Mediation and pseudomediation: A reply to Horton.

Abstract

Horton (1967) has attempted to reject Earhard and Mandler's (1965a) interpretation of data from experiments where "mediation" has been produced by standard P-A procedures. The purpose of the present paper is to point out deficiencies in Horton's analysis. First, it is argued that Horton's review of unlearning data is inadequate, and that evidence of unlearning is present in studies he cites as providing no evidence of unlearning. Secondly, it is argued Horton's evaluation of the ILI interpretation of differences between each of the mediated facilitation, mediated interference, and pseudomediation paradigms, and the standard control paradigm is unsatisfactory. Thirdly, it is pointed out that Horton's contention that the most adequate account of available data is provided by mediation theory is achieved only at the expense of passing over a very substantial body of data incompatible with a mediation interpretation of paired-associate paradigms.IN 1965, EABHABD AND MANDLER published a paper in which a number of inadequacies in verbal mediation studies were pointed out and an alternative way of viewing mediation effects was proposed. The research upon which this analysis was based and subsequent research in the intervening two years have been examined by Horton (1967) in an effort to remove mediation theory from the grasp of the interference theory arguments favoured by Earhard and Mandler (1965a).There are two aspects of Horton's reappraisal of Earhard and Mandler's arguments with which we wish to take issue. Our first objection is to Horton's rejection of the importance of interlist interference (ILI) factors. We maintain that there is strong support for the ILI position outlined by Earhard and Mandler. Our second objection is to his contention that the conventional mediation model provides the most adequate account of data obtained in paired-associate (P-A) studies of mediation in which unrelated verbal units are associated within the confines of the laboratory by standard P-A procedures. We contend that Horton has failed to consider the implications of the data he discusses with respect to mediation theory concepts. If he had done so, he would have been forced to conclude that the conventional conditioning model of mediation requires reassessment along the lines suggested by Earhard and Mandler.