UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis and test of the reconstructive-schematic model of memory Creighton, David Joseph 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 C74.pdf [ 4.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094401.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094401-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094401-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094401-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094401-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094401-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094401-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094401-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094401.ris

Full Text

AN A N A L Y S T S AND TEST OF THE R E C O N S T R U C T I V E - S C H E M A T I C MODEL OF MEMORY b y DAVID J O S E P H CREIGHTON B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 9 7 4 A T H E S I S SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE S T U D I E S ( D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA August 1978 © D a v i d J o s e p h C r e i g h t o n , 1 9 7 8 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I ag ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5 i i ABSTRACT The present study involved a tes t of the reconstruct ive-schemat ic model of memory. This model i s presented w i t h i n the h i s t o r i c a l con-text i n which i t developed, wi th the emphasis being placed on P i a g e t ' s research. The reconstruct ive-schematic model i s analyzed and i t s two key assumptions concerning the nature of memory and r e c a l l are i s o l a t e d . Thus according to t h i s model:. ( 1 ) representat ion i s c l o s e l y l i n k e d and dependent upon the nature of percept ion . The a c t i v e r o l e of the i n d i v i d u a l during percept ion i s of c r i t i c a l importance as representa-t i o n and r e c a l l are determined by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s ana lys i s of the s t i m u l i , during percept ion . (2) Memory involves a conservat ion of " r u l e s " i n schematic form and r e c a l l i s character ized by a reconstruc-tuve process i n which these ru les are used to reconstruct the o r i g i n a l stimulus as adequately as p o s s i b l e . To test these two assumptions an i n c i d e n t a l l ea rn ing paradigm i n v o l v i n g two d i f f e r e n t o r i e n t i n g tasks was used. Twelve se r i e s of p i c ture s per ser ie s comprised the v i s u a l s t i m u l i which were employed i n t h i s study. Six: .groups of seventeen volunteer u n i v e r s i t y students per group were tes ted . Three groups solved an analogy o r i e n t i n g task whi le three groups completed a ranking o r i e n t i n g task. In P i age t i an terminology, the analogy o r i e n t i n g task was assumed to emphasize the "opera t ive " aspect of cogn i t ion whi le the ranking task emphasized the " f i g u r a t i v e " aspect. A l l s i x groups were tested for free r e c a l l one week a f ter performing i i i the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . Two groups (AImm and RImm) were t e s t e d f o r f r e e r e c a l l immediately a f t e r complet ing the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . Four of the groups (AImm and RImm as w e l l as AWk and RWK, two. groups not t e s t e d f o r immediate f r e e r e c a l l ) were t e s t e d f o r probed, r e c a l l immediate ly a f t e r complet ing the delayed f r e e r e c a l l t e s t . F i n a l l y , . two groups (ARec and RRec) r e c e i v e d a r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t i n s t e a d of the probed r e c a l l t e s t . To t e s t a l l p r e d i c t i o n s tha t f o l l o w e d from the two major assump-t i o n s of the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e - s c h e m a t i c model , i t was necessary to c o n -duct two d i f f e r e n t phases of a n a l y s i s . The f i r s t phase^focused on the sub jec ts 'pe r fo rmance on the dependent v a r i a b l e s : immediate, f i n a l f r e e , and probed r e c a l l , " c l u s t e r i n g " , "component c l u s t e r i n g " , t ime spend s o l v i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k , . a n d r e c o g n i t i o n . I n the second phase, the scores on each dependent v a r i a b l e were c o l l a p s e d across s u b j e c t s , r e s u l t i n g i n a; mean score f o r each of the seven p o s i t i o n s i n each of the s e r i e s . T h i s type of a n a l y s i s was r e q u i r e d t o examine the " p a t t e r n " or o r g a n i z a t i o n of f r e e r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l , and c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s . In both phases , one way ana lyses of v a r i a n c e were conducted f o r each dependent v a r i a b l e and each comparison under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The f i r s t assumption was supported by the f i n d i n g tha t the " p a t t e r n " of immediate, f i n a l f r e e , and probed r e c a l l scores and r e c o g n i t i o n scores v a r i e d w i t h the type of o r i e n t i n g t a s k i n v o l v e d . The second assumption r e c e i v e d support from the f i n d i n g that the "ana logy" groups were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g r e a t e r c l u s t e r i n g and probed r e c a l l scores and fewer e r r o r s d u r i n g f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l . However, c o n t r a r y to p r e -d i c t i o n s , the analogy groups were not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g r e a t e r f r e e r e c a l l . i v Abstract L i s t of Tables L i s t of Figures Acknowledgement Introduction Method Scoring Procedure Subj ects Procedure Summary Results Overview Phase... I Phase II Discussion Conclusion Footnotes Bibliography TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i i v i i x x 1 33 33 33 34 35 36 36 37 56 82 88 92 94 V TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Page Appendix A: The Twelve Series of Pictures Presented During Problem Solving 97 Appendix B: Instructions to Subjects 120 LIST OF TABLES Mean Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l Scores f o r a l l Groups Summary Table f o r One-way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s : Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l Mean C l u s t e r i n g Scores i n Both Immediate and F i n a l Free R e c a l l f o r A l l Groups Summary Table f o r One-way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of C l u s t e r i n g Mean Number of Component C l u s t e r i n g Scores i n Both Immediate and F i n a l R e c a l l f o r A l l Groups Summary Table f o r One-way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of Component C l u s t e r i n g Score . Mean Number of E r r o r s Made i n F i n a l and Probed R e c a l l Summary Table f o r One-way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s Number of E r r o r s Made i n F i n a l and Probed R e c a l l Mean Percentage of H i t and F a l s e Alarm S c o r e s , and Mean d.' Scores f o r Groups ARec and RRec Mean Time, i n M i n u t e s , Spent i n the Problem S o l v i n g Tasks f o r A l l Groups Summary Table f o r the One-Way ANOVAs Conducted . f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of Time Spent i n Problem S o l v i n g Mean Percentage Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l Scores Obtained by A l l Groups f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s LIST OF TABLES cont inued Summary Table f o r the One-Way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s : Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Mean Percentage Immediate and F i n a l R e c a l l Scores Obtained by A l l Ranking Groups f o r Both the F and NF P o s i t i o n s Summary Table f o r the One-Way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s : Immediate and F i n a l R e c a l l f o r Both the F and NF P o s i t i o n s Mean Percentage C l u s t e r i n g Scores f o r A l l Groups i n Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Summary Table f o r the One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of C l u s t e r i n g f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Mean Percentage of H i t and F a l s e A larm S c o r e s , and Mean d_' Scores f o r Group ARec f o r Both the F and NF P o s i t i o n s Mean Percentage of H i t and F a l s e A larm S c o r e s , and Mean d.' Scores f o r Groups ARec and RRec f o r . Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of d_' Score f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of C l u s t e r i n g f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s v i i i LIST OF TABLES cont inued Page Table 23 Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of d ' Score 81 i x LIST OF FIGURES Page F i g u r e 1 Mean Number of R e c a l l e d P i c t u r e s as a F u n c t i o n of Time of R e c a l l 41 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS F i r s t l y , I would l i k e to express my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r the s u p p o r t , emot iona l and f i n a n c i a l , tha t I have r e c e i v e d from my p a r e n t s , w i thout which complet ion of t h i s t h e s i s would have been i m p o s s i b l e . Secondly , I would l i k e to thank my s u p e r v i s o r , John Y u i l l e , and other committee members, Raymond Cor teen and M i c h a e l Chand le r , f o r t h e i r many v a l u a b l e comments and c r i t i c i s m s . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my t y p i s t , Judy Hawkins, who was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t r a n s f o r m i n g my incomprehens ib le s c r a w l i n t o t h i s typed m a n u s c r i p t . 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s to t e s t the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e model of memory by s t u d y i n g long term r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n of v i s u a l s t i m u l i . However, be fore such a study can be d e s c r i b e d , i t w i l l be necessary to g i ve an adequate p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s p o s i t i o n . The s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n i s not represented by a u n i t a r y , w e l l - f o r m u l a t e d theory . I n s t e a d , i t r e p r e s e n t s a common concept ion or approach to memory tha t can be found i n the works of s e v e r a l t h e o -r i s t s w i d e l y removed i n t ime and background. Th is approach i s best understood when viewed w i t h i n the h i s t o r i c a l context i n which i t e v o l v e d . The beg inn ings of the s c i e n t i f i c study of memory can be t r a c e d to Ebbinghaus' now c l a s s i c memory exper iments i n the l a t e n i n e t e e n t h century . E a r l y i n h i s r e s e a r c h , Ebbinghaus found tha t a l though the s t i m u l i used i n each case were the same, r e c a l l n e v e r t h e l e s s v a r i e d ac ross i n d i v i d u a l s . He r e a l i z e d tha t because of the unique l e a r n i n g h i s t o r y tha t each i n d i v i d u a l brought i n t o the l a b o r a t o r y , the same s t i m u l u s d i d not have the same meaning ac ross i n d i v i d u a l s and conse -quent l y i t was r e c a l l e d d i f f e r e n t l y . To a t t a i n maxmium c o n t r o l over the exper imenta l s i t u a t i o n and consequent ly to e l i m i n a t e the " c o n -found ing" meaning e f f e c t , Ebbinghaus used o n l y nonsense s y l l a b l e s as s t i m u l i . He reasoned t h a t i f the s t i m u l i were meaningless to a l l i n d i v i d u a l s they would be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n . Th is would a l l o w Ebbinghaus to study how r e c a l l v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of such v a r i a b l e s as l i s t l e n g t h , word o r d e r , r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l , and 2 so on. This emphasis on maximum control of the experimental situa-tion by conducting laboratory studies with "simple" stimuli, such as l i s t s of nonsense syllables, set the tone in memory research for the next seventy years. Also, i t has only been in the last fifteen years or so that memory experiments involving sentences or more complex linguistic units, as well as memory studies with perceptual stimuli have begun to be carried out. (The notable exceptions to this rule are the studies of Bartlett and Piaget which w i l l be discussed shortly.) Although in such studies the experimenter has a high degree of control over extraneous variables, this advantage may not be worth the price that i s usually paid in the process. Thus Bartlett noted that such studies many be cr i t i c i z e d as: "(a) It i t impossible to ri d stimuli of meaning as long as they remain capable of arousing any human response; (b) The effort to do this creates an atmosphere of a r t i f i c i a l i t y for a l l memory experiments, making them rather a study of the establishment, and maintenance of reception habits; (c) To make the explanation of the variety of recall responses depend mainly upon variation of-stimuli and of their order, frequency, and mode of pre-sentation, i s to ignore dangerously those equally important conditions of response which belong to the subjective attitude and to predeter-mined reaction tendencies." 1 It is interesting to note that such criticisms may s t i l l be applied to much of the verbal memory work that has been carried out in the forty years subsequent to Bartlett's reproof. Early animal studies in memory also had important consequences for the direction that human memory research would take. To explain the results of such animal research, "trace" formulations of memory 3 became popular. In the l a t e nineteen-twenties such "trace" formula-tions were extended to human verbal memory research. Such "trace" positions hold that whenever an object i s perceived or an event occurs, a p e r c e p t i a l trace of such an object or event i s "stored" i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s mind. At a l a t e r point i n time a stimulus re-excites or re-evokes t h i s trace, which r e s u l t s i n the experience of r e c a l l . As we s h a l l seem such a trace p o s i t i o n i s a n t i t h e t i c a l to the reconstruc-tive-schematic approach. In reaction against such research, B a r t l e t t was concerned with conducting more "natural" studies that stressed the r o l e of the i n d i -vidual's "subjective response" i n memory and r e c a l l . Consequently, instead of eliminating meaning, the work was characterized by the use of such highly meaningful s t i m u l i as pictures and s t o r i e s . B a r t l e t t concluded that.: "Remembering i s not the r e - e x c i t a t i o n of innumerable f i x e d , l i f e l e s s , and fragmentary traces. It i s an imaginative re-construction or construction, b u i l t out of the r e l a t i o n of our attit u d e toward a whole active mass of organized past reactions or experience, and to a l i t t l e outstanding d e t a i l which commonly appears i n image or language form." 2 B a r t l e t t employs the concept of "schema" to r e f e r to t h i s "whole active mass of organized past reactions or experience". The " a t t i t u d e " which shapes r e c a l l r e s u l t s when the organism acquires "... the capacity to turn around upon i t s own 'schemata' and to construct them afresh. This i s a c r u c i a l step i n organic development. It i s where and why consciousness comes i n , i t i s what gives consciousness i t s most prominent f u n c t i o n . " 3 Thus during perception, the subject i s not passive. Instead, "when material i s 4 p r e s e n t e d , a s u b j e c t , perhaps immedia te l y , perhaps by d e f i n i t e a n a l y s i s , d i s c o v e r s what he takes to be i t s r u l e of arrangement. Then ; the r u l e becomes predominant and f a s h i o n s the s u b j e c t ' s r e c a l l . " 1 * T h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g to t h i s p o s i t i o n such r u l e s and not i somorphic t r a c e s of the s t i m u l i are " s t o r e d " i n memory. Dur ing r e c a l l these r u l e s are used to r e c o n s t r u c t the many a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s t h a t comprise the o r i g i n a l s t i m u l u s . T h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n may l e a d to d i s t o r t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y by over s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , however, as B a r t l e t t p o i n t s o u t , i n o r d i n a r y l i f e such d i s t o r t i o n i s u s u a l l y . n o t of any great s i g n i f i c a n c e . B a r t l e t t ' s work represented a r a d i c a l departure from t r a d i t i o n a l memory r e s e a r c h and t h e o r i s i n g . A l though one might d i sag ree w i t h d e t a i l s of h i s methodology or t h e o r y , h i s approach represented the f i r s t w e l l fo rmula ted attempt to d e a l w i t h " n a t u r a l " memory as i t occurs o u t s i d e the l a b o r a t o r y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , h i s work was l a r g e l y ignored and r e s e a r c h e r s cont inued to conduct a r t i f i c i a l memory s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g l i s t s of nonsense s y l l a b l e s or nouns equated f o r m e m o r a b i l i t y . B a r t l e t t was p a r t l y to blame f o r t h i s s t a t e of a f f a i r s as he used the c o n s t r u c t s "schema" and " a t t i t u d e " i n a vague, incomplete and o f t e n con fus ing manner. Fur thermore, a c r i t i c a l argument i n B a r t l e t t ' s theory i s tha t he a t t r i b u t e s to " c o n s c i o u s n e s s " " . . . ;the c a p a c i t y to t u r n around upon i t s own 'schemata ' and to c o n s t r u c t them a f r e s h . " 5 One must agree w i t h Anderson and Bower 6 who f i n d t h i s argument " a l i t t l e