Anagram solving as influenced by solution word frequency, anagram transition probability, and subject’s vocabulary level

Abstract

A total of 128 female undergraduates served as volunteer subjects in an anagram problem solving experiment. The variables manipulated were Thorndike-Lorge frequency of the solution words (common, uncommon), anagram transition probability (low, high), and subject's vocabulary level (low, high). AU combinations of these variables yielded a total of eight independent groups (each n=16). The main findings were: (1) anagram transition probability is effective when anagrams are based on Thorndike-Lorge common , but not uncommon, words; and (2) the vocabulary size effect (i.e., the finding that high-vocabulary subjects tend to solve more anagrams than low-vocabulary subjects) appears to be due strictly to the number of words stored in memory and not to any retrieval efficiency differences among these subjects.By and large, psychologists have used the anagram task to examine three aspects of beh avior. These have been the study of: (I) cognitive processes in general , (2) the effect language stru cture variables particularly exert on problem solving performance, and (3) the role(s) played by various individual difference factors in problem solving. In the research to be reported , aspects of the latter two categories were explored.It has been proposed th at " fundamentally the solution of anagrams is a retrieval problem , i.e., the subject's task is to retrieve a word which is already in memory" (Mendelsohn , 1976 , p. 641). Such a statement seems to imply that retri eval-from-storage efficiency is uniform across people , and it would also lead to the prediction that differences in anagram solution performance would be positively related to manifest vocabulary size. The latter has, in fact , been found to be the case (Mendelsohn & Covington , 1972 ;Mendelsohn , Griswold , & Anderson , 1966). However, it seems that another possibility should be considered: Could it not be the case that people having manifestly different vocabulary levels differ not in number of words stored but , rather, in retrieval efficiency? That is, it seems possible to imagine two people who have "stored" the same number of words in memory but obtain different vocabulary test scores due to differences in their retrieval skills. Such a situation would not only lead to differences in vocabulary scores but would affect anagram solution performance , as well, and in the direction mentioned just above. The main purpose of this research was to try to determineThe author wishes to thank Janet Barton and Suzanne Duperock for their assistance in data collection and analysis. Request s for reprints should be sent to : Roy B. Weinstock , Department of Psychology, Mary Washington College, Frederi cksburg, Virginia 22401.whether people differing in anagram solution performance do so because of word storage differences or because of differences in retri eval efficiency. Accordingly , subjects differing in vocabulary test scores were given anagrams whose solutions were words of either low or high frequency , as reported by Thorndike and Lorge (T-L) (I 944). If di...

Anagram solution as related to adult age, anagram difficulty, and experience in solving crossword puzzles

“…The second finding replicates results previously obtained in studies using only younger adults (Hunter, 1961;Weinstock, 1979). What is less clear is the nature of the relationship between age and anagram solution.…”

“…Research with younger adults indicates that how much individuals enjoy doing crossword puzzles (Weinstock, 1979) and how frequently they do them (Hunter, 1961) is positively related to anagram performance. Perhaps one's ability to solve anagrams does generally decline with increasing age, but those older adults who routinely practice the component processes involved in anagram solution, via lifestyle activities such as solving crossword puzzles, stay somewhat immune, at least within this particular domain, through a process such as encapsulation (Rybash, Hoyer, & Roodin, 1986).…”