Inter-Item Associative Strength and Proactive Inhibition in Paired-Associate Learning

1970 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 933-934
Author(s):  
John A. Mills ◽  
Gordon Winocur
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Design ◽  
Retention Interval ◽  
Associative Strength ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Proactive Inhibition ◽  
Response Term ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Function Words ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Prior List

The experimental design was 2 × 2 factorial, with 2 levels of prior list (one or none), 2 of response term inter-item associative strength (high or low), and a 15-min. retention interval. The expectation was that high inter-item associative strength would reduce proactive inhibition. The hypothesis failed; the proportion of function words per list had no effect on recall.

Effects of Type of Recall Test and Spaced Presentations of Stimulus Terms, Response Terms and Stimulus-Response Terms on Retention in Paired-Associate Learning

1973 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 307-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward W. C. McAllister
Keyword(s):  
Retention Test ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Response Term ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Stimulus Term ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Reinforcement Interval ◽  
Delay Of Reinforcement ◽  
Term Response

The present experiment tested the effects of reinforcement type (stimulus term, response term, and stimulus-response pairs) and type of recall-retention test (stimulus type or response type) as between- S variables and delay-of-reinforcement interval as a within- S variable on retention in paired-associate learning. The analysis showed that type of reinforcement and delay-of-reinforcement interval resulted in significant effects. Type of recall-retention test was not significant and interactions were nonsignificant.

Associative Asymmetry in S-R vs R-S Recall of Double-Function Lists

1965 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 287-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Battig ◽  
R. J. Koppenaal
Keyword(s):  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Response Term ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Associative Symmetry ◽  
Formal Identity ◽  
Double Function ◽  
Major Shortcoming

Contrary to the Asch-Ebenholtz principle of associative symmetry, significantly poorer backward (R–S) than forward (S–R) recall was demonstrated following the learning of double-function paired-associate lists, wherein each item appears once as a stimulus and again as a response term but is paired with two different other terms. Since equal availability of stimulus and response terms is guaranteed by the formal identity of the two sets within these double-function lists, thereby eliminating a major shortcoming of previous attempts to test the Asch-Ebenholtz thesis that S–R and R–S associations within each pair are necessarily equivalent in strength, the present results offer strong evidence against the validity of the principle of associative symmetry as applied to paired-associate learning.

Mixed- versus Unmixed-List Designs in Paired-Associate Learning

1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1191-1200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chizuko Izawa
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Factorial Experimental Design ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Unmixed List ◽  
Fluctuation Model

Investigations of a new experimental variable from the arrangements of reinforcements (R) and tests (T) in paired-associate learning were furthered by a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experimental design: 64 college students learned two lists of 12 pairs, one with unmixed list (Exp. I) and the other with mixed list (Exp. II). Four repetitive experimental sequences in each experiment were RTRT …, RRTRRT. … RTTRTT …, and RRTTRRTT. … No significant differences were found between mixed- and unmixed-list designs for any given statistic examined. The findings indicate that individual pairs in a given condition were learned relatively independently of those in the other conditions within a list. The present results were close replications of the previous study by Izawa (1966a) and support the stimulus fluctuation model.

Extra-List Errors in Paired Associate Learning by Retarded and Normal Children

1970 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 467-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford J. Drew ◽  
Don R. Logan
Keyword(s):  
Associative Strength ◽  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Associate Learning

This study compared the proportions of extra-list intrusions in errors by retarded and normal Ss on a paired-associate task. Associative strength of the paired items was varied. Results indicated that retardates imported a significantly greater proportion of responses than normals under both levels of associative strength. Ss did not import differential proportions of responses as a function of associative strength.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document