Scanning is exhaustive rather than self-terminating

What it is

Standard memory-scanning results support exhaustive memory scanning: even when a probe is present, processing typically covers the whole memory set rather than stopping at the first match. This is an inference from the relation of positive and negative responses to set size.

Why it happens

With self-terminating search, present probes would on average scan only part of a set, yielding a much shallower positive slope than a negative slope. Similar observed slopes imply that a match does not instantly end comparison; a decision may follow comparison of the full set. It does not mean people consciously read items one by one.

Studying it

Vary set size and fit positive and negative slopes separately, randomising probe position so serial location is not predictable. Compare material and retention time to test stability, and report accuracy because speed–accuracy trade-offs can make slopes appear similar.

Where it stops holding

Exhaustiveness is an account of average behaviour in a particular paradigm, not a universal retrieval rule. Familiar patterns, semantic cues, and long-term knowledge can support direct retrieval; visual search can use other strategies. “Exhaustive” does not imply conscious slowness or inefficiency.

Related

• Same group: B1.06.1 Judging membership in a memory set takes longer linearly as the set grows · B1.06.3 The finding concerns memory judgment, not visual search · B1.06.4 Reaction time rises by tens of milliseconds per remembered item · B1.06.5 Similar slopes for yes and no responses indicate exhaustive scanning · B1.06.6 The result concerns small short-term sets, not long-term retrieval · B1.06.7 Using the law to set an interface-option limit is a cross-paradigm error
• Nearby: B1.04 Hick-Hyman law · B1.07 Power law of practice
• Search terms: exhaustive memory scanning · self-terminating search · Sternberg paradigm