J.— PSYCHOLOGY i8i 



shape on immediate recall has only a moderate score on delayed recall. 

 The shape which is one of the second best in immediate recall is first 

 in delayed recall and on joint score. The worst shape in immediate 

 recall is lost altogether in delayed recall. The second worst receives a 

 low score. These constitute the two worst on joint score. 



Analysing for colour and form, one finds that colour and form are both 

 contributory to the high score of the best shapes in immediate and 

 delayed recall, and to the second best in delayed and joint recall. The 

 low scores in immediate and in joint recall are due more to form than to 

 colour. 



Coming to the qualitative consideration of the actual recalls, one may 

 take the two sets separately. 



Set X. 



A study of the reproductions shows very clearly the influence of ' know- 

 ledge about.' In Set X no one ever reproduced anything but an object 

 of the appropriate class — a lamp, a slipper. I attribute the low scores of 

 the teapot V and candlestick IV to their commonplace character ; they are 

 reproduced just as a teapot and a candlestick, and the particularising 

 features are lost. As one subject writes, ' The teapot was, I think, ordinary 

 shape.' The best recalled slipper V and book V have distinctive 

 characteristics, although each is a familiar example of its class. 



Knowledge that the object is so and so is frequent even when the re- 

 production is wrong in form, colour, or orientation, or all three. There 

 may be knowledge that the slipper was a mule, that the lamp was angular, 

 that the book was lying down, without ability to recall the particular 

 object with its sensory features. There may be an imaged object, but 

 the image is not a recreation of the original pattern. 



As an illustration of reasoning out a memory recall based on ' know- 

 ledge about,' the following is worth quoting in full. It relates to lamp II. 



' I find very great difficulty in seeing or drawing this. I remember 

 that it consisted of two balanced arrangements of planes. There 

 was a triangular shape in both large masses, but how the other lines 

 fitted on to this I can't tell. The above was written after my first 

 attempt to draw. When I returned to this I saw it wouldn't do, 

 because I couldn't get depth in. So I started again, building up 

 the two blocks (one small, one large, in each) as I thought they must 

 go if there was to be depth. I was pleased when I saw this gave me 

 a triangle on top because I feel sure there was one. But now that 

 I look at it, I don't think it was this shape. It was more like the 

 shape of my original wrong start. Also I now don't feel certain 

 whether the smaller blocks were on top of the bigger blocks or rice 

 versa. I'll colour in what I have drawn and see if it helps me to see 

 whether it looks like the original. Done. It looks very unlike it. 

 I shall put the outlines in, in pencil. Done. This makes it a bit 

 better, but I've got it too symmetrical. The bottom was less large 

 than the top, and the whole didn't seem to go in such a straight line. 

 I think there were other surfaces bounded by lines, but I can't see 



