ABSTRACT
The recency effect in free recall is widely held to reflect output from a short-term storage system. Three groups of experiments are described which cast doubt on this interpretation. The first group shows marked recency effects under incidental learning conditions, a result that is inconsistent with both a rehearsal buffer and a recoding interpretation. The second group of experiments shows that recency is unaffected by both articulatory suppression and by a concurrent short-term memory load of up to six digits. This suggests that recency does not depend on a limited capacity short-term memory store. The third group of experiments show marked recency in the long-term recall of anagram solutions (with a delay of several minutes) and of rugby football games (with a delay of several weeks). It is suggested: (1) Although a short-term working memory exists, it is not responsible for the recency effect. (2) The recency effect probably represents a retrieval strategy based on ordinal cues. (3) Such a strategy may be applied within a memory store, or to a clearly defined subset of items within a store. (4) It may be an important factor in keeping track of events and avoiding disorientation.
