Age differences in retention as a function of learning.

Hulicka, Irene M.; Weiss, Robert

doi:10.1037/h0021793

Cited by 70 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike previous findings (e.g., Botwinick & Storandt, 1974;Craik, 1971;Erber, 1974;Gordon & Clark, 1974) Craik, 1975;Horn, 1975;Kausler, 1970 Canestrari, 1968;Craik, 1975;Denney, 1974;Eysenck, 1974;Horn, 1975;Hulicka & Grossman, 1967;Hulicka & Weiss, 1965;Hultsch, 1969, indicated, however, Canestrari, 1968;Eysenck, 1974;Hulicka & Grossman, 1967;Hultsch, 1969Hultsch, , 1971 Eysenck, 1974;Hultsch, 1969Hultsch, , 1971 …”

Section: Memory Problemscontrasting

confidence: 54%

What is memory aging the aging of?

Perlmutter¹

1978

Developmental Psychology

287

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Memory Problemscontrasting

confidence: 54%

What is memory aging the aging of?

Perlmutter¹

1978

Developmental Psychology

287

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most researchers report no age difference (Fajnsztejn-Pollack, 1973;Hulicka & Weiss, 1965;Morrison, Haith, & Kagan, 1980;Rubin, Wetzler, & Nebes, 1986;Wickelgren, 1975a) or at most small differences (Giambra & Arenberg, 1993). The major effort to counter to this general finding comes from Brainerd et al (1990).…”

Section: Is There One Retention Function For All Conditions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

One hundred years of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention.

Rubin¹,

Wenzel²

1996

Psychological Review

684

638

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sample of 210 published data sets were assembled that (a) plotted amount remembered versus time, (b) had 5 or more points, and (cj were smooth enough to fit at least 1 of the functions tested with a correlation coefficient of .90 or greater. Each was fit to 105 different 2-parameter functions. The best fits were to the logarithmic function, the power function, the exponential in the square root of time, and the hyperbola in the square root of time. It is difficult to distinguish among these 4 functions with the available data, but the same set of 4 functions fit most data sets, with autobiographical memory being the exception. Theoretical motivations for the best fitting functions are offered. The methodological problems of evaluating functions and the advantages of searching existing data for regularities before formulating theories are considered.At the simplest level, this article is a search for regularities. We ask whether there is one retention function that can describe all of memory, or perhaps a different function for each of a small number of different kinds of memory. At a more abstract level, it is about the role of theory and data in psychological research. Can we most rapidly advance psychology as a science by developing theories at the level that commonly fills psychological journals such as this one, or should we first try to describe phenomena that could constrain theories by establishing robust, preferably quantitative, regularities (Rubin, 1985(Rubin, , 1989(Rubin, , 1995? A balance between these alternatives is needed, and here we argue that to obtain such a balance more description is needed.Retention offers the ideal topic to make this abstract, philoDavid C. Rubin, Department of Experimental Psychology, Duke University; Amy E. Wenzel, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa.We thank John Anderson, Alan Boneau, John Cerella, Herb Crovitz, Sean Hinton, Armando Machado, Bennet Murdock, Matt Serra, Harold Schiffman, John Staddon, Wayne Wickelgren, and John Wixted for their suggestions; Richard Palmer for information about the exponential-power function and its history and use in physics; Michael Reed for mathematical advice and help with derivations; Robert Terry for statistical advice; and Jenny Zervakis for help

show abstract

“…Wanneer men de logaritmen van deze twee vanabelen neemt, is het verband ertussen lineair (Crovitz & Schiffmann, 1974;Rubin, 1982;Rubin, Wetzler & Nebes, 1986): hoe langer geleden de periode is waarover men bevraagd wordt, hoe minder herinneringen op tafel worden gebracht. De retentiefunctie blijkt vrijwel onafhankelijk van de leeftijd van de proefpersoon te zijn (Huhcka, 1967;Hulicka & Weiss, 1965;Rubin et al, 1986;Wickelgren, 1975). Twee perioden houden zich echter niet aan de functie: over de periode van 10 tot 20 jaar kunnen mensen van ouder dan 35 jaar zich relatief veel hennneren, en over de periode onder de 5 jaar kan niemand zich zoveel herinneren als op grond van de retentiefunctie te verwachten valt (Wetzler & Sweeney, 1986).…”

Section: Meten Van Autobiografisch Geheugenunclassified

Het GehechtheidsBiografisch Interview

IJzendoorn

Bakermans‐Kranenburg

2011

PSYCHOPRAKTIJK

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age differences in retention as a function of learning.

Cited by 70 publications

References 9 publications

What is memory aging the aging of?

What is memory aging the aging of?

One hundred years of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention.

Het GehechtheidsBiografisch Interview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About