Test-expectancy and semantic-organization effects in recall and recognition

Two experiments examined whether people expecting recall are, compared with people expecting recognition, more likely to form associations between semantically related words in a list of to-be-remembered words. People were induced to expect either a recall or a recognition test on a critical list that included three conditions of semantic organization. Words in the unrelated (U) condition were semantically unrelated to all other words on the list, whereas words in the two related conditions were semantically related to one other list word. In the relatedspaced (R-S) condition, the two related words appeared in input positions separated by 5-11 other items, whereas in the related-massed (R-M) condition, they appeared in adjacent input positions. Different groups received either an expected or unexpected recall (Experiment 1)or recognition (Experiment 2) test on the critical list. In both recall and recognition, (1) people expecting recall did better than those expecting recognition, (2) memory was worst for U words, next best for R-S words, and best for R-M words, and (3) the test-expectancy and semantic-organization effects were additive. A standardized (z-score] measure of category dependency in memory indicated that (1) people expecting recall were not more likely than those expecting recognition to form interitem associations between the related words and (2) recognition was category dependent, but less so than recall. Within the framework of Anderson and Bower's (1972, 1974) theory, these data indicate that, compared with people expecting recognition, those expecting recall are not more likely to form interitem associations by tagging more pathways connecting semantically related nodes but, rather, are more likely to tag the nodes themselves. The implications that semantic-organization effects in recognition have for the Anderson-Bower theory were also discussed.