Semantic * associative relationships * conditions of CRS presentation in semantic generalization.

Relationship between conditions of CRS presentation and the category of false recognition errors.

“…Analyses of GSs.-Due to the above finding that the Intentional group gave significantly fewer X responses, in order to analyze the responses to GSs, 5s on each group were rescored to control for their level of response to control words (semantic-X, clang-X). The importance of controlling for overall response level has been demonstrated in a previous study (Cramer, 1972).…”

“…However, conditions in these different studies varied, with differences occurring in presentation rate, speed of response, associative strength, nature of training, and manner in which recognition was obtained during the test phase. Cramer (1972) recently has shown that there is an interaction between semantic category, associative strength, and rate of stimulus presentation in determining magnitude of generalization. What is clearly needed before the issue of semantic versus associative factors in false recognition can be settled is a series of systematic studies to determine the role and interaction of the remaining variables.…”

“…The use of synonyms of low associative strength was decided upon so as to be able to make a comparison between generalization based on semantic relationships and generalization based on formal or clang relationships without confounding semantic and associative factors. The antonym GSs were chosen to be of stronger associative relationship since a previous study (Cramer, 1972) had shown that GS antonyms which are weak associates of the CrSs do not produce significant generalization.…”