hard to f o l l o w " and " u n c o n v i n c i n g " . P i a g e t , who a l s o adopts a schematic r e c o n s t r u c t i v e approach to memory, o f f e r s a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the r o l e of the schema i n memory and the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e processes i n v o l v e d i n . r e c a l l . Because 5 h i s work rep resents one of the most thorough e x p o s i t i o n s of the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e approach, an a n a l y s i s of h i s p o s i t i o n w i l l now be under taken. An adequate t e s t of the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n w i l l i n v o l v e a s s e s s i n g the v a l i d i t y of the r o l e to which i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n -t a t i o n i s ass igned i n such a model . However, be fore t h i s r o l e can be a s s e s s e d , i t w i l l be necessary to g i ve a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the nature of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h i s approach. One of the best ways to accompl i sh t h i s i s to c o n t r a s t the r o l e of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the P i a g e t i a n approach w i t h i t s r o l e i n a t r a c e f o r m u l a t i o n . Indeed, t h i s i s the technique adopted by P i a g e t i n s e t t i n g f o r t h h i s p o s i t i o n . Thus, i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , P i a g e t ' s work w i l l be c o n t r a s t e d w i t h P a i v i o ' s " d u a l - c o d i n g h y p o t h e s i s " . P a i v i o ' s work was chosen f o r c o n t r a s t as he makes e x p l i c i t assumptions concern ing r e p r e s e n t a t i o n tha t are i m p l i c i t l y h e l d by many t r a c e t h e o r i s t s . A l s o , h i s p o s i t i o n i s w e l l fo rmulated and has generated a good d e a l of r e s e a r c h . P a i v i o v iews imagery and v e r b a l p rocesses as " a l t e r n a t e cod ing systems or modes of symbol ic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , which are deve lopmenta l l y l i n k e d to exper iences w i t h concrete o b j e c t s and events as w e l l as language. In a g i ven s i t u a t i o n they may be r e l a t i v e l y d i r e c t l y aroused i n the sense that an ob jec t or an event i s represented i n memory as a p e r c e p t u a l image and a word as a p e r c e p t u a l motor t r a c e , or they may be a s s o c i a t i v e l y aroused i n the sense tha t an o b j e c t e l i c i t s the v e r b a l l a b e l (or image of o ther o b j e c t s ) and a word arouses i m p l i c i t v e r b a l a s s o c i a t i o n s or images of o b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n , i t i s assumed that cha ins of symbol ic t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s can occur .' 6 i n v o l v i n g e i t h e r words or images, or b o t h , and tha t these can serve a m e d i a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n i n p e r c e p t i o n , v e r b a l l e a r n i n g , memory, and language. L i k e many t r a c e t h e o r i s t s , when d e s c r i b i n g the imagery system, P a i v i o uses r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n a narrow p a s s i v e c o n f i g u r a t i v e s e n s e . 8 Narrow, i n the sense tha t the use of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s l i m i t e d to s e n s o r i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . C o n f i g u r a t i v e i n the sense t h a t there i s a d i r e c t c o n f i g u r a t i v e correspondence between the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and the " r e a l t h i n g " . Thus the r e a l t h i n g i s the " e f f i c i e n t cause" of the i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Consequently such a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the r o l e of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s a l s o " p a s s i v e " , f o r as F u r t h p o i n t s o u t , i n such a p o s i t i o n , " knowledge has i t s adequate source i n e x t e r n a l r e a l i t y or i n t e r n a l a c t i o n s and r e s i d e s i n e x t e r n a l r e p r e s e n -t a t i o n s " (emphasis m i n e ) 9 . A c c e p t i n g such a v iew , " . . . l eaves u n -e x p l a i n e d the a c t i v e r e l a t i o n of the knowing person to the r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n which .would be inherent i n any true symbol b e h a v i o u r " . 1 0 By a c c e p t i n g the n o t i o n of " e f f i c i e n t c a u s e " . P a i v i o n a t u r a l l y emphasises the e x t e r n a l , s e n s o r i a l (or what P i a g e t terms the " f i g u r a t i v e " ) a s -pec ts of knowledge. Th is i s r e f l e c t e d i n the f a c t t h a t much of the r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d out by P a i v i o and h i s co -workers i s concerned w i t h determin ing the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t i m u l i c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the types of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n "evoked" . Only when the " e f f i c i e n t cause" e x p l a n a t i o n i s r e j e c t e d , as i n P i a g e t ' s c a s e , i s i t p o s s i b l e to f u l l y c o n s i d e r the a c t i v e r o l e of the "knowing person" i n the fo rmat ion of memory.images. S ince the " v e r b a l system" serves a sumbol ic f u n c t i o n f o r P a i v i o , 1 7 here r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s used i n a more a b s t r a c t sense. In t h i s c a s e , r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s not narrow or c o n f i g u r a t i v e as the r e a l t h i n g i s not the e f f i c i e n t cause of the word, s i n c e the word i s symbol ic i n n a t u r e . However, r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s s t i l l s e n s o r i a l i n a sense as a word i s s t o r e d as a " p e r c e p t u a l t r a c e " . U n l i k e P a i v i o , P i a g e t does not accept the E n g l i s h - e m p i r i c i s t assumptions or p a s s i v e - r e a c t i n g v iew of the i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i b e d above. Consequent ly , he does not u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y accept the n o t i o n of the memory image as a " p e r c e p t u a l t r a c e " . o r p a s s i v e copy of r e a l i t y . In f a c t , P i a g e t i s concerned w i t h imagery and memory as an aspect of l a r g e r e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n s . From h i s study of the development of imagery and memory i n the c h i l d , P i a g e t concluded that the image i s not an automat ic copy of an o b j e c t or event . Thus he w r i t e s : "Sooner or l a t e r r e a l i t y comes to be seen as c o n s i s t i n g of a system of t r a n s -fo rmat ions beneath the appearance of t h i n g s . . These t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s cannot be cop ied un less they are a c t i v e l y reproduced by be ing p ro longed . Th is means tha t there cannot be a copy at a l l i n the s t r i c t sense. In o rder to know o b j e c t s i t i s necessary to a c t on them, to break them down and to r e c o n s t r u c t them. . . . A s s i m i l a t i n g an ob jec t means p a r t i -c i p a t i n g i n the system of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s tha t go to produce i t , e n -t e r i n g i n t o a r e l a t i o n s h i p of i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the w o r l d by a c t i n g upon i t . Hence the important p a r t p l a y e d by the o p e r a t i o n s which are the s o l e means of apprehending t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . " 1 1 Thus P i a g e t found t h a t the adequacy of the image v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of the i n t e l l e c t u a l complex i t y of the r e l a t i o n s i n v o l v e d . The more complex the r e l a t i o n s or t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i n v o l v e d the l e s s adequate the images w i l l be as 8 such s i t u a t i o n s are more d i f f i c u l t to "break down" or "apprehend" . P i a g e t uses r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n a symbol ic sense. The image symbol izes the a b s t r a c t knowledge which r e s u l t s whenever an ob jec t or event i s a s s i m i l a t e d by schemata. In P i a g e t ' s words: "The o p e r a t i o n s c a r r y out the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , the image rep resents them. Now, the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of an o p e r a t i o n remains f i g u r a t i v e , and does not merge w i t h the o p e r a t i o n i t s e l f . However f a i t h f u l t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n may b e , i t i s s t i l l no more than an i m i t a t i o n of the o p e r a t i o n . In the same way an i m i t a t i v e gesture i m i t a t e s an a c t i o n w i thout be ing i d e n t i -c a l w i t h i t . Between the image . . . and the cor responding c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e , there i s , i n s p i t e of t h e i r i n c r e a s i n g c l o s e c o l l a b o r a t i o n , a l l the d i s t a n c e tha t separates the symbol i ze r from the t h i n g b e i n g  s y m b o l i z e d . " I 2 Al though both P i a g e t and P a i v i o use the term "symbol" to d e s c r i b e the image, they are a c t u a l l y employing i t i n r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t senses . I t would be..more a p p r o p r i a t e to s u b s t i t u t e " s i g n " or " s i g n a l " f o r "symbol" i n P a i v i o ' s case as i n h i s paradigm the image f u n c t i o n s " . . . as a s t i m u l u s s u b s t i t u t e tha t e l i c i t s a behaviour r e a c t i o n s i m i l a r to the o r i g i n a l s t i m u l u s . " Acco rd ing to P a i v i o , images and words are " s t o r e d " i n memory as images and words o r , i n h i s t e r m i n o l o g y , as " p e r c e p t u a l " and " v e r b a l t r a c e s " . In such a model remembering s imply c o n s i s t s of " r e - e v o k i n g " or r e a c t i v a t i n g the r e l e v a n t images and words and meaning then r e s u l t s when these are "scanned" or " read o f f " . Consequently . f o r P a i v i o and other t r a c e t h e o r i s t s "menta l images" and "mental words" p l a y a c e n t r a l r o l e i n c o g n i t i o n as they are viewed as fundamental c o g n i t i v e e lements . 9 On the other hand, f o r P i a g e t " the image then c o n s t i t u t e s an a u x i l i a r y t h a t i s not on ly u s e f u l t o , but i n many i n s t a n c e s necessary f o r the f u n c t i o n i n g of the o p e r a t i o n s . A f t e r hav ing s t r u c t u r e d and f a s h i o n e d i t i n t h e i r own l i k e n e s s , the o p e r a t i o n s i n f a c t come to depend on the i m a g e . " 1 3 S e v e r a l recent r e s e a r c h e r s have a r r i v e d at s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the nature of c o g n i t i o n . In a recent a r t i c l e on imagery , Y u i l l e and Catchpole w r i t e : "The fundamental form of s torage i s not i n the form of images, words, or sounds, or any o ther sensory analogue. Rather the f l e x i b i l i t y of menta l f u n c t i o n s demands tha t we abandon sensory analogues to d e s c r i b e the c e n t r a l o p e r a t i o n of c o g n i t i o n and i n s t e a d d e s c r i b e these o p e r a t i o n s as o c c u r r i n g i n a form and symbolims unique to the mind. B a s i c knowledge must be i n the form of a b s t r a c t c o n t e n t l e s s code . . . 1 1 1 1 1 • Other recent r e s e a r c h e r s , Anderson and Bower (1974) , K i n t s c h (1975) , Norman and Rumelhart (1975) , and Py l yshyn (1973) have a r r i v e d at s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s . Anderson and Bower's and Norman and Rumelhar t ' s work w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r . Other contemporary r e s e a r c h e r s , i . e . , L o f t u s (1975) , Sachs (1967) , B r a n s f o r d and Franks (1971) , and B a r c l a y and Franks (1971) have r e p o r t e d f i n d i n g s tha t c o n t r a d i c t t r a c e n o t i o n s of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , but are r e a d i l y i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n a P i a g e t i a n r e c o n s t r u c t i v e - s c h e m a t i c model . From h i s study of imagery , P i a g e t cas t l i g h t upon the r e l a t i o n -sh ip between the f i g u r a t i v e and o p e r a t i v e aspec ts of c o g n i t i o n . S ince he concludes tha t images and words are not elements of c o g n i t i o n but i n s t e a d , p l a y an a u x i l i a r y r o l e i n thought , i t f o l l o w s tha t i n a 10 Piagetian model of memory, memory cannot be treated as simply the storage of mental images and mental words. Thus as we shall see, for Piaget, the explanation of memory must extend beyond representation. From his study of the development of memory in children, Piaget found several interesting results which could not be explained by a trace conception of memory. The two that are most relevant to this thesis are summarized below. Fi r s t l y , the child only remembered those stimuli that he was able to "break down" or apprehend during perception. Apparently i f the child could not understand the "transformations" underlying the stimuli during perception, he was unable to reconstruct these during recall. Secondly, in many cases, after a period of six months, the child's memory actually improves. Piaget attributes this surprising result to the role played by the operations in memory: "Hence, i f the memory does make progress, i t can only be because the model was not registered with the help of the memory image alone, but also with the help of the schema which then develops and finds i t s own equilibrium, based purely on the subject's actions, during the next re c a l l , the memory image is improved, thanks to the advances of the schema."13 Thus Piaget has reduced the problem of memory to the conservation of schemata, which conserve themselves by virtue of their own func-tioning. The memory image simply symbolizes the abstract information which is conserved in .the schemata. In Piaget's words: "The image nevertheless remains distinct from r e c a l l : the image i s a symbol and recall a mental act which includes (attributional, relational, and 11 e x i s t e n t i a l ) judgements.because i t i s not e x c l u s i v e l y an image but a l s o comprises a s c h e m a t i s m . " 1 6 Before p r o c e e d i n g , i t would be wor thwhi le to summarize the major assumptions of the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n . I f the study o u t l i n e d i n t h i s t h e s i s i s to represent a v a l i d assessment of t h i s p o s i t i o n , i t must i n v o l v e a t e s t of these assumpt ions . F i r s t , r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s c l o s e l y l i n k e d and dependent on the nature of p e r c e p t i o n . Thus, the a c t i v e r o l e of the i n d i v i d u a l d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n i s s t r e s s e d as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and r e c a l l are determined by how the i n d i v i d u a l ana lyses the s t i m u l i , i . e . , by the r u l e s he "breaks down" and apprehends. Thus, what the i n d i v i d u a l does dur ing p e r c e p t i o n must be understood i f one wants to understand the nature of r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n and r e c a l l . Th is p o s i t i o n c o n t r a s t s w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l t r a c e concept ion tha t the s t i m u l u s i s an " e f f i c i e n t cause" of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and consequent ly tha t memory i s s imply a p a s s i v e copy of r e a l i t y . Secondly , memory i n v o l v e s c o n s e r v a t i o n of such " r u l e s " i n schematic form and r e c a l l i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process i n which such r u l e s are u t i l i z e d to r e c o n s t r u c t the o r i g i n a l s t i m u l u s as ade -quate l y as p o s s i b l e . Aga in t h i s c o n t r a s t s w i t h the t r a c e n o t i o n tha t r e c a l l s imply i n v o l v e s a r e - e v o k i n g and scanning of the s t o r e d p e r -c e p t u a l memory t r a c e s . In the above d i s c u s s i o n the emphasis on the a c t i v e r o l e that the i n d i v i d u a l p l a y s d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n , i n the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n , i s c o n t r a s t e d w i t h the p a s s i v e e f f i c i e n t - c a u s e e x p l a n a t i o n that c h a r a c t e r i z e s t r a d i t i o n a l t r a c e concept ions of memory. However, r e c e n t l y s e v e r a l researchers ( C r a i k S-Lockhart , . J972; C r a i k & T u l v i n g , 12 1975) , work ing w i t h i n a t r a c e model of memory, do not adopt an e f f i -c i e n t cause e x p l a n a t i o n of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I n s t e a d , these authors s t r e s s the importance of unders tanding what the i n d i v i d u a l does d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n . Th is p o s i t i o n w i l l be cons idered i n some d e t a i l a t i t not on ly p rov ides support f o r the f i r s t tenet of the schematic r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n but a l s o and more i m p o r t a n t l y , i t p rov ides the methodology tha t make i t p o s s i b l e to t e s t t h i s p o s i t i o n . C r a i k and Lockhar t v iew the memory t r a c e as a byproduct of the p e r c e p t u a l a n a l y s i s tha t i s c a r r i e d out by the s u b j e c t d u r i n g p e r c e p -t i o n : "Thus w e . p r e f e r to t h i n k of memory t i e d to l e v e l s of p e r c e p -t u a l p r o c e s s i n g . A l though these l e v e l s may be grouped i n t o s tages (sensory a n a l y s i s , p a t t e r n r e c o g n i t i o n , and s t i m u l u s e l a b o r a t i o n , f o r example) , p r o c e s s i n g l e v e l s may be more u s e f u l l y envisaged as a c o n -tinuum of a n a l y s e s . Thus, memory, t o o , i s v iewed as a continuum from the t r a n s i e n t products of sensory ana lyses to the h i g h l y du rab le products of s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a t i v e o p e r a t i o n s . " 1 7 And, "Th is concept ion of a s e r i e s or h i e r a r c h y of s tages i s o f t e n r e f e r r e d to as ' d e p t h of p r o c e s s i n g ' where g rea te r depth i m p l i e s a g r e a t e r degree of semantic or c o g n i t i v e a n a l y s i s . A f t e r the s t i m u l u s has been r e c o g n i z e d , i t may undergo f u r t h e r p r o c e s s i n g by enrichment or e l a b o r a t i o n . For example, a f t e r a word i s r e c o g n i z e d , i t may t r i g g e r a s s o c i a t i o n s , images or s t o r i e s on the b a s i s of the s u b j e c t ' s past exper ience w i t h the w o r d . " 1 Furthermore , deeper l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t ronger and more endur ing t r a c e s . The authors o f f e r a s t r o n g case f o r r e - i n t r e p r e t i n g much of the v e r b a l l e a r n i n g r e s e a r c h w i t h i n t h i s l e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g paradigm. 