Constant versus varied serial order in paired-associate learning: The effect of formal intralist similarity.

1967 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene D. Rubin ◽  
Sam C. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Serial Order ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Intralist Similarity ◽  
Constant Versus

Study-Test and Anticipation Methods in Paired-Associate Learning of Similar and Non-Similar Lists

1965 ◽  
Vol 16 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1237-1241 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. W. Behring ◽  
Donna J. Zaffy
Keyword(s):  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Intralist Similarity ◽  
Study Test

The purposes of the present study were to compare the study-test and anticipation procedures and to investigate the effect of high intralist similarity upon learning by each method. Forty Ss, 24 females and 16 males, learned one list by each method. The results indicate that the study-test method leads to better performance, as measured by number of trials to criterion. The detrimental effect of high intralist similarity was significant only for the study-test method. This finding is contrary to the results reported by other investigators.

Stimulus functions for constant serial order in paired-associate learning

1971 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 556-561
Author(s):  
Jeral R. Williams ◽  
James V. Hinrichs ◽  
Catherine Henigbaum
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Serial Order ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning

Effect of Ego-Involvement Instructions and Intralist Similarity on Stimulus Generalization Errors in Paired-Associate Learning

1972 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva D. Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Verbal Learning ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Learning Performance ◽  
Stimulus Generalization ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Paired Associates ◽  
Intralist Similarity ◽  
Ego Involvement ◽  
Generalization Errors

To assess the effect of motivation and list characteristics on verbal learning performance, 60 Ss in a 3 × 2 factorial design learned paired associates consisting of CVC as stimuli and digits as responses, in lists of high or low formal intralist similarity and under high, low, or control Ego-involvement (E-I) conditions. No significant differences in errors were found as a function of ego involvement. The increase of errors with high formal intralist similarity was specific to the effect of stimulus generalization and did not represent an over-all increase in list difficulty: no significant differences were found between lists for non-generalization errors but significant list differences were found for stimulus-generalization intrusions ( p < .01).

Constant vs Varied Serial Order in Paired-Associate Learning

1963 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Battig ◽  
Sam C. Brown ◽  
Douglas Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Serial Position ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Serial Order ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Order Conditions ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Stages Of Learning ◽  
Relevant Factors

Typical varied serial-order conditions of paired-associate (PA) learning were compared with a constant serial order on all trials in 5 experiments involving systematic variations in method, kind of material, and other potentially relevant factors. The results showed a small but relatively consistent facilitation by constant serial order limited primarily to later stages of learning. Since a shift following the first correct response to each pair from constant to varied serial order produced as much facilitation as did completely constant-order conditions, it was concluded that complex associations involving serial position are developed during early stages of constant-order PA learning, but that these exercise a facilitating influence primarily through the reduction of inter-pair interference late in learning.

Subprocesses of, and Rated Similarity in, Paired-Associate Learning

1973 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 559-567
Author(s):  
Roy B. Weinstock ◽  
Stuart M. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Ratio Scale ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Formal Similarity ◽  
Associative Interference ◽  
Minimal Support ◽  
Intralist Similarity ◽  
Scale Measure ◽  
Definition Of

Examination was made of a proposal by Underwood, Ekstrand, and Keppel (1965) concerning the effects of the various subprocesses that are assumed jointly to determine paired-associate learning. Runquist's (1968a, 1968b, 1969) recently presented distinction between formal and rated similarity was evaluated. Only minimal support was found for the Underwood, et al. predictions which involve the paired-associate learning subprocesses of response-learning and associative interference where formal similarity is concerned. Further, the use of rated similarity as a ratio-scale measure on intralist similarity appears to furnish a definition of formal similarity which is more rigorous than the manner by which it has been traditionally ordinally scaled.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document