and long-term memories coming into effect. In this case, the first words are assumed to apply the long-term memory while the last words are assumed to apply the short-term memory. The low recall rates for the words in the middle of the list show the clear transition between the short- and long-term memories. At this point, individuals show low recall rates because they the words are being transitioned from the short-term memory stores to the long-term memory stores. The literature review had postulated that short-term memory had a trace duration of not more than 30 seconds. The present study’s results support this belief, showing that short-term memory is an applicable tenet. The same was true for the long-term memory. In this case, it was noted that the first words had recall rates matching those of the last words. The implication of the results is that individuals applied both short- and long-term stores in their memory processes.
With regards to the words frequency, the only notable difference in results was the recall for the first words where the high-frequency words had a higher recall rate that the low-frequency words. These results were attributed to the fact that high-frequency words were regularly used thereby easier to recall. In fact, the high-frequency words made use of long-term memory stores since they showed higher recall rates than the low-frequency words that were only occasionally used in every day activities. It acted as further evidence of the existence of distinctive short-term and long-term memory stores. The fact that there were non-native English speakers included in the study could discount the results. The assertion is based on the belief that native English speakers have a higher recall rate for English words than non-native English speakers. Still, the fact that the non-native English speakers accounted for 18.5% of the participants shows that such an effect would have been moderate at best.
Conclusion
One must accept that the position of an item affects its recall capabilities. In fact, the first and last items will be easier to recall as opposed to the middle positioned items. The phenomenon is also referred to as primacy and recency effects for the first and last items respectively. A large number of research studies on the same subject support the results, calling to mind the multistore models. Without a doubt, it may be that short- and long-term memory effects can model the behaviour to match the multistore models. It is for this reason that researches – such as those carried out by Pakin (2014), Rowen (2013) and so on – have attempted to correlate recall rates with the flow of information. The information is understood to flow from the short-term memory to the long-term memory. These researches revealed that the probability of recall was a function of when the item was presented, as either the first or last items. These recall structures are dubbed the primacy and recency effects. Presenting evidence on the two effect is a subject of substantial debate. Ultimately, understanding the flow of information and memory will require a comparable appreciation of how much individuals can recall, in addition to the effects of their demographics on the recall rates. At the core of this comparable appreciation is the awareness that multistore models are yet to be unequivocally proven as either true or false. Otherwise, the results of the present research show that memory management makes use of both short- and long-term memory.

References Brain, C. (2000). Advanced Subsidiary Psychology: Approaches and methods. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Cardwell, M. & Flanagan, C. (2003). Psychology AS: The complete companion. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Groome, D. (2013). An Introduction to Cognitive Psychology: Processes and disorders. New York: Psychology Press. Ornstein, P. (2014). Memory Development in Children (PLE: Memory). New York: Psychology Press. Parkin, A. (2014). Essential Cognitive Psychology. New York: Psychology Press. Puri, B. & Treasaden, I. (2009). Psychiatry: An evidence-based text. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. Rowem H. (2013). Intelligence: Reconceptualization and measurement. New York: Psychology Press. Upton, D. (2013). Introducing Psychology for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals. London: Routledge.

Appendix I
Response rate table to show response times, frequency, and word position in the list of both low- and high-frequency words | Low Frequency | High Frequency | Position of word in the list | 0s | 30s | More than 30s | Average | 0s | 30s | More than 30s | Average | 1 | 27 | 27 | 23 | 25.66666667 | 38 | 34 | 33 | 35 | 2 | 25 | 22 | 20 | 22.33333333 | 27 | 29 | 27 | 27.66666667 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 14 | 18.66666667 | 23 | 18 | 27 | 22.66666667 | 4 | 13 | 18 | 16 | 15.66666667 | 20 | 16 | 13 | 16.33333333 | 5 | 11 | 11 | 14 | 12 | 18 | 14 | 13 | 15 | 6 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 13.33333333 | 13 | 9 | 13 | 11.66666667 | 7 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 10.33333333 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 12.33333333 | 8 | 16 | 13 | 11 | 13.33333333 | 9 | 7 | 14 | 10 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 12.33333333 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 18 | 13 | 15.66666667 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 12 | 25 | 14 | 14 | 17.66666667 | 20 | 20 | 11 | 17 | 13 | 25 | 18 | 14 | 19 | 23 | 22 | 13 | 19.33333333 | 14 | 29 | 27 | 18 | 24.66666667 | 33 | 25 | 18 | 25.33333333 | 15 | 43 | 27 | 23 | 31 | 38 | 27 | 16 | 27 |