13 An important area of the v e r b a l l e a r n i n g l i t e r a t u r e , tha t the authors c i t e to p r o v i d e support f o r t h e i r p o s i t i o n i s the r e s e a r c h tha t has been conducted on " i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g " . In t h i s exper imenta l s i t u -a t i o n , how an i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s a s t i m u l u s i s determined by the o r i e n t i n g t a s k tha t i s b e i n g used . In t h i s way the exper imenter has c o n t r o l over how the s u b j e c t p e r c e p t u a l l y and c o g n i t i v e l y ana lyses the s t i m u l i . The r e s u l t s of such s t u d i e s support the a u t h o r s ' c o n c l u s i o n t h a t r e t e n t i o n v a r i e s as a p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n of the l e v e l of p r o c e s s i n g t h a t i s needed to complete the o r i e n t i n g t a s k . In t h e i r f i n a l d i s c u s -s i o n the authors note tha t " . . . an important g o a l of f u t u r e r e s e a r c h w i l l be to s p e c i f y the memorial consequences of v a r i o u s types of p e r -c e p t u a l o p e r a t i o n s . We have suggested the comparison of o r i e n t i n g tasks w i t h i n the i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g paradigm as one method by which the exper imenter can have more d i r e c t c o n t r o l over the encoding o p e r a -t i o n s the s u b j e c t s p e r f o r m . " 2 0 C r a i k and Tu lv ing (1975) conduct ten such s t u d i e s . The r e s u l t s of t h e i r work i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the r e s u l t s of s i m i l a r s t u d i e s ( e . g . , Hyde, 1973; Hyde & J e n k i n s , 1969, 1973; T i l l and J e n k i n s , 1971, 1974; Walsh & J e n k i n s , 1973; Shulman, 1971, 1974) l e a d the authors to c o n -c lude tha t " . . . i t i s the q u a l i t a t i v e nature of the t a s k , the k i n d of o p e r a t i o n s c a r r i e d out on the i t e m s , tha t determines r e t e n t i o n " 2 1 and , " . . . the t r a c e may be cons idered the r e c o r d of encoding o p e r a t i o n s c a r r i e d out on the i n p u t , the f u n c t i o n of these o p e r a t i o n s i s to ana lyse and s p e c i f y the a t t r i b u t e s of the s t i m u l u s . " 2 2 F i n a l l y , the authors note tha t a broader i m p l i c a t i o n of t h e i r work i s t h a t t h e i r s t u d i e s " . . . conform to the new l o o k i n memory r e s e a r c h t h a t the s t r e s s 14 i s on mental operations, items are remembered not as presented s t i m u l i acting on the organism, but as components of mental a c t i v i t y . Subjects remember not what was 'out there' but what they did during encoding" (emphasis t h e i r s ) . 2 3 Such statements echo many of the conclusions concerning the nature of memory that were drawn by preponents of the schematic r e -constructive p o s i t i o n . Thus the conclusion that "... the trace may be considered the record of encoding operations c a r r i e d out on the input, the function of these operations i s to analyse and specify the at t r i b u t e s of the stimulus" i s very s i m i l a r to the statement that memory involves the conservation of rules that have been apprehended by the i n d i v i d u a l as he "breaks down" the stimulus during perception. Thus both positions stress that i f one wishes to understand memory, one must focus upon what the i n d i v i d u a l i s doing during perception. However, the l e v e l s of processing p o s i t i o n only looks "... at memory purely from the input or encoding and, no attempt has been made to specify either how items are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from one another, are grouped together and organized, or how they are r e t r i e v e d from the system." 2 1* This contrasts with the reconstructive schematic p o s i t i o n which i s also concerned with processes involved i n retention and r e c a l l . The. " l e v e l s of processing" p o s i t i o n was presented as i t suggests the methodology that can be used to tes t the schematic-reconstructive p o s i t i o n . To test t h i s p o s i t i o n , as i n the " l e v e l of processing" studies, i t w i l l be necessary to have co n t r o l over how the i n d i v i d u a l perceptually and c o g n i t i v e l y analyses the s t i m u l i . 15 Note I t i s possible to assess memory by testing either an i n d i -vidual's r e c a l l or recognition of a stimulus. In his memory studies with children, Piaget demonstrated that the greater the emphasis that i s placed on the fig u r a t i v e aspects of the stimulus the greater the recognition of that stimulus w i l l be. Recall, on the other hand, was found to be related to operative involvement, that- i.is, to the type of -rules that were apprehended by the c h i l d . Thus the schematic-reconstructive position predicts that both r e c a l l and recognition w i l l vary as a function of the type of analysis performed by the subject. Recall w i l l vary with the type of analysis f o r , according to this position, r e c a l l i s characterized by.a reconstructive process, the nature of which i s determined by the nature of the rules upon which i t i s based. Thus, i f different analyses of the same stimulus r e s u l t in.: different rules being apprehended during perception, then d i f f e r e n t i a l r e c a l l w i l l also r e s u l t . Recognition w i l l vary as a function of the type of analysis per-formed i f different analyses emphasize the f i g u r a l aspects of the stimulus to a greater or lesser extent. Thus the schematic-reconstruc-t i v e position would predict that i f two different analyses of the same stimulus are performed, the one that emphasises the f i g u r a l aspects of the stimulus to a greater extent w i l l r e s u l t i n better recognition of that stimulus. (But not necessarily better r e c a l l , since r e c a l l i s determined by the operative aspect of cognition, that i s , by the type of rules that are concerned.) Two orienting tasks were chosen which allowed one to vary both 16 the type of r u l e s tha t were apprehended as w e l l as the emphasis t h a t i s p laced on the f i g u r a l aspects of the s t i m u l u s . Before these two o r i e n t i n g t a s k s can be d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i t w i l l be necessary to d i s c u s s the s t i m u l i tha t were used i n t h i s exper iment . The m a t e r i a l s were d e r i v e d from the analogy s u b s e c t i o n of the " C a l i f o r n i a s h o r t -term t e s t of menta l m a t u r i t y " . This sub tes t i n v o l v e s p r e s e n t i n g the sub jec t with s e v e r a l s e r i e s of d rawings , each s e r i e s c o n s i s t i n g of seven drawings tha t rep resent an analogy,'Which the sub jec t must r e s o l v e . Thus i n each s e r i e s , the f i r s t two drawings are r e l a t e d i n some way; the sub jec t must recogn i ze t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p and then dec ide which of the remain ing drawings i s r e l a t e d to the t h i r d drawing i n the same way. In t h i s s u b s e c t i o n many of the p i c t u r e s were ambiguous and o f t e n the same p i c -t u r e occur red i n s e v e r a l s e r i e s . A f t e r the s e r i e s with e i t h e r ambi -guous p i c t u r e s or p i c t u r e s t h a t were repeated i n other s e r i e s , were d i s c a r d e d , t h i r t e e n s e r i e s remained. These t h i r t e e n s e r i e s were then r e - c o p i e d to a s i z e t h a t was a p p r o p r i a t e f o r use i n t h i s s tudy . One of the s e r i e s was used as a p r a c t i c e run to teach the s u b j e c t the r e -q u i r e d a n a l y s i s ; the remain ing twelve be ing employed i n the e x p e r i -ment p roper . A l though twelve s e r i e s were used f o r t e s t i n g , on l y e leven of these were scored and a n a l y s e d . The f i r s t t r a y of p i c t u r e s c o n s i s t e d of s e r i e s of l i n e s and dots w h i l e the remain ing e leven were s e r i e s of common o b j e c t s . Because r e c a l l f o r the f i r s t s e r i e s was so poor and because i t was i m p o s s i b l e to use the same c r i t e r i a i n s c o r i n g t h i s t r a y as was used f o r the other s e r i e s , t h i s t r a y was d i s c a r d e d from the a n a l y s i s . ( In Appendix A. the t h i r t e e n t r a y s of p i c t u r e s are p r e s e n t e d . ) 17 Two d i f f e r e n t o r i e n t i n g t a s k s were u s e d : an "ana logy" t a s k and a " r a n k i n g " t a s k . In the analogy t a s k , the sub jec t was i n s t r u c t e d to s o l v e the analogy problem which each s e r i e s r e p r e s e n t e d . On the other hand, i n the " r a n k i n g " t a s k the s u b j e c t was i n s t r u c t e d to p i c k t h e i r four f a v o u r i t e drawings from amongst the seven, and rank them a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r order of p r e f e r e n c e : f a v o u r i t e , second f a v o u r i t e , and so on . At no t ime was the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t each s e r i e s represented an analogy problem suggested. These two o r i e n t i n g t a s k s r e s u l t e d i n two d i f f e r e n t types of r u l e s b e i n g apprehended. Thus i n s o l v i n g ' t h e analogy t a s k , the s u b -j e c t ' s a t t e n t i o n i s drawn to the r e l a t i o n s h i p tha t e x i s t s amongst the f o u r p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy . Consequent ly , the r e s u l t i n g analogy r u l e s emphasize; a " u n i f y i n g " theme as the four p ietur .es are p e r c e i v e d as a u n i t . Thus to s o l v e the analogy t a s k the i n d i v i d u a l must "break down" the r e l a t i o n s h i p that e x i s t s between the f i r s t two p i c t u r e s . The scanning of the remain ing p i c t u r e s i s guided by t h i s conceptua l r u l e . Thus the focus i s upon the r e l a t i o n s h i p or r u l e t h a t e x i s t s amongst the p i c t u r e s and not upon the s p e c i f i c p h y s i c a l c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s or " f i g u r a t i v e a s p e c t s " of the s t i m u l i . In s o l v i n g t h i s t a s k , the i n d i v i d u a l i s more concerned w i t h de te rmin ing what concept each p i c t u r e r e p r e s e n t s than .he i s i n s tudy ing t h e i r p h y s i c a l q u a l i t i e s . In c o n t r a s t the r a n k i n g t a s k d i d not emphasize a u n i f y i n g r u l e as the s u b j e c t ' s a t t e n t i o n i s not drawn to the r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t e x i s t s amongst the four p i c t u r e s . I n s t e a d , to perform the r a n k i n g t a s k , i t was assumed t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l would have to pay c l o s e a t t e n t i o n to the s p e c i f i c e x t e r n a l or " f i g u r a l " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 18 the p i c t u r e s i f he was to rank them i n order of p r e f e r e n c e . The sub jec t had to dec ide upon a c r i t e r i o n f o r r a n k i n g the p i c t u r e s and i t was assumed t h a t such c r i t e r a would be r e l a t e d i n some way to the p h y s i c a l appearance of the p i c t u r e s . When compared to the analogy t a s k , the r a n k i n g task was assumed to p l a c e r e l a t i v e l y more emphasis on the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n . Thus these two o r i e n t i n g t a s k s p rov ided the means to e x e r c i s e c o n t r o l over the " p r o c e s s i n g " employed by the s u b j e c t s , such that the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e schematic p o s i t i o n cou ld be examined. Note a l s o tha t by u s i n g p i c t u r e s t h i s study i s a t e s t of the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the c o n c l u s i o n s that have been drawn from i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g v e r b a l m a t e r i a l s to v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Th is i s i n keeping w i t h C r a i k and L o c k h a r t ' s sugges t ion tha t " . . . an important g o a l of f u t u r e r e s e a r c h w i l l be to s p e c i f y the memorial consequences of v a r i o u s types of p e r c e p t u a l o p e r a t i o n s . " 2 5 S i x groups of seventeen subj e c t s per group were i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s tudy . Three groups performed the r a n k i n g t a s k and three groups performed the analogy t a s k . . One of the goa ls of t h i s study was to c r e a t e as f a i t h f u l l y as p o s s i b l e a s i t u a t i o n that p a r a l l e l e d n a t u r a l memory. Consequently one week a f t e r complet ing the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s a l l groups were t e s t e d f o r f r e e r e c a l l . I t was f e l t tha t one week was more t y p i c a l of the i n t e r v a l u s u a l l y i n v o l v e d i n n a t u r a l memory than i s an i n t e r v a l of seconds or minutes which c h a r a c t e r i s e s most v e r b a l memory r e s e a r c h . Th is a l s o p rov ides the o p p o r t u n i t y to t e s t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the f i n d i n g s of i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g s t u d i e s that use r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s of a few seconds, to longer i n t e r v a l s . 19 In a d d i t i o n to be ing t e s t e d a f t e r one week, an analogy group (Almm) and a r a n k i n g group (RImm) were t e s t e d f o r f r e e r e c a l l immedia-t e l y a f t e r complet ing the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . These two groups were i n c l u d e d i n the study f o r two reasons . F i r s t l y , as mentioned above, most i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g s t u d i e s t e s t f o r r e c a l l immediate ly a f t e r the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s have been completed. Thus i f the r e s u l t s of t h i s study are to be compared to the f i n d i n g s of such s t u d i e s , i t i s n e c e s -sary to have a t l e a s t two groups t h a t are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s i m i l a r s h o r t - t e r m r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s . The second reason f o r i n c l u d i n g an immediate r e c a l l t e s t was to examine the e f f e c t of " r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e " on r e c a l l . Y u i l l e . (1973).2.? demonstrated tha t r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e immediate ly f o l l o w i n g l e a r n i n g of p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on subse -quent r e c a l l a week l a t e r . Thus an a d d i t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the study was to t e s t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of t h i s " p r a c t i c e e f f e c t " to the long term r e t e n t i o n of v i s u a l m a t e r i a l i s an i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g paradigm. Four of the s i x groups (groups Almm and Rimm as w e l l as an analogy and r a n k i n g group tha t d i d not r e c e i v e an immediate f r e e r e c a l l t e s t but were t e s t e d f o r f r e e r e c a l l a week l a t e r , AWK and RWk) a l s o r e c e i v e d a "probed r e c a l l " t e s t which immediately f o l l o w e d the f r e e r e c a l l t e s t conducted a week a f t e r the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s had been completed. Th is t e s t i n v o l v e d p r e s e n t i n g the s u b j e c t s w i t h the f i r s t drawing of each s e r i e s and i n s t r u c t i n g them to g i v e the names of as many drawings from the r e s t of the s e r i e s which were brought to mind . The next drawing i n the s e r i e s was p r e s e n t e d , and any a d d i t i o n a l 20 drawings r e c a l l e d by the s u b j e c t s were r e c o r d e d . Th is procedure was repeated u n t i l a l l the drawings i n the s e r i e s were shown. The next s e r i e s of drawings were then presented i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n . The reason t h i s probed r e c a l l t e s t was i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study was to examine whether or not r e c a l l cou ld be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r e -c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s , as was p r e d i c t e d by the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e - s c h e m a t i c p o s i t i o n . Thus i f g i ven p a r t of the s e r i e s , cou ld the s u b j e c t u s i n g the r u l e t h a t was i n v o l v e d i n t h a t s e r i e s , r e c o n s t r u c t the r e s t of the s e r i e s ? The probed r e c a l l t e s t d e s c r i b e d above t e s t s f o r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n u s i n g the analogy r u l e s as the f i r s t th ree probes a re always the f i r s t th ree p i c t u r e s tha t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems. I t would have been p o s s i b l e to examine the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process u s i n g e i t h e r the analogy or r a n k i n g r u l e s . The reason r e c o n s t r u c t i o n u s i n g the analogy r u l e s was examined i s d e s c r i b e d below. Because the analogy r u l e emphasized a u n i f y i n g theme amongst the four p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problem and the r a n k i n g r u l e d i d n o t , i t was expected tha t the analogy groups would be c h a r a c -t e r i z e d by g r e a t e r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n d u r i n g r e c a l l . That i s , s i n c e the analogy r u l e s s t r e s s e d the s t r u c t u r e d r e l a t i o n s h i p that e x i s t e d amongst the f o u r p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy p rob lems, i t was expected tha t i f one (or more) of these p i c t u r e s was shown to the s u b j e c t , he cou ld use the analogy r u l e to r e c o n s t r u c t the remain ing p i c t u r e s . A l though a s i m i l a r r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process cou ld occur u s i n g the r a n k i n g r u l e s , because a u n i f y i n g theme was not i n v o l v e d i t was not expected tha t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n would be as s u c c e s s f u l . Thus a 21 probed r e c a l l t a s k tha t would t e s t f o r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n u s i n g the analogy r u l e was chosen as such a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process was expected to c h a r a c t e r i z e the analogy c o n d i t i o n . The remaining two groups (RRec and ARec) d i d not r e c e i v e a p r o b e d - r e c a l l t e s t but i n s t e a d were g i v e n a r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t . Subjects i n these two groups were presented w i t h a s t a c k of drawings which c o n -t a i n e d a l l those p i c t u r e s presented a week e a r l i e r randomly combined w i t h an equa l number of drawings they had never seen. The s u b j e c t s had to separate those drawings they f e l t they had seen a week e a r l i e r from those they had never p e r c e i v e d . Such a t e s t was i n c l u d e d to t e s t the p r e d i c t i o n tha t the r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k would emphasise the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n more than the analogy o r i e n t i n g t a s k . I f t h i s were the case i t would a l s o be expected tha t the r a n k i n g groups would be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s u p e r i o r r e c o g n i t i o n scores f o r as P i a g e t has shown, r e c o g n i t i o n should p r o v i d e an i n d i r e c t mea-sure of the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n . Now that ; t h i s study has been o u t l i n e d , i t i s p o s s i b l e to be more s p e c i f i c concern ing the type of outcome t h a t would be expected i f i t i s to represent a v a l i d t e s t of the schematic r e c o n s t r i c t i v e p o s i t i o n . I f the f i r s t assumption i s v a l i d , tha t i s , i f what the s u b j e c t does d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n i s a c r i t i c a l determinant of the nature of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , then i t i s expected tha t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l vary as a f u n c t i o n of the type of o r i e n t i n g task which the s u b j e c t per fo rms . Thus i t i s expected that f o r the analogy groups r e c a l l of those p i c -t u r e s tha t are meaningfu l w i t h i n the context of the analogy problem ( i . e . , the four, that are r e l a t e d by the analogy r u l e ) w i l l be 22 s u p e r i o r to r e c a l l of the remain ing th ree p i c t u r e s tha t are not mean ingfu l w i t h i n t h i s c o n t e x t . S i m i l a r l y , f o r t h e / r a n k i n g groups r e c a l l of those four p i c t u r e s tha t were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s w i l l be s u p e r i o r to the r e c a l l of the th ree tha t were not so chosen. A l s o because the r a n k i n g t a s k emphasizes the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n , i t i s expected the r a n k i n g group w i l l be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s u p e r i o r r e c o g n i t i o n . Furthermore, s i n c e the r a n k i n g t a s k emphasizes the f i g u r a t i v e a s p e c t , the longer a s u b j e c t spends s o l v i n g t h i s o r i e n t i n g t a s k , the b e t t e r he should do on the r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t . S ince the analogy o r i e n t i n g t a s k does not emphasize the f i g u r a t i v e a s p e c t , . t h e amount of t ime spent on t h i s t a s k should not be r e l a t e d to the i n d i -v i d u a l ' s r e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e . To s o l v e the r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k the s u b j e c t must pay a t t e n -t i o n to the f i g u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l the p i c t u r e s i n each s e r i e s i f he i s to dec ide which are h i s f a v o u r i t e s . Consequent ly , i t i s expected that a l l the p i c t u r e s i n each s e r i e s w i l l be e q u a l l y r e c o g -n i z e d . On the other hand, i n s o l v i n g the analogy t a s k i t i s on l y necessary tha t the sub jec t pay c l o s e a t t e n t i o n to the four p i c t u r e s r e l a t e d by the analogy r u l e . Consequent ly , i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i t i s expected tha t r e c o g n i t i o n of the four p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy ^ problem w i l l be^ s u p e r i o r to the r e c o g n i t i o n of the th ree not so i n v o l v e d . The second assumption s t a t e s t h a t memory i n v o l v e s c o n s e r v a t i o n of r u l e s i n schematic form and r e c a l l i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r e c o n s t r u c -t i v e process i n which such r u l e s a r e u t i l i z e d to r e c o n s t r u c t the o r i g i n a l s t i m u l u s as adequate ly as p o s s i b l e . I f t h i s assumption i s 23 v a l i d then s u b j e c t s i n the analogy groups should score w e l l on the p r o b e d - r e c a l l t a s k s i n c e t h i s t e s t p rov ides them w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y to e x e r c i s e the analogy r u l e s to r e c o n s t r u c t the r e s t of the s e r i e s . A l s o , i f the analogy r u l e s are be ing used to r e c o n s t r u c t d u r i n g probed r e c a l l , then most of the p i c t u r e s tha t are r e c a l l e d i n t h i s t e s t w i l l be those p i c t u r e s tha t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems. In c o n t r a s t , sub jec ts i n the r a n k i n g groups should have a lower probed r e c a l l sco re s i n c e the probed r e c a l l t a s k tha t i s used i n t h i s study does not p rov ide s u b j e c t s i n these groups w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y to use the r a n k i n g r u l e s to r e c o n s t r u c t the s e r i e s . Even i f a p r o b e d - r e c a l l t a s k was used t h a t p rov ided such an o p p o r t u n i t y ( t h a t . i s , i f - : t h e . p r o b e s were those p i c t u r e s tha t were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s ) , i t would s t i l l be expected tha t the r a n k i n g groups would have lower probed r e c a l l s c o r e s , s i n c e the r a n k i n g r u l e s are not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a " u n i f y i n g " theme which s t r e s s e s a s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p amongst the p i c t u r e s . I f the analogy r u l e s a r e . u s e d to r e c o n s t r u c t f r e e r e c a l l , i t i s expected t h a t i n bo th immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , p i c t u r e s from the same s e r i e s w i l l tend to be r e c a l l e d t o g e t h e r . Thus the f r e e r e c a l l of the analogy groups w i l l be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by " c l u s t e r i n g " . Furthermore, i f indeed i t i s the analogy r u l e s tha t are be ing used to r e c o n s t r u c t d u r i n g r e c a l l , then most of the c l u s t e r i n g should i n v o l v e p i c t u r e s tha t occur red i n the analogy p rob lems, t h a t i s the f i r s t th ree p i c t u r e s of each s e r i e s and the answer. Because i t i s not expected tha t the r a n k i n g r u l e s w i l l be as s u c c e s s f u l l y used to r e c o n s t r u c t f r e e r e c a l l , such c l u s t e r i n g i s expected much .more f r e q u e n t l y : . i n the analogy groups. 24 Because the r a n k i n g r u l e s are expected to be l e s s s u c c e s s f u l i n r e c o n s t r u c t i n g r e c a l l , i t i s expected that when they a re requested to r e c a l l i n both the f r e e and probed r e c a l l c o n d i t i o n s , they would tend to guess more than t h e i r counte rpar t s i n the analogy groups. Thus more e r r o r s should be made by s u b j e c t s i n t h e : r a n k i n g groups d u r i n g both f r e e and probed r e c a l l . F i n a l l y s i n c e i t i s p r e d i c t e d tha t the analogy r u l e s w i l l be more s u c c e s s f u l i n r e c o n s t r u c t i n g r e c a l l , i t i s expected t h a t r e c a l l i n the analogy groups w i l l be g r e a t e r than r e c a l l i n the r a n k i n g groups i n both the immediate and delayed c o n d i t i o n s . An u n d e r l y i n g assumption tha t i s made when the above p r e d i c t i o n s were generated i s t h a t the o r i e n t i n g tasks would be s u c c e s s f u l i n de te rmin ing how the s u b j e c t s ana lyzed the s t i m u l i . However, i n any i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g s t u d y , the p o s s i b i l i t y always e x i s t s tha t a t l e a s t p a r t of the t i m e , the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s may f a i l to produce the d e s i r e d r e s u l t s and the s u b j e c t s may ana lyse the s t i m u l i i n an i d i o -s y n c r a t i c manner. Thus i n t h i s study i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the s u b j e c t s may generate t h e i r own r u l e s b e s i d e s those tha t are encouraged by the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . Because of the nature of the s t i m u l i used i n t h i s s t u d y , i t i s very p o s s i b l e tha t t h i s , s i t u a t i o n cou ld occur i n the r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n . Thus, even though none of the s u b j e c t s i n the r a n k i n g groups would be aware tha t some of the cards i n each t r a y were r e l a t e d by an analogy r u l e , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to ignore the f a c t tha t i n each t r a y the cards a re r e l a t e d i n some way. Thus i n t r a y 4 a l l the p i c t u r e s are of an imals or i n s e c t s ; t r a y 6 c o n s i s t s of seven p i c t u r e s of people and s i x of them are doing something; s e v e r a l ( — 25 cards i n t r a y 7 are r e l a t e d m e d i c a l l y i n some way; four of the p i c -tu res i n t r a y 9 are r e l a t e d to photography; i n t r a y 6, th ree of the cards are r e l a t e d to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and so on . The reader has on ly to c a u s a l l y scan Appendix E to a p p r e c i a t e the l a r g e number of p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s that e x i s t i n each s e r i e s . Hence, even though an i n d i -v i d u a l might not r e a l i z e . t h a t an analogy r u l e was i n v o l v e d , he may fo rmula te h i s own r u l e s tha t would give..meaning to each of the s e r i e s . Indeed t h i s i s what i s to be expected i n a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e - s c h e m a t i c model , f o r as B a r t l e t t has concluded from h i s s t u d i e s , the i n d i v i d u a l c o n t i n u o u s l y attempts to " c o n f e r meaning" on every s t i m u l u s he e n -c o u n t e r s . The p o s s i b l e r o l e of such i d i o s y n c r a t i c r u l e s w i l l be d i s -cussed a f t e r the r e s u l t s of the study have been p r e s e n t e d . No p r e d i c t i o n s w i l l be made concern ing the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e as the i n c l u s i o n of t h i s independent v a r i a b l e i n t h i s study was f o r e x p l o r a t o r y reasons . Before p r e s e n t i n g the study tha t i s d e s c r i b e d above, two recent approaches to the problem of memory tha t have r e c e i v e d a good d e a l of a t t e n t i o n and are r e l e v a n t to t h i s t h e s i s must be c o n s i d e r e d . These are Anderson and Bower's "Human A s s o c i a t i v e Memory" (HAM) model and the approach represented by the "LNR Research Group" headed by Norman and Rumelhart . Anderson and Bower's "Human A s s o c i a t i v e Memory" model w i l l be cons idered f i r s t . HAM i s r e l e v a n t to t h i s theses as i t r e p r e s e n t s an attempt to r e c o n c i l e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l e m p i r i c i s m ( P a i v i o ' s p o s i t i o n and other t r a c e f o r m u l a t i o n s a re examples of t h i s approach) w i t h m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r a t i o n a l i s m ( represented i n t h i s t h e s i s by the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e 26 concept ion of memory). Consequent ly , aspects of bo th approaches are represented i n HAM. The e m p i r i c i s t i n f l u e n c e i s apparent i n the " s t r a t e g y f r e e component"" of memory which p l a y s a c r i t i c a l r o l e i n HAM's o p e r a t i o n . The b a s i c assumption u n d e r l y i n g t h i s component i s t h a t " . . . l ong term memory, i t s e l f , i s s t r a t e g y - i n v a r i a n t , tha t probes are always matched to memory i n the same way, tha t i d e n t i c a l outputs w i l l be generated to i d e n t i c a l p robes , and tha t a g i v e n i n -put always i s represented and encoded i n the same manner. Mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s :. . the p i c t u r e i n terms of the s t r a t e g i c s e l e c t i o n of probes and i n p u t s which are sent to memory and i n terms of i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n s g i ven to o u t p u t . " 2 7 And " D e s p i t e tha t t e c h n i c a l i t y about the ideas of the base se t be ing i n n a t e , the s t r a t e g y - f r e e component does p a s s i v e l y accept whatever i s sent to i t by the p a r s a r s and does i n -d i s c r i m i n a t e l y proceed to encode l i n k s i n t h a t i n p u t . Dur ing decoding i t generates output t r e e s i n response to probe t r i e s i n a s i m i l a r l y n 2 8 manner. Th is p a s s i v e , r e p r o d u c t i v e , automat ic concept ion of memory i s d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed to an a c t i v e , r e c o n s t r u c t i v e , p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g approach. Bower and Anderson recogn i ze t h i s as they w r i t e : "For example, t h i s a t t i t u d e appears f r e q u e n t l y i n a s s e r t i o n s tha t memory i s not r e p r o d u c t i v e but r a t h e r r e c o n s t r u c t i v e , or tha t remembering bears s t r o n g resemblances to 'problem s o l v i n g ' or tha t a l l s o r t s of r u l e s and i n f e r e n t i a l procedures are c a l l e d i n by ' h i g h e r menta l p r o c e s s e s ' i n order f o r the person to r e c o n s t r u c t an event from memory. Th is v i e w p o i n t , that memory n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i c a t e s d i v e r s e i n f e r e n c e and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g r o u t i n e s both at the t ime of input ( e . g . , 27 comprehending a sentence) and a t output ( e . g . , r e c o n s t r u c t i n g an e v e n t ) , i s a t d i r e c t odds w i t h our p r o p o s a l t h a t there e x i s t s a s t r a t e g y - f r e e component of memory (as t h a t model led i n HAM) t h a t f u n c -t i o n s independent ly of the r e s t of the menta l system . . . " 2 9 They a l s o r e a l i z e the p o s s i b l e consequences of t a k i n g such an approach when they note that : ' " I t i s a c l a i m of c o n s i d e r a b l e e m p i r i c a l import to s t a t e tha t there i s a core . s t r a t e g y - f r e e memory component common to a l l memory performances. The c l a i m i s e q u i v a l e n t to a s s e r t i n g t h a t memory performance can be ana lysed i n t o a l a r g e s e t of mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s p l u s t h i s common s t r a t e g y - f r e e component. I f s o , the t a s k of a n a l y s i n g a p a r t i c u l a r memory performance can be d i v i d e d i n t o two s m a l l e r and hence more t r a c t a b l e sub-problems ;— tha t of s p e c i f y i n g the memory component and tha t of s p e c i f y i n g the p r e v a i l i n g s t r a t e g y of the s u b j e c t - . . . The reader should a p p r e c i a t e t h a t t h i s decomposi -t i o n may i n f a c t be i m p o s s i b l e f o r human memory . . . both the G e s t a l t e r s  and the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e t h e o r i s t s a s