Retroaction and the “Fate” of the mediator in three stage mediation paradigms

Goulet, L. R.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(66)80012-9

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1965;Earhard & Mandler. 1965;Carlson, 1966;Goulet, 1966;Seim & Penny, 1966) only Earhard and Mandler's study provided support for the unlearning assumption. It should also be noted that Carlson used both recall and free-association tests of the availability of B, but failed to find differences between experimental and control groups on either measure while demonstrating the pseudomediation effect.…”

Section: Unlearning Assumptionmentioning

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Their results showed that recall of first list responses following third list learning did not differ from E and C groups. Similarly Goulet (1966) found potential mediators to be at least as available in paradigms conducive to producing mediation as the analogous terms in the control paradigms. (1) stage II learning by the control pairs would be superior to that of the experimental pairs; (2) Stage m learning of experimental pairs would be superior to that of the control pairs; and (3) fewer B responses would be available to the stage m stimuli of the experimental pairs than to the control pairs as measured by an association task after Stage II learning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mediation vs pseudomediation: An unresolved issue

Hayes

1967

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies related to the mediation-pseudomediation controversy have questioned either the replicability or the assumptions underlying the pseudomediation effect. It is suggested that a more profitable line of research would be to determine the factors that contribute to the pseudomediation effect. Intertrial interval may be critical.The mediation vs pseudo mediation controversy.was initiated by Mandler & Earhard's (1964) assertion that mediational effects found in some verbal learning studies may only be apparent. They contend that in a typical chaining paradigm (A-B, B-C, A-C) the learning of the second stage produces unlearning or forgetting of the first stage. whereas in the control paradigm(A-B, D-C, A-C) no such process operates. Consequently. there is little interference in the final stage A-C learning of the chaining paradigm, but there is an appreciable amount in the control paradigm. thus producing apparent mediation. They supported their argument with a pseudomediation experiment which compared learning of an A-B, B-C. A-E (Pseudomediation) paradigm with an A-B, D-C, A-E (Control) paradigm. The A-E learning of the first paradigm was facilitated relative to the A-E learning of the second paradigm without opportunity for mediation.Jenkins & Foss (1965) attempted to replicate the pseudomediation effect and test the unlearning assumption by assessing the recall of A-B pairs after the second and third stages for both pseudomediation and control groups. Their results showed that recall of first list responses following third list learning did not differ from E and C groups. Similarly Goulet (1966) found potential mediators to be at least as available in paradigms conducive to producing mediation as the analogous terms in the control paradigms. (1) stage II learning by the control pairs would be superior to that of the experimental pairs; (2) Stage m learning of experimental pairs would be superior to that of the control pairs; and (3) fewer B responses would be available to the stage m stimuli of the experimental pairs than to the control pairs as measured by an association task after Stage II learning. The first two predictions were confirmed. but the association data failed to support the third.Goulet & Postman noted that all of the above studies have sought to answer one or more of the following questions: (a) Is the unlearning assumption tenable? (b) Can the pseudomediation effect be replicated? (c) Can the pseudo mediation effect and the mediation effect be shown to occur together? While these studies provide data to answer these questions. a fourth and extremely important question has not been asked; namely. what are the factors peculiar to the studies that demonstrated pseudomediation. i.e •• why was the pseudo mediation effect obtained? Any resolution of the controversy that is to be considered adequate must provide an answer to this last question. Unlearning AssumptionThe unlearning assumption leads to the prediction that given an A-B. B-C sequence and its control A-B. D-C. learning in Sta...

show abstract

Section: Unlearning Assumptionmentioning

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mediation vs pseudomediation: An unresolved issue

Hayes

1967

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Horton's claim that efforts to obtain evidence of unlearning in Pattern III by Jenkins and Foss (1965) and Goulet (1966) failed, and that the only evidence of unlearning is provided in a study by Earhard and Mandler (1965b) is incorrect. An examination of List I recall data provided in these studies reveals that approximately 30 per cent of first-list associations in the Goulet (1966) study and approximately 24 per cent of the first-list associations in the Jenkins and Foss (1965) study were unavailable. The problem with the data reported by Jenkins and Foss, and Goulet is not that unlearning was not evident, as Horton claims, but rather that the MMFR test which was employed did not show that firstlist associations were more available in the control condition than in Pattern III.…”

Section: A-b DCmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 For these reasons, application of the MMFR test in situations where responses are more available in interference paradigms than in control conditions may result in what appears to be better retention of first-list associations in interference paradigms than in control conditions (e.g., Goulet, 1966;Horton & Wiley, 1967b). The freerecall technique used by Seim and Penny (1966) is similar in many respects to the MMFR test and suffers from the same limitations.…”

Section: A-b DCmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mediation and pseudomediation: A reply to Horton.

Earhard¹,

Earhard²

1968

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Forgetting of verbal paired associates after low degrees of learning

Runquist

Snyder

1969

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retroaction and the “Fate” of the mediator in three stage mediation paradigms

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

Mediation vs pseudomediation: An unresolved issue

Mediation vs pseudomediation: An unresolved issue

Mediation and pseudomediation: A reply to Horton.

Forgetting of verbal paired associates after low degrees of learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About