Effect of number of variable dimensions on reversal and nonreversal shifts.

Saravo, Anne

doi:10.1037/h0024781

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Performance on the reversal oddity paradigm was, in fact, retarded by experience with previous problems, a finding similar to those obtained by Gollin (1964) and Saravo and Kolodny (1969). This finding, together with the strong cross-problem interference effects that occurred, supports the hypothesis that younger children have difficulty inhibiting a previously learned response (Gollin & Saravo, in press;Saravo, 1967) and that, at least up to a certain point, practice increases their difficulty. This does not rule out the possibility that under prolonged and extensive training conditions such as those employed by House and Zeaman (1963) these effects would be overcome.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Age Differencessupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Evidence from several sources indicates that the ability to inhibit a previously learned response appears to be related to developmental status (Denny, 1964;Saravo, 1967;Saravo & Kolodny, 1969;Voronin, 1962). A recent study (Saravo & Gollin, 1969) has indicated that these cue perseveration tendencies may be involved substantially in the difficulty of the oddity problem for young children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transfer effects in children's oddity learning.

Saravo¹,

Bagby²,

Haskins³

1970

Developmental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the relative roles of positive and negative cue retention on oddity transfer, and the extent to which these roles change with age and practice, 144 3-7-year-old children learned six oddity-discrimination problems followed by either a random reversal or a minimally interferent oddity test. Performance on the oddity-discrimination problems indicated reliance on negative cues for the younger subjects and stronger positive cue retention for the older subjects, in the first task. By the end of training, negative cue effects appeared dominant. Transfer to tasks that were two or more steps removed from the original occurred only for 3-year-olds; interproblem improvement occurred only in the 4Vi-7-year subjects. Performance on the two oddity test procedures supported previous findings that reversal components in the oddity problem are disruptive. This effect was confined to the younger (S-SVi) children.

show abstract

Section: Interpretation Of Age Differencessupporting

confidence: 80%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer effects in children's oddity learning.

Saravo¹,

Bagby²,

Haskins³

1970

Developmental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Learning set and shift behavior in children

Saravo

Kolodny

1969

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shift behavior in naive and sophisticated children

Saravo

Gollin

1968

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirty-three 3%-to 5%-year-old children learned a conditional discrimination problem involving both reversal (RS) and nonreversal (NRS) paradigms. The performance of children who had learned a reversal problem four months previously was superior to that of the naive children. Although many Es use sophisticated Ss, either by design or of necessity, very little information exists on the possible interactive effects of task variables and the prior experience of human subjects. Typically, in studies with animals (e.g.

show abstract

Effect of number of variable dimensions on reversal and nonreversal shifts.

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Transfer effects in children's oddity learning.

Transfer effects in children's oddity learning.

Learning set and shift behavior in children

Shift behavior in naive and sophisticated children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About