s e r t e d tha t i t was Imposs ib le to  e x t r i c a t e memory from such mat te rs as problem s o l v i n g and i n f e r e n c e . I f they a r e r i g h t , t h i s whole t h e o r e t i c a l e n t e r p r i s e w i l l come c r a s h i n g  down on our h e a d s . " 3 0 (emphasis mine) Thus, to the extent tha t t h i s t h e s i s co r robora tes the schematic r e c o n s t r u c t i v e approach to memory, the a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n represented by HAM w i l l be d i s c o n f i r m e d . Cont ras ted to the r e d u c t i o n i s t i c p o s i t i o n taken by Bower and Anderson, Norman and Rumelhart adopt a schematic approach to memory and c o g n i t i o n . Hence they w r i t e : "One v iew of the r o l e of wor ld knowledge i s to c o n s i d e r i t as a s t r u c t u r a l framework upon which newly acqu i red i n f o r m a t i o n must be f a s t e n e d . Th is s k e l e t a l or 28 schematic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n then guides both the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i n f o r -mat ion and the search f o r new i n f o r m a t i o n to f i l l the gaps l e f t i n the s t r u c t u r e . . . The n o t i o n tha t knowledge i s packaged i n t o conceptua l frameworks t h a t guide i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a p e r s o n ' s exper iences i s not new. Under the name of schema the i d e a has a long h i s t o r y i n psycho logy , where i t i s most f r e q u e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the work of B a r t l e t t and P i a g e t . We f i n d the i d e a v a l u a b l e , f o r once an approp -r i a t e frame or schema has been e s t a b l i s h e d , then i t can help p r o v i d e a meaningfu l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . : We r e p e a t e d l y use t h i s n o t i o n i n our a n a l y s i s of language i n many of the chapters t h a t f o l l o w . In a d d i t i o n , we use frames and schemata as the conceptua l b a s i s f o r the a n a l y s i s of v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n . . . and game p l a y i n g . " 3 1 Furthermore , by s tu d y ing the types of conceptua l e r r o r s made i n r e c a l l f o r such n o n - l i n g u i s t i c s t i m u l i as b u i l d i n g s the authors were f o r c e d to conclude tha t such e r r o r s r e v e a l e d " . . . the c o n s t r u c t i v e nature of the r e t r i e v a l process . . . The memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s not s imply an accura te r e n d i t i o n of r e a l l i f e , but i n f a c t i s a combina-t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n , i n f e r e n c e , and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n from knowledge about b u i l d i n g s and the wor ld i n g e n e r a l . " 3 2 S i m i l a r l y , a f t e r e x a -min ing the nature of i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a f t e r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g by s t udy in g memory f o r board games, i t was concluded tha t "The memory f o r the board appeared to be more l i k e a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n based upon the conceptua l nature of the game than upon an accura te image of the b o a r d . " 3 3 Thus Norman and Rumelhart conclude : that r e c a l l i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s . A l s o i n agreement w i t h other 29 r e c o n s t r u c t i o n a l i s t s but i n o p p o s i t i o n to the assumption behind the c o n s t r u c t i o n of HAM that " . . . there e x i s t s a s t r a t e g y f r e e component of memory ( e . g . , tha t model led i n HAM), tha t f u n c t i o n s independent ly of the r e s t of the menta l s y s t e m " 3 4 , they conclude tha t "A b a s i c tenet of our approach to the study of c o g n i t i v e processes i s tha t on ly a s i n g l e system i s i n v o l v e d . In p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , the u s u a l procedure i s to separate d i f f e r e n t areas of s tudy : memory, p e r -c e p t i o n , problem s o l v i n g , language syn tax , semant ics . We b e l i e v e tha t a common c o g n i t i v e system u n d e r l i e s these a r e a s , and tha t a l though they are p a r t i c a l l y decomposable . . . the i n t e r a c t i o n s among the d i f -f e r e n t components are of c r i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e . 1 , 3 5 The i r r e s e a r c h on problem s o l v i n g r e f e r r e d to above w i l l be cons idered i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l as i t i s p e r t i n e n t to the study presented i n t h i s t h e s e s . The purpose of t h i s work was to study the nature of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g by f o c u s i n g on r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of. board p o s i t i o n s i n game p l a y i n g . Towards t h i s end the authors employed two board games "Go" and "Gomuku". A l though both these games are p layed on s i m i l a r boards w i t h s i m i l a r p i e c e s , they are based upon d i f f e r e n t se ts of r u l e s . In the exper iment , the sub ject was shown a board p o s i t i o n which o s t e n s i b l y represented a game of "Gomuku" i n p r o g r e s s . The i n d i v i d u a l ' s t a s k was to ana lyze the game and make the best move f o r b l a c k . A f t e r making the a n a l y s i s , the sub jec t was r e q u i r e d to r e c o n s t r u c t the board p o s i t i o n from memory. Each i n d i v i d u a l then performed two a d d i t i o n a l ana lyses of the same g e n e r a l type but was not r e q u i r e d to r e c o n s t r u c t . t h e m . F i n a l l y , each sub jec t was r e q u i r e d to ana lyse and r e c o n s t r u c t a board p o s i t i o n tha t 30 represented a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n on the f i r s t board p o s i t i o n they were shown. However, t h i s t ime they were t o l d t h a t i t was a game of "Go" . ( I f the board was not t ransformed the i n d i v i d u a l might have r e a l i z e d tha t i t was the f i r s t p o s i t i o n tha t was shown to h im. A l though the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n d i d change the s u r f a c e appearance of the board the b a s i c arrangement of the p i e c e s was not a l t e r e d . Thus both r e c o n s t r u c -t i o n s were d i r e c t l y comparable . ) The a u t h o r ' s major f i n d i n g was t h a t the nature of the board problem determined the types of p i e c e s remem-bered . Hence, i f the i n d i v i d u a l was t o l d tha t the board p o s i t i o n was a "Gomuku" game, he remembered more p i e c e s t h a t were r e l e v a n t to w i n -n i n g i n "Gomuku" than "Go" . The r e v e r s e was t r u e i f the sub jec t had been informed that i t was a "Go" game. Thus the authors w r i t e t h a t : "The board r e c o n s t r u c t i o n study demonstrates t h a t s u b j e c t i v e o r g a n i z a -t i o n is . . . .affected by the nature of the problem. Thus o r g a n i z a t i o n cent res around c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of p i e c e s t h a t are meaningfu l i n the context of the game be ing p l a y e d . Thus, i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s must be a b l e to represent the e x t e r n a l wor ld i n terms of mean ingfu l or h i g h l y f a m i l i a r s e g m e n t s . " 3 6 And a l s o , " . . . when we t a l k about 'what i s s e e n ' , we are e f f e c t i v e l y t a l k i n g about 'what i s p e r c e i v e d ' , and p e r c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n r e f e r s to i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , which can  d i f f e r f o r d i f f e r e n t ana lyses of the same s c e n e " 3 7 (emphasis mine ) . Such r e s u l t s do not f o l l o w from e i t h e r a t r a c e concept ion of memory or the n e o - a s s o c i a t i o n i s t model proposed by Bower and Anderson. How-e v e r , these r e s u l t s are consonant w i t h the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e approach. Th is i s r e f l e c t e d by the f a c t t h a t the study c o r r o b o r a t e s the two tenets of the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n t h a t were 31 d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r i n the t h e s i s . Thus, the nature of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n depends more upon, the s u b j e c t ' s a c t i o n s d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n ( that i s , the type of " a n a l y s i s " he i s i n v o l v e d i n ) than the s t i m u l i . Secondly , r e c a l l i n v o l v e s a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process based upon the r u l e s of the game that was a n a l y s e d . Note t h a t the study d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s i s s i m i l a r i n many r e s p e c t s to the study j u s t p r e s e n t e d . I t i s s i m i l a r i n the sense tha t t h i s study i s a l s o concerned w i t h problem s o l v i n g i n which two d i f -f e r e n t ana lyses of the same s t i m u l i a re i n v o l v e d . As i n the p r e v i o u s s tudy , the i n t e n t i s to examine r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d . . r e c a l l as a f u n c t i o n of the . type of a n a l y s i s undertaken by the s u b j e c t . However, t h i s study a l s o rep resents an improvement over the p rev ious work. F i r s t l y , the s t i m u l i i n v o l v e d are f a m i l i a r p i c t u r e s of people and o b j e c t s and not game board p o s i t i o n s . Such s t i m u l i as p i c t u r e s of people and o b j e c t s are more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e than board p o s i t i o n s would be of the type of s t i m u l i u s u a l l y i n v o l v e d in^ .natu ra l memory. Secondly , the type of problems i n v o l v e d are d i f f e r e n t . Ins tead of a n a l y s i n g b a s i c a l l y the same board p o s i t i o n s under two d i f f e r e n t se ts of i n s t r u c t i o n s , each s u b j e c t must s o l v e e i t h e r an analogy or a r a n k i n g problem. Because d i f f e r e n t groups of s u b j e c t s were used f o r each type of a n a l y s i s , i t was not necessary to t rans fo rm the s t i m u l i i n any way. Thus, ac ross the two ana lyses the s t i m u l i were t r u l y i d e n t i c a l . Th is a l lowed f o r a more .adequate study of how r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and r e c a l l would " . . . d i f f e r f o r d i f f e r e n t ana lyses of the same s c e n e . " (Although the board p o s i t i o n s used i n the p r e v i o u s study were i d e n t i c a l as f a r as the arrangements of p i e c e s were concerned, the second 32 p o s i t i o n d i d represent a t r a n s o f r m a t i o n of the f i r s t . Thus i n the second board p o s i t i o n the c o l o u r s of the p i e c e s were r e v e r s e d , and the board was r o t a t e d c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e 90° and r e f l e c t e d ac ross the v e r t i c a l a x i s . Consequent ly , both p o s i t i o n s were not t r u l y i d e n t i c a l . ) T h i r d l y , i n the p r e v i o u s study r e c a l l was t e s t e d immediate ly a f t e r a n a l y z i n g the problem. In t h i s study both an immediate and a delayed t e s t of one week are used . F i n a l l y , t h i s study a l s o i n v o l v e s a m a n i p u l a t i o n and t e s t of the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n . 33 METHOD Scor ing Procedure The procedure that was u s e d . t o determine i f a s u b j e c t ' s responses d u r i n g f r e e and probed r e c a l l were c o r r e c t or i n c o r r e c t i s d e s c r i b e d below. To be scored c o r r e c t , a response g i ven d u r i n g f r e e r e c a l l had to be s p e c i f i c enough to i d e n t i f y one of the p i c t u r e s t h a t were p r e -s e n t e d , i n any of the e leven s e r i e s . I t should be noted that i f a sub jec t gave a vague response , he was quest ioned by the exper imenter i n order to make h i s d e s c r i p t i o n more s p e c i f i c . Dur ing f r e e r e c a l l a response was scored i n c o r r e c t i f : (1) I t i d e n t i f i e d a p i c t u r e tha t had not occur red i n any of the e leven s e r i e s , (2) the d e s c r i p t i o n was so vague tha t i t cou ld apply to s e v e r a l p i c -t u r e s , e . g . , " a p e r s o n " , " s c e n e r y " , e t c . , (3) the response d e s c r i b e d a "compos i te" of two or more p i c t u r e s . To be scored as c o r r e c t d u r i n g probed r e c a l l a response had to d e s c r i b e a p i c t u r e which f o l l o w e d the probe p i c t u r e i n the s e r i e s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Thus i f the s u b j e c t s ' response r e f e r r e d to a p i c t u r e tha t occur red i n one of the ten s e r i e s not be ing c o n s i d e r e d , i t was scored as i n c o r r e c t . . , Subj e c t s A l l but two of the s u b j e c t s were undergraduate s tudents e n r o l l e d i n e i t h e r f i r s t or second year psychology c o u r s e s . The remain ing two were s e n i o r s tudents e n r o l l e d i n a f o u r t h year educat ion program. A l l s u b j e c t s were v o l u n t e e r s and were ass igned randomly to groups 34 befo re they were c o n t a c t e d . No attempt was made to equate the groups a c c o r d i n g to sex of the s u b j e c t s (except , of c o u r s e , by random a s s i g n -ment) . The compos i t ion of each group a c c o r d i n g to the sex of the members i s presented below. AImm RImm AWk RWk ARec RRec Male 7 7 5 8 9 9 Female 10 10 12 9 8 8 Procedure Because the study has a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d i n some d e t a i l i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n , i t i s on l y necessary t o i n c l u d e here a c o n s i d e r a -t i o n of s e v e r a l aspects of the study t h a t were not p r e v i o u s l y men-t i o n e d . Before t a k i n g p a r t i n the experiment p r o p e r , a l l groups had to complete a p r a c t i c e r u n . The i n s t r u c t i o n s tha t were g i v e n i n t h i s p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n and i n the r e s t of the study are presented i n Appen-d i x B. In groups AImm and RImm, i n order to prevent r e h e a r s a l b e f o r e the immediate r e c a l l t e s t was g i v e n , each sub jec t had to complete a b r i e f d i s t r a c t i o n t a s k . T h i s i n v o l v e d count ing backwards out loud by th rees from an ass igned random number f o r t h i r t y seconds. Two d i f f e r e n t o rders were used to present the twelve s e r i e s of drawings to the s i x groups. In each group h a l f the s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d one order and the other h a l f r e c e i v e d the second o r d e r . To a v o i d p o s s i b l e " o r d e r - e f f e c t s " , t h i s order was reve rsed i n the p r o b e d - r e c a l l t e s t tha t was conducted a week l a t e r . The t ime r e q u i r e d to complete the f r e e - r e c a l l t e s t was recorded f o r each s u b j e c t . A l s o , d u r i n g 35 p r o b e d - r e c a l l the i n t e r v a l between p r e s e n t a t i o n of each "probe" drawing and the complet ion of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e c a l l was r e c o r d e d . Thus each subj ect completed e i t h e r an analogy or a r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k . I f an i n d i v i d u a l was to be t e s t e d f o r immediate r e c a l l he had to f i r s t complete a d i s t r a c t i o n t a s k which i n v o l v e d count ing backward by " t h r e e s " from an ass igned random number f o r t h i r t y seconds. The i n d i v i d u a l then wrote down as many of the p i c t u r e s tha t he cou ld r e c a l l as p o s s i b l e . One week l a t e r , a l l i n d i v i d u a l s re tu rned and once a g a i n would attempt to f r e e l y r e c a l l as many drawings as p o s s i b l e . Then, depending on the group he was i n , the sub jec t would complete e i t h e r the probed r e c a l l t e s t or the r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t d e s c r i b e d above. Summary S i x groups of seventeen s u b j e c t s per group were i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s tudy . Three of the groups ("A" groups) so l ved the analogy o r i e n t i n g t a s k w h i l e t h r e e groups ("R" groups) so l ved the r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k . A l l s i x groups were t e s t e d f o r f r e e r e c a l l one week a f t e r p e r -forming the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . Two groups (AImm and RImm) were t e s t e d f o r f r e e r e c a l l immediate ly a f t e r complet ing the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . Four of the groups (AImm and RImm as w e l l as Awk and Rwk, two groups t h a t were not t e s t e d f o r immediate f r e e r e c a l l ) were t e s t e d f o r probed r e c a l l immediately a f t e r complet ing the de layed f r e e r e c a l l t e s t . F i n a l l y , two groups (ARec and RRec) r e c e i v e d a r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t i n s t e a d of the probed r e c a l l t a s k . 