Implicit associative responses in verbal discrimination acquisition.

Kanak, N. Jack; Cole, Lawrence E.; Eckert, Ed

doi:10.1037/h0032477

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Ekstrand et al (1966) reported significant facilitation for the interitem-AR condition, consistent with the frequency theory , a series of six experiments (Kanak , Cole, & Thornton, 1970;Kanak, Cole, & Eckert, 1972) reproduced this finding in only one experiment, and only then when Ss were instructed regarding the associative relationship , despite the manipulation of a number of potentially pertinent methodological variables. Similarly, the dominance or associative strength of the relationship between related R items failed to be defined as a significant variable (Mueller, Kanak, & Flannagan , in press) in an interitem-AR manipulation, in contrast to a successful similar manipulation (though within a mixed list) in the intrapair condition (McCarthy, 1973).…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

“…It is therefore puzzling that its operation has not been more consistently demonstrated in the interitem-AR condition. Kanak et al (1972) pointed out that the interpair and intrapair manipulations involve a contrast of function (i.e., W or R) of the associatively related items which may serve as a sufficient cue to activate attention to the associative relationship even in unmixed lists. The fact that Eberlein and Raskin (1968) found comparable interference for the interpair condition without and with instructions regarding the list composition is consistent with this notion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mixed- list manipulations of implicit associative responses in verbal discrimination learning

Kanak

Jones

1974

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit asso~i~tive responses were manipulated in a verbal discrimination task involving mixed-list of (a) paIrs . c<;>ntammg associatively related wrong (W) and right (R) items (intrapair condition) b) ass~clatl~ely related W~d R items in different pairs (interpair condition), (c) associatively related R Items (mtentem.-AR condition}, and (d) pairs .invo lving no a~~ciative relationships (control condition). In a~~~ment wl.th frequency theory, the interitem-Alt condition resulted in pronounced facilitation in acquisition relative to the control and interpair conditions a result not consistently found with unmixed lists.~o~s~tent with t~e "tagging" model but contrary to' frequency theory, the intrapair condition was a~so slgnU:lcantly supe~lOr to the c<;>ntrol and interpair conditions. The control and interpair conditions did not differ,~ug~e.stmg that the mterference usually found in the interpair condition in unmixed lists may be largely inhibited under the present mixed-list conditions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed- list manipulations of implicit associative responses in verbal discrimination learning

Kanak

Jones

1974

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kanak & Jones, 1974) reported in the literature has this result been replicated, and only then when the subjects were instructed regarding the associative relationship (Kanak, Cole, & Eckert, 1972;Experiment II).…”

mentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Thus the lack of consistent evidence for its operation in the interitem-AR condition is paradoxical. Kanak et al (1972) pointed out that the interpair and intrapair manipulations both involve a contrast of item function (i.e., W or R) of the associatively related items which may activate awareness of and attention to the presence of associations even in unmixed lists. In an unmixed list interitem-AR condition, however, as Kanak and Jones have noted, such an item-function contrast cue is not present to provide the same cue for the subjects to attend to the associative relationship.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed-list manipulations of implicit associative responses in verbal discrimination learning: II. Strategies and interactions with rate of presentation

Kanak

Rabenou

Olson

1975

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit associative responses were manipulated in a verbal discrimination task involving a mixed list of intrapair, interpair, interitem-AR, and control conditions in combination with three rates of presentation (1:1, 2:2, and 4:4 sec). The intrapair condition was significantly superior to the control at all three presentation rates. The interpair condition was inferior to the control at the 1:1 sec rate, equal to the control at the 2:2 rate, and superior at the 4:4 rate. The interitem-AR condition was equal to the control at the 1:1 sec rate, but superior at the 2:2 and 4:4 rates. The results were interpreted as consistent with the hypothesis that multiple higher order strategies may be invoked in such a mixed list design and that these strategies differ in levels of complexity, resulting in a complex interaction with rate of presentation.According to the frequency theory of verbal discrimination (VD) learning (Ekstrand, Wallace, & Underwood, 1966), the presence of associatively related items has a facilitative or an inhibitory effect on the acquisition of a VD list depending on whether the implicit associative response (IAR; Bousfield, Whitmarsh, & Danick, 1958) acts to increase or to decrease the intrapair subjective frequency differential between the right (R) and the wrong (W) items of a pair. The theory predicts that the learning of lists containing associatively related Wand R items in two different pairs (an interpair condition), or within a single pair (an illtrapair condition) would be more difficult than learning a control list of associatively unrelated items, since the differential frequency cue is assumed to be reduced by the increment in subjective frequency of W items, in the interpair and intrapair conditions, caused by the IAR to the R items. When the list contains associatively related R items and unrelated W items (an interitem-AR condition), however, learning should be facilitated relative to the control condition. Eckert and Kanak (1974) and Kanak and Jones (I974) have presented reviews of the literature regarding these th ree classes of IAR manipulations. Substantial support for the prediction of interference for the interpair condition has been obtained in several studies. The intrapair condition, however, has produced conflicting results with some investigators (e.g., McCarthy, 1973; Palermo & Ullrich, 1968) 413(1969) suggested that subjects employ a "tagging" mechanism, compensatory to the reduction of the differential frequency cue which results from the IAR. According to the tagging hypothesis, after the subject recognizes the presence of irItrapair associations, during the feedback interval he uses the strategy of "tagging" the underlirIed R item as "correct" and then collapses the tag over the association for memory storage (e.g., rehearses "table-chair," "chair is correct"). On the subsequent anticipation or test trial, the subject needs only to recognize the rehearsed irItrapair association ("table-chair") upon presentation of the pair and then retrieve from memory the "tag" (...

show abstract

“…These contradictory fi ndings challenged investigators for decades. For details see Izawa (1972Izawa ( , 1974Izawa ( , 1977, Izawa, Hayden, and Isham (1980), and Kanak, Cole, and Eckert (1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The retention interval model

Izawa

1981

Jpn. Psychol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The retention interval model was formulated to account for variable performance differences between anticipation and study-test item presentation methods on the basis of differential and equal individual retention intervals, consisting of the intercycle (rest) intervaland intervening study and test events of other items (work intervals). An experiment was conductedunder both methods with massed and spaced practice. The study-test method outperformed the anticipation method significantly with spaced practice, but nonsignificantly with massed practice, in line with the model. Furthermore, numerical predictions from the model satisfactorily accounted for data in spite of three highly restrictive modes of parameter estimations utilized. The present findings suggest that the two item presentation methods:may produce nearly the same acquisitions, but differ mainly in their retention processes attributable to the differential and equal distributions of the retention intervals.

show abstract

Implicit associative responses in verbal discrimination acquisition.

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

Mixed- list manipulations of implicit associative responses in verbal discrimination learning

Mixed- list manipulations of implicit associative responses in verbal discrimination learning

Mixed-list manipulations of implicit associative responses in verbal discrimination learning: II. Strategies and interactions with rate of presentation

The retention interval model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About