Response-Set Size and Paired-Associate Learning

4 groups of 15 students each learned a single unmixed list of 13 pairs for five anticipation trials followed by a free-recall test. The lists contained pairs of nonsense syllables that rhymed, changed middle letter, reversed the letter order, or were unrelated. All lists involving rules were superior to the list of unrelated pairs. In order of increasing effectiveness the rules were rhyming, middle-letter change, letter reversal. Performance was inversely related to response-set size. The more restrictive rules resulted in increased free recall of the pairs. Results supported the hypothesis that rules are beneficial to the extent that they reduce response-set size.

Role of Rules in Paired-Associate Learning

14 students in each of four groups learned a single unmixed list of 19 CVC pairs for 12 anticipation trials followed by a free recall of the pairs. In three of the four lists a single rule applied to all of the pairs. The rule was that the words in each pair changed first letter (rhymed), changed middle letter, or changed last letter. A fourth list contained only pairs of unrelated words. Mean number of correct anticipations per trial showed rhyming and end-change rules to be equally beneficial, although not as effective as the middle-change rule. Free recall of the pairs showed no differences among lists. Results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that rules facilitate retrieval by restricting the number of responses to be considered for each stimulus.

Systematic Strategies and Transfer Effects with Mixed- and Unmixed-List Designs

The present study investigated performance on AB-AB' and AB-ABr paradigm items under mixed list (ML) and unmixed list (UL) conditions. In ML 2 different subsets of second-list items each represented a different type of paradigm, while in UL second-list pairs were homogeneous with respect to type of paradigm. 4 groups of 24 Ss each learned 2 lists of 2-syllable adjectives. First-list items were arranged so as to provide AB-AB' UL, AB-ABr UL and 2 ML conditions. Number of correct responses and trials to criterion measures showed markedly superior performance on AB-ABr items under ML. Early training performance was significantly better for AB-AB' pairs under UL than under ML. The results were viewed as inconsistent with predictions based on a priori assumptions concerning the use of cognitive mediational strategies in transfer tasks. The possible influence of intralist associative factors in ML vs UL transfer effects was discussed.

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

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.

Effects of Non-Anticipation and Anticipation Procedures upon Paired-Associate Learning in Unmixed and Mixed List Designs

Two experiments compared verbal PA learning by the standard anticipation technique with learning by a non-anticipation method in which immediate confirmation O- correct responding was eliminated. Most previous investigations have found that learning by the latter procedure is superior to learning by the usual anticipation method. In Exp. I, which employed an unmixed list design, no differences in learning were obtained between the two methods at either of two levels of list difficulty. However, Exp. II, using the same materials in a mixed list design, showed superior learning of items presented by the non-anticipation method regardless of the difficulty of the list. The conflicting results of the two experiments suggest that evidence for superior verbal PA learning by the non-anticipation method may depend, at least in part, upon the list design employed.