36 RESULTS Overview To adequate ly t e s t a l l the p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t were generated by the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e - s c h e m a t i c approach i t was necessary to s u b j e c t the data to d i f f e r e n t phases of a n a l y s e s . The f i r s t phase of the a n a l y s i s was concerned w i t h t e s t i n g s e v e r a l p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t f o l l o w from the f i r s t and second assumptions of the s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n . Thus, i f the second assump-t i o n i s v a l i d — t h a t r e c a l l i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s . — i t i s expected tha t the analogy r u l e s w i l l be more s u c c e s s -f u l l y used i n r e c o n s t r u c t i n g r e c a l l . Th is should be r e f l e c t e d i n s u p e r i o r : o v e r a l l f r e e r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l , c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s , and fewer e r r o r s i n the analogy groups. I f the f i r s t assumption i s v a l i d — tha t the nature of r e p r e -s e n t a t i o n i s c l o s e l y l i n k e d and dependent on the nature of p e r c e p t i o n — then i t i s expected tha t r e c o g n i t i o n scores w i l l be h igher i n the r a n k i n g group s i n c e the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n was empha-s i z e d i n t h i s group. A l s o f o r s u b j e c t s i n the r a n k i n g group there should be a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the t ime spent on the o r i e n t i n g t a s k and t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e s . For s u b j e c t s i n the analogy group no such c o r r e l a t i o n should be found s i n c e the f i g u r a -t i v e aspect i s not emphasized i n t h i s group. Phase I I i n v o l v e s a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the data and i s concerned w i t h t e s t i n g those p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t were not eva luated i n Phase I. A more complete d e s c r i p t i o n of Phase I I w i l l be g i ven 37 when tha t p a r t of the a n a l y s i s i s c o n s i d e r e d . R e s u l t s — Summary Immediate and F i n a l Free R e c a l l Table 1 shows the mean immediate f r e e , f i n a l f r e e , and probed r e c a l l scores f o r the s i x groups . Table 2 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs ; that were conducted f o r each of the l i s t e d com-p a r i s o n s . (Note: In c a r r y i n g out the l i s t e d comparisons a " p o o l e d " e r r o r term was not u s e d , as the exper imenta l m a n i p u l a t i o n a l s o a f f e c -ted the w i t h i n c e l l v a r i a b i l i t y . For example, the Mean Square E r r o r (MSe) f o r the comparison Almm and RImm i s 5 8 . 4 6 , but i s on ly 16.32 f o r the comparison AWk + ARec vs RWk + RRec. Th is d e c i s i o n r e s u l t e d i n a s m a l l e r number of degrees i n the denominator of the F_ r a t i o and consequent ly a more c o n s e r v a t i v e t e s t . The d e c i s i o n to use i n d e p e n -dent e r r o r terms f o r each comparison and consequent ly a more i n d e -pendent t e s t , should be kept i n mind when e v a l u a t i n g those c o m p a r i -sons that j u s t f a i l to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . ) A l s o note tha t groups AWk and ARec are c o l l a p s e d together and compared w i t h groups RWk and RRec s i m i l a r l y c o l l a p s e d , on the depen-dent v a r i a b l e of f r e e r e c a l l . Th is p r a c t i c e of c o l l a p s i n g two or more groups over one or s e v e r a l dependent v a r i a b l e s w i l l be repeated whenever p o s s i b l e , throughout the remainder of the a n a l y s e s . Groups a re c o l l a p s e d on ly when there i s n e i t h e r a t h e o r e t i c a l nor a s t a t i s -t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between the groups on the dependent v a r i a b l e on which they a re be ing combined. The comparison f o r the groups be ing combined, i s always presented under the " e q u a l i t y of Groups Being 38 Table 1 Mean Immediate, F i n a l , and Probes R e c a l l Scores f o r A l l Groups Immediate F i n a l Probed Group R e c a l l R e c a l l R e c a l l Almm 28.30 17.06 18.18 RImm 24.53 19.65 9 .18 AWk 8.47 12.12 RWk 8.24 4 .12 ARec 8.89 RRec 8 .41 AWk + ARec - 8 .68 RWk + RRec 8 .33 39 Table 2 Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Const ructed f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s : Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l Comparison.. df MSe Immediate R e c a l l AImm vs RImm F i n a l R e c a l l AImm vs RImm AWk + ARec vs RWk + RRec Probed R e c a l l AImm v s RImm AWk vs RWk E q u a l i t y of Groups Being C o l l a p s e d F i n a l R e c a l l AWk vs ARec RWk vs RRec 32 32 66 32 32 32 32 49.25 58.46 16.32 21.88 11.73 2.45 .9740 .1298 24.21 28.43 26.74 20.35 .07 ,02 n . s . n . s . n. s . <.0000 <.0001 n . s . n . s . 40 C o l l a p s e d " s e c t i o n of the summary t a b l e . N e i t h e r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n immediate f r e e r e c a l l or f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l between groups AImm or RImm was s i g n i f i c a n t . A l though the main e f f e c t of o r i e n t i n g t a s k was not s i g n i f i c a n t , the i n t e r a c t i o n of o r i e n t i n g t a s k X r e c a l l t e s t was, F ( l , 3 2 ) = 1 0 . 2 , _p_ < . 0 0 3 , MSe = 1 6 . 7 9 . The s i g n i f i c a n t o r i e n t i n g t a s k X r e c a l l t e s t i n t e r a c t i o n i s d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 1. T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n r e f l e c t s the percent decrease i n r e c a l l t h a t was c a l c u l a t e d f o r both groups. Thus r e c a l l i n group AImm decreased 38% from immediate to f i n a l r e c a l l , w h i l e r e c a l l i n group RImm on ly decreased 24%. T h i s 14% d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( l , 3 2 ) = 4 . 7 9 , £ < 2 . 0 3 , MSe = 3 . 2 8 . The above r e s u l t s are p a r a l l e l e d by the i n s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups AWk and ARec, and groups RWk and RRec. Probed R e c a l l Tab le 1 d i s p l a y s the probed r e c a l l scores f o r the groups AImm, Rimm, AWk, and RWk. Table 2 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the l i s t e d comparisons. As p r e d i c t e d the comparison between group AImm and RImm was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( l , 3 2 ) = 2 8 . 5 3 , £ < . 0 0 0 0 , as the analogy group had a mean probed r e c a l l score of about tw ice tha t of the r a n k i n g group. S i m i l a r l y , the comparison between groups AWk and RWk was very s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( l , 3 2 ) = 2 0 . 3 5 , p < . 0 0 0 1 . In t h i s case the r e c a l l score of the analogy group be ing almost t r i p l e ; that of the r a n k i n g group. Immediate and F i n a l Free R e c a l l " C l u s t e r i n g " was o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : i f two 41 F i g u r e 1 Mean Number of R e c a l l e d P i c t u r e s as a F u n c t i o n of Time of R e c a l l 3 0 • . Almm o o RImm 25 2 0 15 10 I .R. F .R. I .R. F .R. =;Immediate Free R e c a l l = F i n a l Free R e c a l l 42 p i c t u r e s from the same s e r i e s were r e c a l l e d t o g e t h e r , such a combina-t i o n was g i ven one p o i n t . I f th ree p i c t u r e s were r e c a l l e d t o g e t h e r , two p o i n t s were a s s i g n e d , and so on , to a maximum p o s s i b l e of s i x p o i n t s per s e r i e s . In p r a c t i c e , the maximum p o i n t t o t a l a t t a i n e d was f i v e p o i n t s i n immediate r e c a l l and four p o i n t s i n f i n a l r e c a l l . Table 3 d i s p l a y s the mean c l u s t e r i n g scores obta ined by a l l groups on both immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l . Table 4 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the l i s t e d comparisons. As expected , there was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c l u s t e r i n g i n the analogy groups than i n the r a n k i n g groups. In immediate r e c a l l the analogy g roup 's mean c l u s t e r i n g score was more than tw ice the r a n k i n g g roup 's s c o r e , F_(l,32) = 2 8 . 1 3 , £ < .0000 . For the comparison i n -v o l v i n g groups AImm and RImm, i n f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , the d i f f e r e n c e was s t i l l i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n , a l though the e f f e c t was somewhat reduced, F_(l,32) = 4 . 3 0 , _p_ < . 0 4 ; w i t h seventy percent more c l u s t e r i n g o c c u r r i n g i n the analogy group. The comparison i n v o l v i n g the groups t h a t d i d not r e c e i v e r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e (AWk + ARec vs RWk + RRec) was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t , 1/(1,66) = 1 2 , 4 0 , 2. < - 0 0 0 9 , w i t h the analogy group s c o r i n g about th ree t imes as many c l u s t e r i n g p o i n t s as the r a n k i n g group. Next i t was of i n t e r e s t to examine i n d e t a i l the d i f f e r e n c e s i n c l u s t e r i n g between the analogy and r a n k i n g groups. Towards t h i s end, the number of one, two, t h r e e , f o u r , and f i v e p o i n t groupings was determined f o r a l l s i x groups. Th is a n a l y s i s was conducted to d e t e r -mine i f the analogy groups were s u p e r i o r on a l l p o i n t groupings or i f the s u p e r i o r i t y i n the o v e r a l l c l u s t e r i n g score cou ld be a t t r i b u t e d 43 Table 3 Mean C l u s t e r i n g Scores i n Both Immediate and F i n a l Free R e c a l l f o r A l l Groups Immediate F i n a l Group Free R e c a l l Free R e c a l l Almm 13.77 5.77 RImm 6.00 3.47 AWk 3 .12 RWk 1.29 ARec 3.47 RRec 1.00 AWK + ARec 3 .29 RWK + RRec 1.15 44 Table 4 Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of C l u s t e r i n g Comparison df MSe Immediate R e c a l l Almm vs RImm 32 18.22 28.13 <.0000 F i n a l R e c a l l Almm vs RImm AWk + ARec vs RWk + RRec E q u a l i t y , o f Groups Being C o l l a p s e d Free R e c a l l AWk vs ARec RWk vs RRec 32 66 32 32 10.42 6.32 11.38 .16 4 .30 <.04 12.40 <.0009 .09 n . s . .46 n . s . 45 to one or two group ings . Thus i t cou ld be p o s s i b l e , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t the analogy and r a n k i n g groups a c t u a l l y had an e q u a l number of one, two, f o u r , and f i v e p o i n t c l u s t e r i n g s , and the s u p e r i o r o v e r a l l c l u s t e r i n g score found i n the analogy group was on ly due to a l a r g e r number of th ree p o i n t c l u s t e r i n g s . Table 5 d i s p l a y s the mean number of one, two, t h r e e , f o u r , and f i v e p o i n t c l u s t e r i n g s found i n the s i x groups i n both immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l . Table 6 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs t h a t were c a r r i e d out f o r the l i s t e d compar isons. A l l d i f f e r e n c e s between groups AImm and RImm i n terms of the mean number of the f i v e p o s s i b l e p o i n t combinat ions i n immediate r e c a l l were i n the expected d i r e c t i o n . However, o n l y t h r e e and four p o i n t combinat ions ach ieved s i g n i f i c a n c e , 1/(1,32) = 8 . 3 9 , 2_ < .07 and F ( l , 3 2 ) = 9 . 2 6 , £ < . 0 0 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . For the same groups i n f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , the d i f f e r e n c e f o r the one, t h r e e , and four p o i n t combinat ions were i n the expected d i r e c t i o n , but on ly the d i f f e r e n c e on the th ree p o i n t combinat ion reached s i g n i -f i c a n c e , F_(l,32) = 6 . 1 , _p_ < . 0 2 . The d i f f e r e n c e i n the two p o i n t combinat ion was i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n than expected , but the d i f -fe rence was not s i g n i f i c a n t , J_ ( l ,32) = 0 . 7 6 , p_ < . 3 9 . These r e s u l t s s h a r p l y c o n t r a s t w i t h the r e s u l t s of the c o m p a r i -son i n v o l v i n g the r a n k i n g and analogy groups t h a t d i d not r e c e i v e r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e . In t h i s case a l l of the d i f f e r e n c e s except the th ree p o i n t combinat ion were i n the expected d i r e c t i o n and were s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( l , 3 2 ) = 1 3 . 9 5 , £ < . 0 0 0 5 ; F (1 ,32) = 5 . 8 0 , p < . 0 2 ; F ( l , 3 2 ) = 4 . 4 , _p_ < . 0 4 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . 46 Table 5 Mean Number of Component C l u s t e r i n g Scores i n Both Immediate and F i n a l R e c a l l f o r A l l Groups Component C l u s t e r i n g Score Group 1 2 3 4 5 Immediate R e c a l l Almm 3.94 1.47 1.05 .52 RImm 3.25 .71 .24 0 Lnal R e c a l l Almm 2.41 .47 .58 .18 0 RImm 1.62 .77 .12 0 0 AWk 1.65 .24 .18 .12 0 RWk .47 .24 .12 0 0 ARec 1.59 .33 .12 .12 0 RRec . 8 3 0 .06 0 0 AWk + ARec 1.62 .38 .15 .12 0 RWk + RRec .65 .12 .09 0 0 47 Table 6 Summary Table f o r One-way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons.on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of Component C l u s t e r i n g Score Comparison df_ MSe F_ _p_ Problem E f f e c t 1. Immediate R e c a l l Almm vs RImm 1 2 3 4 5 2. F i n a l R e c a l l Almm vs RImm 1 2 3 4 AWk + ARec vs R 1 2 3 4 Wk + RRec 32 4 .85 1.03 n . s . 32 1.29 3 .28 n . s . 32 .68 8.39 <.007 32 .26 9.26 <.005 32 .24 1.97 n . s . 32 2.19 2.63 n . s . 32 .62 .76 n . s . 32 . 3 1 6 .10 <.02 32 .06 2.13 n . s . 66 1.15 13.95 <.0005 66 .21 5 .80 <-02 66 .06 .72 n . s . 66 .05 4 .40 <.04 48 E r r o r Made Dur ing Free and Probed R e c a l l Table 7 d i s p l a y s the mean number of e r r o r s made i n both f i n a l f r e e and probed r e c a l l . Table 8 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the one -way ANOVAs tha t were performed f o r each of the l i s t e d compar isons. (Immediate r e c a l l i s not c o n s i d e r e d , as no e r r o r s were made i n e i t h e r group Almm or group RImm dur ing immediate r e c a l l . ) The d i f f e r e n c e between groups Almm and RImm i s i n the expected d i r e c t i o n , w i t h the r a n k i n g group making a mean of 0 .6 more e r r o r s than the analogy group. However, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e on ly approaches, but does not r e a c h , s i g n i f i c a n c e , F_(l,32) = 2 . 9 3 , £ < . 0 9 . When groups AWk and ARec are c o l l a p s e d and compared w i t h groups RWk and RRec s i m i l a r l y c o l l a p s e d , the o r i e n t i n g t a s k e f f e c t i s i n the ex -pected d i r e c t i o n and i s s i g n i f i c a n t , F_(l,32) = 6 . 7 5 , p_ < . 0 1 , w i t h s u b j e c t s i n the analogy groups making on the average one l e s s e r r o r dur ing f r e e r e c a l l than s u b j e c t s i n the r a n k i n g groups. In the case of probed r e c a l l , the o r i e n t i n g t a s k e f f e c t f o r both compar isons, Almm vs RImm, and AWk vs RWk, i s i n the expected d i r e c t i o n , but on ly the former comparison reaches s i g n i f i c a n c e , F_(l,32) = 6 . 1 8 , p_ < . 0 2 , w i t h the analogy group making about h a l f as .many e r r o r s as the r a n k i n g group. R e c o g n i t i o n Scores The r e c o g n i t i o n scores f o r groups ARec and RRec were sub jec ted to a s i g n a l d e t e c t i o n a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t i n g d.1 v a l u e s , percentage of h i t s and percentage of f a l s e a l a r m s , are presented i n Table 9. As p r e d i c t e d , the d i f f e r e n c e i n the cl 1 scores was i n the d i r e c t i o n of i n c r e a s e d d e t e c t a b i l i t y f o r the r a n k i n g group and i s s i g n i f i c a n t , Table 7 Mean Number of E r r o r s Made i n F i n a l and Probed R e c a l l Group E r r o r s Made i n E r r o r s Made i n F i n a l Free R e c a l l Probed R e c a l l AImm RImm AWk RWk ARec RRec AWk + ARec RWk + RRec .41 1.00 1.18 2 .53 1.65 2.59 1.41 2.56 4 .71 8 .18 5.06 7.65 50 Table 8 Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s : Number of E r r o r s Made i n F i n a l and Probed R e c a l l Comparison df_ MSe j? _p_ Problem E f f e c t 1. F i n a l Free R e c a l l AImm vs RImm 32 AWk + ARec vs RWk + RRec 66 2. Probed R e c a l l AImm vs RImm 32 AWk vs RWk 32 E q u a l i t y of Groups Being C o l l a p s e d Free R e c a l l AWk vs ARec 32 RWk vs RRec 32 1.00 2.93 n . s . 3 .31 6 .75 <.01 16.56 6.18 <.02 31.40 1.81 n . s . 52.35 1.41 n . s . 5 .14 .006 n . s . 51 Table 9 Mean Percentage of Hit and False Alarm Scores and Mean d 1 Scores for Groups ARec and RRec Group % of Hits % of False Alarms d' ARec RRec 63 80 12 15 1.76 2.23 52 F ( l , 3 2 ) = 4 . 0 8 , £ < . 0 5 , MSe = .4498 . C o r r e l a t i o n Between Time Spent i n O r i e n t i n g Task and R e c o g n i t i o n Score Table 10 shows the mean t ime i n minutes spent by the s i x groups i n complet ing the analogy and r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . For groups ARec and RRec the t ime tha t was taken by s u b j e c t s to s o l v e the e leven problems was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e i r cl' s c o r e s . These two v a r i a b l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d i n the r a n k i n g group, _r = . 6 0 , £ < . 0 0 5 . However, i n the analogy group the c o r r e l a t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t (r = .19 , £ < . 2 4 ) . Before l e a v i n g t h i s s e c t i o n , i t should be noted tha t the d i f -fe rences i n t ime spent on s o l v i n g the t a s k between the two c o n d i t i o n s i s s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( l , 1 0 0 ) = 1 9 . 5 8 , £ < . 