# Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)

In a second experiment, Glanzer & Cunitz used the same method: PPs were presented with words at the rate of one per second. However, before being asked to recall the words, PPs were given an interference task. They were asked to spend 30 seconds counting backwards in threes from 100. This is a task that requires the use of STM.

Based on what you know about their first set of results, use the mouse to rearrange the points on the graph to indicate what results this new experiment should have produced. When you are happy, press 'finish' to see if you are right. If you are finding this task difficult, you can get a hint by clicking the button.

As you have worked out, the interference task made a high demand on the PPs' STM. As a result of doing the interference task, the recency effect disappeared, although the primacy effect was not affected. This adds weight to the view that recency effects are due to STM, and that therefore recency measures are a good measure of STM capacity.

This experiment shows that the recency effect is definitely related to STM capacity.

Making the PPs count backwards in threes would have required them to use their STM. This would have had the effect of clearing out the words that were stored there, causing the recency effect to disappear. Therefore, the graph would show no recency effect.