Loading...
The recency effect is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency of individuals to better remember the most recently presented items or experiences. This bias is commonly observed when recalling items from a list or events that have just occurred, demonstrating that the most recent information tends to be more impactful on memory recall compared to earlier information.
The recency effect is explained by the proximity of the recent information to short-term memory. When people are exposed to a series of items or events, those that are presented last are still fresh in their short-term memory. As a result, these items are more easily recalled than those presented earlier, which have had more time to decay or be displaced from short-term memory.
The recency effect can lead to biased decision-making or judgments, as individuals may place undue emphasis on recent information rather than considering all available data equally. This can influence memory-based tasks, such as witness testimonies, marketing, and learning environments, potentially leading to skewed outcomes.
Techniques to mitigate the recency effect include ensuring balanced repetition of information, encouraging distributed practice over time, and providing adequate review of earlier presented items or concepts. By doing so, individuals can enhance the retention of all items, not just the most recent ones.
While the recency effect is a well-documented phenomenon, some critiques argue that it may not be as universally applicable across different contexts and may vary significantly depending on individual differences, such as cognitive load, attention, and the nature of the information presented. Additionally, the strength of the recency effect can be influenced by factors such as the presence of interference or task switching.
The serial position effect of free recall
Murdock, B. B. (1962)
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 482
Recency-sensitive retrieval processes in long-term free recall
Bjork, R. A., & Whitten, W. B. (1974)
Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 173-189