0000 . Thus, s u b j e c t s i n the rank ing groups spent on the average one and a h a l f minutes longer per forming the r ank ing o r i e n t i n g t a s k s than d i d the s u b j e c t s i n the analogy groups i n s o l v i n g the analogy o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . R e t r i e v a l P r a c t i c e E f f e c t To examine the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i t w i l l be necessary to compare groups AImm and RImm, on a l l dependent v a r i -a b l e s , w i t h the other analogy and r a n k i n g groups tha t d i d not r e c e i v e r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e . Table 11 summarizes the r e s u l t s of such comparisons tha t have been c a r r i e d out f o r the dependent v a r i a b l e s : immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l , c l u s t e r i n g i n both immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , component c l i s t e r i n g , and e r r o r s made i n f i n a l f r e e and probed r e c a l l . The e f f e c t s of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e f o r each dependent v a r i a b l e w i l l be presented s e p a r a t e l y below. Table 10 Mean Time i n Minutes Spent on the Problem S o l v i n g Tasks f o r A l l Groups Group Time Almm 2.29 RImm 3.89 AWk 2.84 RWk 4.09 ARec 2.84 RRec 4 .18 Almm + AWk + ARec 2.67 RImm + RWk + RRec 4 .10 54 Table 11 Summary Table f o r the One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of Time Spent i n Problem S o l v i n g Comparison df_ MSe F p_ Almm + AWk + ARec vs RImm + RWk + RRec 100 2.54 19.58 <.0000 E q u a l i t y of Groups Almm vs AWk vs ARec , 48 1.46 1.16 n . s . RImm vs RWk vs RRec 48 3 .74 .10 n . s . 55 1. F i n a l Free R e c a l l . The r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e e f f e c t was found to be both power fu l and c o n s i s t e n t . Thus group AImm d i f f e r e d s i g n i -f i c a n t l y from the combinat ion of groups AWk and ARec, _F(1,49) = 2 6 . 7 5 , JD < .0000. Hence f o r the analogy groups , the e f f e c t of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e was to almost double the f i n a l probed r e c a l l s c o r e . The e f f e c t of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i n the r a n k i n g groups was even more p o w e r f u l . Thus the d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c a l l between group RImm and groups RWk and RRec combined i s h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t , J ? ( l , 4 9 ) = 4 7 . 8 1 , _p_ < .0000. For the r a n k i n g groups the e f f e c t of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i s to more than double the f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l s c o r e . 2. Probed R e c a l l . The e f f e c t of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e on probed r e c a l l i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t . For the analogy compar ison, AImm vs AWk, the e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t but was not of the same magnitude as the i n c r e a s e i n f r e e r e c a l l d e s c r i b e d above, 1/(1,32) = 8 . 5 2 , _p_ < . 0 0 6 3 . Thus r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i n c r e a s e d probed r e c a l l by approx imate ly f i f t y p e r c e n t . S i m i l a r l y , i n the r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n , RImm vs RWk, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d probed r e c a l l , 1/(1,32) = 1 5 . 1 9 , 2. < ' 0 0 0 5 . In t h i s c a s e , r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e more than doubled the probed r e c a l l s c o r e . 3 . C l u s t e r i n g . In both the analogy and r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d c l u s t e r i n g . Thus, f o r the analogy groups, AImm vs AWk + ARec, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i n c r e a s e d the amount of c l u s t e r i n g by a f a c t o r of one and a h a l f , F_(2,48) = 5 . 9 0 , JD < . 0 2 . For the r a n k i n g groups, RImm vs RWk + RRec, r e t r i e v a l p r a c -t i c e t r i p l e d the amount of c l u s t e r i n g found i n f r e e r e c a l l , _F(2,48) = 1 6 . 9 9 , £ < . 0 0 2 . 56 4. Component C l u s t e r i n g Scores . In the analogy c o n d i t i o n , Almm vs AWk + ARec, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d the number of th ree p o i n t c l u s t e r i n g s , F_(2,48). = 1 0 . 5 6 , p_ < . 0 0 2 , by a f a c t o r of f i v e . However, i t had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on any of the other p o i n t combinat ions . On the other hand, i n the r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n , RImm vs RWk + RRec, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i n c r e a s e d the one and two p o i n t c l u s t e r i n g s s i g n i -f i c a n t l y , but f a i l e d to i n c r e a s e the number of th ree p o i n t c l u s t e r i n g s , F (2 ,48) = 1 1 . 2 1 , p_ < . 0 0 1 7 , and F (2 ,48 ) = 1 2 . 7 6 , p_ < . 0 0 0 7 , r e s p e c -t i v e l y . In both cases the number of c l u s t e r i n g s i s i n c r e a s e d by a f a c t o r of f o u r . A d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s t h a t have been presented.Lin the f i r s t phase of the a n a l y s i s w i l l be de layed u n t i l the second phase has. . . been p r e s e n t e d . Phase I I Overview In Phase I I a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the data i s c a r r i e d out . Two " s t a g e s " are i n v o l v e d i n t h i s p a r t of the a n a l y s i s . Stage 1, In Stage 1 , the scores i n each of the dependent v a r i a b l e s were c o l l a p s e d across s u b j e c t s , r e s u l t i n g i n a mean score f o r each of the e leven t r a y s . A n a l y s i n g the data i n t h i s way a l lowed one t o study the p o s i t i o n of the p i c t u r e s i n the s e r i e s as a dependent v a r i a b l e . T h i s type of a n a l y s i s was r e q u i r e d i f t h e " p a t t e r n " ' or o r g a n i z a t i o n of f r e e r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l and c l u s t e r i n g scores i s to be examined. 57 The p r e d i c t i o n s to be t e s t e d i n t h i s s tage of the a n a l y s i s a r e : P r e d i c t i o n 1: The f r e e r e c a l l " p a t t e r n " w i l l be determined by the o r i e n t i n g t a s k . Th is means t h a t (a) i n the analogy groups, of the seven p i c t u r e s i n each s e r i e s , the four that were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problem w i l l be remembered b e s t , and (b) i n the r a n k i n g groups , of the seven p i c t u r e s i n each s e r i e s , the four tha t were chosen .as f a v o u r i t e s w i l l be remembered b e s t . P r e d i c t i o n 2: In the analogy groups , most of the p i c t u r e s r e -c a l l e d d u r i n g probed r e c a l l w i l l be those p i c t u r e s t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems. P r e d i c t i o n 3: I n . t h e analogy groups most of the c l u s t e r i n g scores can be a t t r i b u t e d to c l u s t e r i n g of the p i c -t u r e s t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems. P r e d i c t i o n 4: P i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems should be recogn ized b e t t e r than those p i c t u r e s not so i n v o l v e d . I f the above p r e d i c t i o n s are v e r i f i e d , t h i s would support the c o n c l u s i o n s tha t (a) what the sub jec t does d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n , tha t i s , the o r i e n t i n g t a s k t h a t i s i n v o l v e d , determines the o r g a n i z a t i o n of r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n , and (b) r e c a l l i n the analogy groups i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process i n v o l v i n g the analogy r u l e s . That i t i s the analogy r u l e s t h a t are be ing used to r e c o n -s t r u c t d u r i n g f r e e and probed r e c a l l would be r e f l e c t e d by the f a c t t h a t most of the c l u s t e r i n g and probed r e c a l l scores would be made 58 up of p i c t u r e s t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems. To t e s t P r e d i c t i o n 1 ( a ) , i t w i l l be necessary to compare the r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s tha t have been i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems ("A" p i c t u r e s ) w i t h the r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s not i n v o l v e d ("NA" p i c t u r e s ) . To t e s t P r e d i c t i o n 1 ( b ) , i t w i l l be necessary to compare the r e c a l l of those p i c t u r e s tha t were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s ("F" p i c t u r e s ) w i t h the r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s not so chosen ("NF" p i c t u r e s ) . When comparing the r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l , c l u s t e r i n g , and r e c o g -n i t i o n scores of A and NA p i c t u r e s , i t was necessary to use the rank ing groups as c o n t r o l s and consequent ly c a r r y out the same com-p a r i s o n s i n the r a n k i n g groups. Thus, as i n the analogy groups , the r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l , c l u s t e r i n g , and r e c o g n i t i o n scores of the A and NA p i c t u r e s were c a l c u l a t e d and the same comparisons were c a r r i e d out . Without such c o n t r o l s i t cou ld not c o n c l u s i v e l y be concluded tha t the " p a t t e r n i n g " of scores i n the analogy groups was due to the a n a -logy o r i e n t i n g t a s k . Thus, s i n c e the same p i c t u r e s were always i n -vo l ved i n the analogy problems, i t i s p o s s i b l e tha t these four d i f -f e r e d from the remaining th ree i n a manner t h a t cou ld produce such p a t t e r n i n g , e . g . , they cou ld be more "memorable." I f t h i s was the case then i t would be expected t h a t the same " p a t t e r n i n g " e f f e c t would be found i n the r a n k i n g groups when scores from the A and NA p o s i t i o n s are compared. I f t h i s i s not the c a s e , t h a t i s i f t h e r e i s no d i f -fe rence i n r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l , c l u s t e r i n g , or r e c o g n i t i o n scores between A and NA p i c t u r e s i n the rank ing groups , then i t can be c o n -c luded that the o r g a n i z a t i o n found i n the analogy groups i s due to the analogy o r i e n t i n g t a s k . 59 The t a b l e below d i s p l a y s the f requency w i t h which p i c t u r e s from each of the seven p o s i t i o n s were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s . P o s i t i o n Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RImm 107 108 106 105 101 111 110 RWk 109 107 110 105 108 107 102 RRec 104 112 107 110 105 109 101 Scanning t h i s t a b l e , i t i s c l e a r tha t p i c t u r e s from a l l the p o s i t i o n s were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s , e q u a l l y o f t e n . Consequent ly , because d i f - f e r e n t p i c t u r e s are i n v o l v e d i n the r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k , i t i s not necessary to employ the type of c o n t r o l groups d e s c r i b e d above. Thus, any d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c a l l or r e c o g n i t i o n between the F and NF p i c t u r e s can be a t t r i b u t e d to the e f f e c t of the r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k . The d e s c r i p t i o n of Stage 2 and the p r e d i c t i o n s i t i s designed to t e s t w i l l not be presented u n t i l the r e a u l t s of Stage 1 have been summarized. The r e s u l t s of Stage 1 of the a n a l y s i s w i l l be o rgan ized a c c o r -d ing to the p r e d i c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d above. Free R e c a l l " P a t t e r n " i n the Analogy Groups The f i r s t step i n t h i s p a r t of the a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d determin ing f o r each t r a y the number of p i c t u r e s tha t were r e c a l l e d from the four p o s i t i o n s that were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy . task and the t h r e e p o s i -t i o n s t h a t were not so i n v o l v e d . In each s e r i e s the f i r s t th ree p o s i -t i o n s were always p a r t of the analogy t a s k w h i l e the f o u r t h p o s i t i o n , the answer, v a r i e d w i t h the analogy problem. S ince more p o s i t i o n s 60 were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy t a s k than n o t , the r e c a l l scores were converted t o percentages of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l . Because the scores f o r each t r a y a re c o l l a p s e d across the seventeen s u b j e c t s , the t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l i n each group f o r the four p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy t a s k was 4 x 17 = 68 p i c t u r e s . For the t h r e e p o s i t i o n s not so i n v o l v e d the t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l was 3 x 17 = 51 p i c t u r e s / g r o u p . Hence, f o r the four p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy t a s k , the p e r -centage of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l i s > _ number of p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d from four p o s i t i o n s  e A ~ 68 For the th ree p o s i t i o n s not i n v o l v e d i n the ana logy , percentage of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l i s number of p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d from the t h r e e p o s i t i o n s PNA = c — c  Th is procedure was f o l l o w e d f o r both immediate f r e e and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l . The same procedure was repeated w i t h the th ree r a n k i n g groups i n order to have c o n t r o l groups w i t h which mean ing fu l c o m p a r i -sons cou ld be made. Table 12 d i s p l a y s the mean percentage immediate, f i n a l , and probed r e c a l l scores obta ined by a l l groups f o r those p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems ("A" p o s i t i o n s ) and those p o s i t i o n s not so i n v o l v e d ("NA" p o s i t i o n s ) . Table 13 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the one-way. ANOVAs tha t were c a r r i e d out f o r the l i s t e d compar isons. As expected i n group AImm, immediate r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s from those p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy f a r exceeded immediate r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s f r i m the remain ing p o s i t i o n s , J £ ( l , 2 0 ) = 2 2 . 7 3 , £ c. . 0 0 0 1 , r e c a l l from the A p o s i t i o n s be ing t h i r t y percent g r e a t e r than r e c a l l 61 Table 12 Mean Percentage Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l Scores Obtained by A l l Groups f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Group Immediate R e c a l l F i n a l R e c a l l Probed R e c a l l A NA A NA A NA Almm 50 20 30 10 43 14 RImm 30 29 25 25 11 13 AWk 18 5 13 8 RWk 12 7 9 6 ARec 18 5 RRec 12 8 AWK + ARec 18 5 RWk + RRec 12 9 62 Table 13 Summary Table f o r the One-way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons onrthe Dependent V a r i a b l e s : Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Comparison df MSe Immediate R e c a l l ai. Analogy C o n d i t i o n AlmmA vs AlmmNA b. Ranking C o n d i t i o n RImmA vs RImmNA 20 20 0024 .0132 22.73 .03 <.0001 n. s . F i n a l R e c a l l a . Analogy C o n d i t i o n AlmmA vs AlmmNA 20 AWkA vs AWkNA 20 ARecA vs ARecNA 20 AWkA + ARecA vs . . . . AWkNA + ARecNA 42 b. Ranking C o n d i t i o n RImmA vs RImmNA 20 RWkA vs RWKNA 20 RRecA vs RRecNA 20 RWkA +RRecA vs RWkNA + RRecNA 42 0070 ,0018 ,0031 ,0024 ,0018 ,0038 ,0029 ,0032 30.00 45.90 31 .70 77.30 .004 4 .20 2.30 6 .70 <.0000' <.0000 <.0000 <.0000 n . s . n . s . n . s . <.01 Probed R e c a l l a . Analogy C o n d i t i o n AlmmA vs AlmmNA AWkA vs AWkNA b. Ranking C o n d i t i o n RImmA vs RImmNA RWkA vs RWkNA 20 20 20 20 .0197 .0104 .0093 .0070 23.46 1.62 .41 .71 <.0001 n . s . n . s . n . s . 63 from the NA posit i o n s . Also as expected, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n r e c a l l across the same positions i n group RImm. A s i m i l a r pattern was found i n the f i n a l free r e c a l l of a l l the analogy groups. The mean percent r e c a l l i n the A positions for groups AImm, AWk, ARec, and AWk + ARec was res p e c t i v e l y .30, .18, .18, and .18. In contrast, the mean percentage r e c a l l for pictures i n the NA positions f o r the same groups was .10, .05, .05, and .05. The differences between these means were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t at the .0000 l e v e l (see Table 13). As expected i n the ranking groups, none of the singl e compari-sons within groups RImm, RWk, or RRec reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . However, when groups RWk and RRec were collapsed, the differe n c e i n r e c a l l be-tween the A and NA positi o n s did reach s i g n i f i c a n c e , 1/(1,42) = 6.7, g_ < .01, with r e c a l l df pictures from the A positions being three percent greater than r e c a l l from the NA pos i t i o n s . Although t h i s difference i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n as the dif f e r e n c e i n the analogy groups, i t only reaches s i g n i f i c a n c e when the groups are collapsed, and the differ e n c e i s only three percent compared to a dif f e r e n c e of thi r t e e n percent f o r the analogous comparison i n the analogy condition. Free R e c a l l "Pattern" i n the Ranking Groups The f i r s t step i n t h i s part of the analysis involved determining for each tray and for a l l ranking groups the percentage of both the pictures that were chosen as favourites ("F" pictures) and those not so chosen ("NF" pictures) that were r e c a l l e d . For the pictures chosen as favourites the t o t a l possible r e c a l l f o r each tray and each group was 4 x 17 = 68 pictures. For those pictures not so chosen, the t o t a l 64 p o s s i b l e r e c a l l was 3 x 17 = 51 p i c t u r e s . Thus, the percentage of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l f o r each t r a y f o r those p i c t u r e s chosen as f a v o u r i t e s was _ number of f a v o u r i t e p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d P ( F ) _ S i m i l a r l y , the percentage of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l f o r those p i c -t u r e s not so chosen was number of p i c t u r e s not chosen as f a v o u r i t e s and r e c a l l e d P(NF)= * — :  Th is procedure was repeated f o r a l l t r a y s and a l l r a n k i n g groups. Table 14 d i s p l a y s the mean percentage r e c a l l scores obta ined by a l l r a n k i n g groups f o r bo th F and NF p i c t u r e s . Tab le 15 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs conducted f o r the l i s t e d comparisons. As p r e d i c t e d i n a l l r a n k i n g groups i n both immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , r e c a l l of those p i c t u r e s tha t were chosed as f a v o u r i t e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than r e c a l l of those p i c t u r e s not so chosen. A l l comparisons are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .009 l e v e l or beyond (see Table 15) . P r o b e d - R e c a l l P a t t e r n In c a l c u l a t i n g the percentage of t o t a l p o s s i b l e probed r e c a l l f o r the A and NA p o s i t i o n s , the same procedure used i n c a l c u l a t i n g the percentage of t o t a l p o s s i b l e f r e e r e c a l l was used . However, b e -cause the f i r s t ca rd i n each s e r i e s was always presented to the s u b -j e c t as a probe, i n probed r e c a l l , the t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l f o r the th ree remain ing p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy was 5 1 . Thus f o r probed r e c a l l i n c a l c u l a t i n g the percentage of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l , the d i v i s o r was 51 i n both c a s e s . 