scholarly journals Intralist similarity and facilitation of paired-associate learning by fixed order presentation

1966 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 141-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Jay Samuels ◽  
Wendell E. Jeffrey
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Intralist Similarity ◽  
Fixed Order

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.

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).

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.

The Supposed Effect of Interactive Imagery in Paired Associate Learning

1996 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 888-900
Author(s):  
Richard N. Wilton ◽  
Patricia Mathieson
Keyword(s):  
Paired Associate ◽  
Paired Associate Learning ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
The Other ◽  
Associate Learning ◽  
Interactive Imagery ◽  
Intralist Similarity ◽  
Group Recall

Previous experiments designed to investigate the effects of interactive imagery in paired associate learning have included the confounded variable of intralist similarity: Images of objects interacting have corresponded to pairs with different connectives, and images of independent objects have corresponded to pairs with the same connective (the conjunction “and”). For the “different” group of our first experiment, the members of the different pairs were linked by different connectives, most of which denoted an action. For the “same” group, the members were linked by the same connective, usually one denoting an action. For the “and” group, the members were linked by the connective “and”. Cued recall by the “different” group was superior to that of the other two groups. Recall by the “same” and “and” groups did not differ. Within the “different” group, recall of “and” pairs did not differ from the recall of “action” pairs with which they had been mixed. In a second experiment, subjects were required to match the members of a pair. Analogous results were obtained. Overall, the findings imply that recall effects that have previously been interpreted as being a result of interactive imagery may be the result merely of variations in intralist similarity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document