Stylistic Factors in Learning and Retention

Abstract

The purposes of this investigation were, first, to determine the extent of individual consistency in the tendencies to err either by omission or commission in tasks requiring learning and retention, and, secondly, to determine the relationship between any such consistent tendencies and relevant cognitive, personality, and ability variables. A battery of 26 tests from which 86 variables were generated was administered to 147 college students, 70 men and 77 women, by individual and group testing. Information concerning scholastic ability and achievement, as well as control measures of socioeconomic status and seating position in the testing room, were included in the analysis. The 86 variables were intercorrelated, and 44 were factor analyzed by the method of principal components. Thirteen obtained factors were rotated to oblique simple structure by the Promax method plus three visual rotations. Loadings for the remaining 42 variables were determined by extension methods. Thirteen first order factors and four second order were then cast into a Schmid‐Leiman hierarchical solution. Four first order factors were interpreted as representing error styles in learning and retention. The clearest stylistic factor obtained at this level, Factor V, was characterized by omission tendencies in span memory for primarily numerical stimuli. Other stylistic factors were interpreted as commission tendencies in connected discourse, Factor IV; omission tendencies

The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory.

“…In contradiction to Gollin and Baron, a dissertation study appeared at about the same time in which savings scores on relearning under conditions of retroactive interference were worse for field-independent than for field-dependent people (Miller, 1953). A number of similar studies have since appeared on the relationship between field dependence and proactive or retroactive interference effects (Gardner & Long, 1961;Kelley, 1964;Long, 1962;McKenna, 1967;Schuck, 1968;. Some of these studies have found a greater effect of retroactive interference among field-dependent subjects but some have not.…”

“…These models assume that structuring is involved in a crucial way in some, but not in all associative learning situations. A number of similar studies have since appeared on the relationship between field dependence and proactive or retroactive interference effects (Gardner & Long, 1961;Kelley, 1964;Long, 1962;McKenna, 1967;Schuck, 1968;. Gallin and Baron (1954) suggested that the subjects who were most successful at resisting the effects of retroactive interference were those who could impose an appropriate organization on the items of the original and interpolated lists thereby keeping them functionally distinct.…”

“…-13-In addition to the studies of associative learning using group tests of paired-associates memorization, much work has been done on a variety of other tests of verbal learning using traditional paradigms for paired associates (Berent, 1972;Berent & Si1verman~1973;Kelley, 1964;Messick & Fritzky, 1963;Rosecrans~1955;Schuck, 1968;ShapBon, 1969;Sue, 1970;Wachtel, 1968Wachtel, , 1971Yeager, 1966) and serial learning (Brown, 1964;Fitz, 1970;Go1lin & Baron, 1954;Kaze1skis, 1969;Long, 1962;McKenna, 1967;Orenstein. 1971;.…”

“…When -15presented with a list of items and told that they will be required later to recall as many as possible in any order, many subjects tend to categorize the items. While a few studies support the hypothesis that field-independent subjects are superior at free recall, the vast majority do not (Beische1, 1973;Brown, 1964;Gardner & Long, 1961;Goodenough & Karp, 1961;Imam, 1973;Kazelskis, 1970;Lezotte, 1969;Lohrenz & Gardner, 1973;McKenna, 1967;Meshorer, 1969;Powell, Goodwin, & Bremer, 1973;Roy, 1970;Shapiro, 1970;Uhlmann, 1962;Uhlmann & Saltz, 1965;Vernon, 1965aVernon, , 1965bVernon, , 1967Weiss, 1970;. It is easy to suppose that fieldindependent subjects would show more effective organization of the items which would permit more effective free recall (Meshorer, 1969).…”

“…It is easy to imagine that subjects might improve their scores on these tests by imposing some kind of mnemonic structure on the pairs, and it may be hypothes~zed that field-independent subjects will memorize more pairs. In fact, however, associative memory and field dependence seem to be distinctly different first order factors (Adcock & Webberley, 1971;Alexander, 1970;Frederiksen, Jensen, & Beaton, 1972;Gardner, Jackson, & Messick, 1960;McKenna, 1967;Mu1grave, 1965).…”