Subject strategies in part-whole transfer in free recall

Abstract

The effect of instructing subjects as to the nature of the relationship between the two lists of a part-to-whole transfer situation has been studied in a number of cases with conflicting results. Some studies have shown that instructions to the subject produce positive transfer. while in others only slight effects from instructions may be noted. Detailed analysis of subject output protocols in a part-to-whole experiment demonstrated that subjects who maintained their List 1 organization showed positive transfer to the whole list. Reanalysis of several studies in the literature supported the conclusion that subjects who maintain their organization will show positive transfer under these conditions. In a second experiment, it is demonstrated that subjects can be instructed to maintain their List 1 organization during List 2 and that such instruction enhances the amount of positive transfer obtained. The results are viewed as consistent with a hierarchical version of an organization theory for recall performance.

The nature of transfer in free recall.

“…This would result in items connected in such a manner as to produce response competition, as in retroactive interference in an A-B, A-D paired-associate paradigm. This competition mechanism, an extension of the Schulze and Gorfein (1976) explanation of transfer phenomena in free recall, is consistent with the findings of the present study. Sternberg and Bower (1974) extended the Schwartz and Humphreys (1973) discrimination hypothesis by providing a mechanism for, the discrimination difficulty and attempting to find a direct measure of discriminability.…”

“…Tulving, 1966) is consonant with the suggested difficulty in unpacking memory units involving competing responses. It is notable that subjects with high first-list subjective organization scores are those who show positive transfer (Schwartz & Humphreys, 1973;Schulze & Gorfein, 1976). Further, a recent study by Rundus (Note 1) employing a technique similar to that of Bower and Lesgold (1969), which manipulated item adjacency so as to keep first-list units intact, produced positive transfer.…”

“…In other studies the crossover point is later (Schwartz & Humphreys, 1973;Tulving, 1966) or fails to occur (Petrich, Pellegrino, & Dhawan, 1975;Schulze & Gorfein, 1976). In the aware group the crossover followed Trial 3, whereas in the other studies the crossover either followed the 8th trial (Wood & Clark, 1969), or no crossover was obtained (Novinski, 1972, Petrich et al, 1975Schulze & Gorfein, 1976). It should be noted that list lengths and number of trials employed in these studies varied from less than to more than those employed by Sternberg and Bower. Presentation rates in most of the studies were quite comparable, which was typically a rate of one item every 2 seconds.…”

“…The importance of maintenance of List 1 organization was emphasized by several investigators and in particular by Novinski (1972). Recently Schulze and Gorfein (1976) have provided experimental evidence that favors a reinterpretation of the organizational hypothesis. They show that insofar as a subject is able to maintain his or her first-list organization during the acquistion of the transfer list, positive transfer will be obtained.…”

“…1973;Novinski, 1972;Slamecka et al, 1972). In other studies the crossover point is later (Schwartz & Humphreys, 1973;Tulving, 1966) or fails to occur (Petrich, Pellegrino, & Dhawan, 1975;Schulze & Gorfein, 1976). In the aware group the crossover followed Trial 3, whereas in the other studies the crossover either followed the 8th trial (Wood & Clark, 1969), or no crossover was obtained (Novinski, 1972, Petrich et al, 1975Schulze & Gorfein, 1976).…”