According to the Ekstrand, Wallace, & Underwood (1966) theory of verbal discrimination learning, the cue for discrimination is the su bjective difference in the frequency of occurrence between the correct and incorrect members of each verbal discrimination pair. Concerning presentation rates and verbal discrimination learning, they offered the following predictions: "The theory makes a rather unusual prediction with regards to the effects of anticipation time. A large increase in anticipation time, with study time held constant, should have no effect on VD [verbal discrimination] performance, or perhaps even an inhibitory effect .... On the other hand, if study time after reinforcement is increased, the theory predicts better performance ... [Ekstrand et al, 1966, p. 576] ." confounded with ehanges in rate from the ftrst to the second task. Both studies, eontrary to the prediction from frequency theory, found better learning with the longer anticipation time. Wike (1970), who held study time constant, found no signiftcant effect of anticipation time although there were fewer errors with a longer interval.The present two studies were parametric studies on rate of presentation and verbal discrimination learning. Both Experiment I and Experiment 2 were 4 by 4 faetorial designs in which 1-, 2-, 4-, and 8-sec anticipation times were crossed with 1-, 2-, 4-, and 8-sec study times. Aecording to frequency theory, performance should improve as study time increases but remain the same or worsen as anticipation time inereases.EXPERIMENT I Method There were 100 Ss. Four Ss werelost in the experiment, two because of E error, one due to apparatus faiIure, and one because he misunderstood the instructions. Thus, 96 Ss, 32 males and 64 females, completed the experiment. The Ss were undergraduate volunteers from the introductory psychology course at the University of Kansas. The Ss were assigned randornly and equally to the 16 conditions described below.The apparatus consisted of a Sawyer Rotomatie slide projector, Model 700, which was prograrnmed by three timers. The timers were activated by apower supply. The presentation rates were 1-, 2-, 4-, and 8-sec anticipation times combined with 1-, 2-, 4-, and 8-sec study tim es.The material eonsisted of 34 high-meaningful CVCs, with arated meaningfulness of 4.08 to 4.78 (Noble, 1961). Two items were used in the instructions; the remaining 32 words were randornly combined into 16 pairs. The 16 pairs were administered in three randornly deterrnined interpair orders. In the ftrst and third presentation order the intrapair order (right-Ieft) differed from the second order. In each interpair order an equal number of correet items were on the right and left.There were 100 slides in the cireular projeetor drum. The three interpair orders of the 16 pairs and their respective feedback items accounted for 96 slides. There were two blank slides before the ftrst interpair order of the list and two blank slides between the ftrst and second interpair order.The instructions were standard verbal di...
