Within-pair factors might explain the inconsistent effects of animacy on paired-associates recall.

The tendency for people to have better memory for animate (living) concepts than inanimate (nonliving) concepts in memory tasks involving free recall and recognition suggests that animacy status can be an important predictor of memory. To date, however, the effect of animacy on paired-associates recall has been mixed: Some studies have found an animacy advantage, some have found an animacy disadvantage, and some have found no difference by animacy. We tested the hypothesis that the within-pair relationship of the two words in a pair matters more for cued recall than animacy itself. In two experiments, college students studied animate and inanimate English word pairs for a cued-recall test. We varied whether the pairs involved two typical exemplars from the same category (e.g., SALMON–TROUT; FORK–SPOON), one typical and one atypical exemplar from the same category (e.g., DOCTOR–SCIENTIST; HOUSE–IGLOO), or two unrelated words from different categories (e.g., SERGEANT–COBRA; MAGAZINE–PLIERS). Respectively, these pair types produced an animacy disadvantage, an animacy advantage, and no difference by animacy in both experiments. We then examined several measures of within-pair similarity for the items. All were positively associated with paired-associates recall, but animacy had no effect on cued recall above and beyond the relationship of these measures to recall. These results suggest that the within-pair relationship matters more for cued recall than does animacy. Uneven variation in within-pair relationships for animate versus inanimate pairs—rather than animacy itself—might therefore produce the apparently inconsistent effects of animacy on paired-associates recall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]