Cited by 28Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Encoding processes and the spacing effect

Open access
Bellezza, Francis S., Winkler, Henry B., Andrasik, Frank·1975·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

The differential encoding theory of the spacing effect was tested utilizing Martin's (1968) encoding variability notion, in which it is hypothesized that low-meaningfulness items are more variable in their encodings than are high-meaningfulness items. In a series of three experiments using a continuous paired associate learning task, it was predicted that the spacing vs. performance curves for CCC items would show a faster improvement in performance than would the curves for high-meaningfulness CVC items. None of the experiments supported this prediction. In addition, it was found that items recognized on their second presentation were more likely to be recalled than were those items not recognized. It was concluded that an item's repetitions are more effective if one code is formed and elaborated with each repetition rather than if more than one code is formed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03212940

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Encoding variability theory appears to encounter substantial problems when accounting for certain other findings.

    “Encoding variability theory appears to encounter substantial problems when accounting for certain other findings (e.g., Bellezza, Winkler, & Andrasik, 1975; Dempster, 1987b).”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bellezza, Winkler, & Andrasik, 1975

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bellezza, F. S., Winkler, H. B., & Andrasik, F.
Affiliations
Ohio University (US)
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
1975-07
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
451-457
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2042148067
Cited by
28
References
28
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
spacing effect, encoding variability, paired-associate learning, memory retrieval, elaborative encoding

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review