65 Table 14 Mean Percentage Immediate and F i n a l R e c a l l Scores Obtained by A l l Ranking Groups f o r Both the F and NF. P o s i t i o n s % R e c a l l of P i c t u r e s % R e c a l l of P i c t u r e s ' Group Chosen as F a v o u r i t e s Not Chosen as F a v o u r i t e s Immediate R e c a l l RImm 36 20 F i n a l R e c a l l RImm 28 16 RWk 13 5 RRec 16 8 RWk + RRec 14 7 66 Table 15 Summary Table f o r the One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s : Immediate and F i n a l R e c a l l f o r Both the F and NR P o s i t i o n s Comparison df MSe 1. Immediate R e c a l l RImmF vs RImmNF 2. F i n a l R e c a l l RImmF vs RImmNF. RWkF vs RWkNF RRecF vs RRecNF RWkF.+RRecF vs RWkNF + RRecNF 20 20 20 20 42 .01 .008 .003 .004 .004 10.16 10.79 10.71 8 .31 18.48 <.005 <.004 <.004 <.009 <.0001 67 Table 12 d i s p l a y s the mean percentage of probed r e c a l l scores obta ined by groups AImm, RImm, AWk, and RWk f o r A and NA p o s i t i o n s . Table 13 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs which were c a r r i e d out f o r the l i s t e d comparisons. As expected i n group AImm the d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c a l l f o r p i c t u r e s from the A and NA p o s i t i o n s was i n the expected d i r e c t i o n and was s i g n i f i c a n t , ]?(1,20) = 2 3 . 4 6 , j> < . 0 0 0 1 , w i t h t w e n t y - n i n e percent fi grea te r r e a c l l of p i c t u r e s from the A p o s i t i o n . In group AWk, a l though the d i f f e r e n c e was i n the expected d i r e c -t i o n , w i t h a mean of .13 and .08 f o r the A and NA p o s i t i o n s r e s p e c -t i v e l y , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . None of the d i f f e r e n c e s between the A and NA p o s i t i o n s i n the r a n k i n g groups reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . C l u s t e r i n g i n the Analogy Groups As i n r e c a l l , the raw c l u s t e r i n g scores were converted to p e r -centages of t o t a l p o s s i b l e c l u s t e r i n g . S ince there were four p o s i -t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the ana logy , a maximum of th ree p o i n t s per s e r i e s cou ld be earned i f a l l fou r p i c t u r e s were remembered c o r r e c t l y . Thus, the t o t a l maximum c l u s t e r i n g score f o r the A p o s i t i o n s f o r each t r a y was 17 x 3 = 51 po in ts/group . For the NA p o s i t i o n s , t h t t o t a l maximum c l u s t e r i n g score per t r a y per group was 2 x 17 = 34 p o i n t s . These two d i v i s o r s were used i n c a l c u l a t i n g the percentage c l u s t e r i n g scores f o r the A and NA p o s i t i o n s r e s p e c t i v e l y . Table 16 shows the mean percentage c l u s t e r i n g scores f o r a l l groups i n both the A and NA p o s i t i o n s . Tab le 17 summarizes the one -way ANOVAs conducted f o r the l i s t e d comparisons. 68 Table 16 Mean Percentage C l u s t e r i n g Scores f o r A l l Groups i n Both ..the A . and M Po s i t i ons Group Immediate R e c a l l F i n a l R e c a l l A NA A NA Almm 36 14 15 7 RImm 12 13 8 8 AWk 10 2 RWk 3 2 ARec 8 5 RRec 3 2 AWk + ARec 9 3 RWk + RRec 3 1 69 Table 17 Summary Table f o r the One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of C l u s t e r i n g f o r both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Comparison df MSe F Immediate R e c a l l AlmmA vs AlmmNA 20 .0244 11.25 < .003 RImmA vs RImmNA 20 .0108 0.05 ns F i n a l R e c a l l Analogy C o n d i t i o n AlmmA vs AlmmNA 20 .0072 6.10 < .02 AWkA va AWkNA 20 .0024 14.90 < .001 ARecA vs ARecNA 20 .0053 1.40 ns AWkA + ARecA vs AWkNA + ARecNA 42 .0038 9.85 < .003 F i n a l R e c a l l Ranking C o n d i t i o n RImmA vs RImmNA RWkA vs RWkNA RRecA vs RRecNA 20 .0087 0.002 ns 20 .0009 1.30 ns 20 .0029 0.35 ns 42 .0018 1.20 ns 70 As expected , c l u s t e r i n g d u r i n g immediate r e c a l l i n group Almm was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r f o r those p i c t u r e s i n the A p o s i t i o n s than f o r those p i c t u r e s i n the NA p o s i t i o n s , F_(l,20) = 1 1 . 2 3 , £ < . 0 0 3 . Thus c l u s t e r i n g was twenty- two percent g r e a t e r f o r p o s i t i o n s r e c a l l e d from the A p o s i t i o n s than f o r p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d f rom. the NA p o s i t i o n s . The d i f f e r e n c e i n c l u s t e r i n g scores f o r p i c t u r e s from the A and NA p o s i t i o n s i n group RImm was not s i g n i f i c a n t . . In f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , i n group Almm, there was s t i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c l u s t e r i n g amongst p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d from the A p o s i t i o n s than from the NA p o s i t i o n s , _F(1,20) = 6 . 1 , £ < . 0 2 . But t h i s d i f f e r e n c e decreased, from twenty-two percent i n immediate r e c a l l , to e i g h t p e r -cent i n f i n a l r e c a l l . In group AWk the d i f f e r e n c e was a l s o i n the expected d i r e c t i o n and was s i g n i f i c a n t , F_(l,20) = 1 4 . 9 , p_ < . 0 0 1 . S u r p r i s i n g l y , i n group ARec, a l though the d i f f e r e n c e was i n the e x -pected d i r e c t i o n , i t d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . When groups AWk and ARec were c o l l a p s e d the d i f f e r e n c e was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( l , 4 2 ) = 9 . 8 5 , £ < . 0 0 3 . R e c o g n i t i o n As i n Phase I, i t was necessary to c a r r y out a s i g n a l d e t e c t i o n a n a l y s i s on the s u b j e c t s ' h i t and f a l s e a larm s c o r e s . However, now i t was necessary to "break down" the d.' scores i n both the analogy and r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n s . Thus when examining the r e c o g n i t i o n p a t t e r n i n the analogy groups separate cl' scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r both the A and NA p o s i t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y , when l o o k i n g at the r e c o g n i t i o n p a t t e r n i n the r a n k i n g groups, separate d.' scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r the F and NF p o s i t i o n s . 71 In c a l c u l a t i n g d_' s c o r e s , a score was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s u b j e c t and i n the process i t was necessary to c o l l a p s e each s u b j e c t ' s h i t and f a l s e a larm scores ac ross the 11 t r a y s . Thus i n c o n t r a s t to the other v a r i a b l e s analyzed i n Phase I I . mean scores per t r a y were not c a l c u l a t e d and scores were not c o l l a p s e d ac ross s u b j e c t s . Consequent ly , the re were 32 degrees of freedom ((2 x 17) - 2) f o r each of the compar isons. Table 18 d i s p l a y s the mean percentage of h i t and f a l s e a larm scores as w e l l as the mean d_' scores f o r groups RRec f o r both the F and NF p o s i t i o n s . As p r e d i c t e d the p i c t u r e s t h a t were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s were not recogn i zed b e t t e r than those p i c t u r e s not so chosen, J_ ( l ,32) = 1 . 1 8 , p_ < . 2 9 . Table 19 d i s p l a y s the mean p e r c e n -tage of h i t s , mean percentage of f a l s e a l a r m s , and mean d.' scores f o r groups ARec and RRec f o r p i c t u r e s from those p o s i t i o n s tha t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems and those not so i n v o l v e d . Tab le 20 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs tha t were c a r r i e d out f o r the l i s t e d comparisons. As p r e d i c t e d , i n group. ARec more p i c -t u r e s were recogn i zed from the A p o s i t i o n s than from the NA p o s i t i o n s , _F(1,32) = 1 3 . 4 1 , j> < . 0 0 0 9 . For group RRec, the re was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c o g n i t i o n of p i c t u r e s from both these p o s i t i o n s . Stage 2 From Phase I of the a n a l y s i s , i t was concluded tha t the analogy groups were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g r e a t e r c l u s t e r i n g and probed r e c a l l s c o r e s . However, c o n t r a r y to p r e d i c t i o n s immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l i n the analogy groups d i d not exceed the immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l i n the r a n k i n g groups. Phase I a l s o demonstrated tha t s u b j e c t s i n group RRec had s u p e r i o r r e c o g n i t i o n scores when compared 72 Table 18 Mean Percentage of H i t and F a l s e Alarm Scores and Mean d/ Scores f o r Group RRec f o r Both the F and NF P o s i t i o n s Group % of H i t s % of F a l s e Alarms d ' RRecF RRecNF 82 80 15 15 2.33 2.04 73 Table 19 Mean Percentage of H i t s and F a l s e Alarm Scores and Mean d.' Scores f o r Groups ARec & Rrec f o r Both ...the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Group % H i t s % F a l s e Alarms d ' ARecA 70 12 1.97 ARecNA 47 12 1.35 RRecA 83 15 2.35 RRecNA 77 15 2 .30 74 Table 20 Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of d_' Score f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Comparison df MSe F R e c o g n i t i o n Analogy C o n d i t i o n ARecA vs ARecNA Ranking C o n d i t i o n RRecA vs RRecNA 32 .242 13.41 <.0009 32 .896 0.027 n . s . 75 to t h e i r counte rpar ts i n group ARec. Stage 2 of t h i s phase of the a n a l y s i s i s s i m i l a r to Phase I i n the sense t h a t the analogy and r a n k i n g groups are compared on the d e -pendent v a r i a b l e s of r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l , c l u s t e r i n g , and r e c o g n i -t i o n . However, Phase I was a " g e n e r a l " type of a n a l y s i s or the com-p a r i s o n s tha t were c a r r i e d out i n v o l v e d " o v e r a l l " s c o r e s . Stage 2 of t h i s p a r t of the a n a l y s i s i s more s p e c i f i c as i n t h i s stage the focus i s on i d e n t i f y i n g those p i c t u r e s t h a t are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d i f -fe rences i n probed r e c a l l , c l u s t e r i n g , and r e c o g n i t i o n scores tha t were found to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the two c o n d i t i o n s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s s tage of the a n a l y s i s i s concerned w i t h t e s t i n g the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e i n probed r e c a l l and c l u s t e r i n g scores between the analogy and r a n k i n g groups can be accounted f o r by the s u p e r i o r probed r e c a l l and c l u s t e r i n g scores of p i c t u r e s t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems ("A" p i c t u r e s ) . A l s o , a l though the analogy groups are not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by g r e a t e r o v e r a l l immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l s c o r e s , i t i s expected tha t p i c t u r e s from the A p o s i t i o n s w i l l be r e c a l l e d b e t t e r than the same p i c t u r e s i n the r a n k i n g groups. These p r e d i c t i o n s f o l l o w from the f a c t tha t i f the analogy r u l e s are used to r e c o n s t r u c t r e c a l l , t h i s w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n g r e a t e r c l u s -t e r i n g , probed r e c a l l , and f r e e r e c a l l of these p i c t u r e s . F i n a l l y , because the r a n k i n g t a s k emphasizes the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n , r e c o g n i t i o n of the p i c t u r e s from both the A and NA p o s i t i o n s i n group RRec w i t h exceed r e c o g n i t i o n of the same p i c t u r e s i n group ARec. Table 21 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs conducted 76 Table 21 Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e s , Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l Comparison df MSe P i c t u r e s i n Analogy Immediate R e c a l l AlmmA vs RImmA F i n a l R e c a l l AlmmA vs RImmA AWkA + ARecA vs RWKA + RRecA Probed R e c a l l AlmmA vs RImmA AWkA vs RWkA P i c t u r e s Not i n Analogy Immediate R e c a l l AlmmNA vs RImmNA F i n a l R e c a l l AlmmNA vs RImmNA 20 20 42 20 20 20 20 AWkNA + ARecNA vs RWKNA + RRecNA 42 Probed R e c a l l AlmmNA vs RImmNA 20 AWkNA vs RWkNA 20 E q u a l i t y of Groups be ing C o l l a p s e d RWkA vs RRecA 20 RWkNA vs RRecNA 20 AWkA vs ARecA 20 AWkNA vs ARecNA 20 .02 ,01 ,0031 01 01 ,02 .01 ,0025 ,02 ,01 ,0029 .0038 .0036 .0013 11.300 <.003 1 . 6 0 . 12.45 54.52 .943 3 . 1 11.9 2 .8 .016 ,53 .006 ,385 ,020 ,167 n. s . <.001 <.0000 n. s . n . s . <.003 n . s . n. s . n. s . n . s . n . s . n . s . n . s . 77 f o r the l i s t e d comparisons i n v o l v i n g the analogy groups on the depen-dent v a r i a b l e s of immediate, f i n a l f r e e , and probed r e c a l l . ( A l l mean scores are l i s t e d i n Table 12. ) R e c a l l of P i c t u r e s from A P o s i t i o n s In immediate r e c a l l group AImm r e c a l l e d twenty percent more p i c t u r e s from the A p o s i t i o n than d i d group RImm. Th is d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( l , 2 0 ) = 1 1 . 3 , £ < . 0 0 3 . The d i f f e r e n c e between groups AImm and RImm f o r f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s from the A p o s i t i o n was i n the expected d i r e c t i o n but f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . However, f o r the comparison i n v o l v i n g groups AWk and ARec, and groups RWk and RRec, the d i f f e r e n c e s were i n the expected d i r e c t i o n and were s i g n i f i c a n t , 1/(1,42) = 1 2 . 4 5 , j> < . 0 0 1 . R e c a l l of P i c t u r e s from NA P o s i t i o n s For immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s from the NA p o s i t i o n s tended to be s l i g h t l y b e t t e r i n the r a n k i n g groups. How-ever , on ly the comparison between group AImm and RImm i n f i n a l r e c a l l achieved s i g n i f i c a n c e , 1/(1,32) = 1 1 . 9 , £ < . 0 0 3 , w i t h the r a n k i n g group r e c a l l i n g f i f t e e n percent more p i c t u r e s from the NA p o s i t i o n s than d i d the analogy group. Probed R e c a l l of P i c t u r e s from A P o s i t i o n s For the comparison between groups AImm and RImm, the d i f f e r e n c e was i n the expected d i r e c t i o n and was s i g n i f i c a n t , 1/(1,20) = 5 4 . 5 2 , £ < . 0 0 0 0 , w i t h the analogy group r e c a l l i n g t h i r t y - t w o percent more p i c t u r e s from t h i s p o s i t i o n . However, i n the comparison i n v o l v i n g groups AWk and RWk, a l though the d i f f e r e n c e was i n the expected d i r e c -t i o n , i t d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . 78 None of the comparisons i n v o l v i n g p i c t u r e s from the NA p o s i t i o n s reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table 22 i n d i c a t e s the r e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs conducted f o r the l i s t e d comparisons between the analogy and r a n k i n g groups f o r both immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l . ( A l l means are l i s t e d i n Table 16. ) C l u s t e r i n g of P i c t u r e s R e c a l l e d from P o s i t i o n s Invo lved i n the Analogues In immediate r e c a l l , g r o u p Almm had twenty - fou r percent more c l u s t e r i n g than group RImm f o r p i c t u r e s tha t were r e c a l l e d from the A p o s i t i o n s , F ( l , 2 0 ) = 1 7 . 6 5 , p_ < .0004. In f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , f o r the AlmmA vs RImmA, and AWkA + ARecA vs RWKA vs RRecA comparisons the d i f f e r e n c e s i n c l u s t e r i n g scores were i n the expected d i r e c t i o n , but on ly the l a t t e r comparison was s i g n i -f i c a n t , F ( l , 4 2 ) = 1 3 . 0 , _ < .0008 . C l u s t e r i n g of P i c t u r e s R e c a l l e d from NA P o s i t i o n s There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups Almm and RImm i n e i t h e r immediate or f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l i n terms of mean percentage c l u s t e r i n g scores f o r the NA p o s i t i o n s . Groups RWk and RRec cou ld not be c o l l a p s e d as there was s i g n i f i -c a n t l y more c l u s t e r i n g i n group RWk than i n group RRec, F_(l,20) = 4 . 6 3 , _p < . 0 4 . Ins tead the two comparisons ARecNA + AWkNA vs RWkNA and ARecNA + AWkNA vs RRecNA were made. Only the l a t t e r was s i g n i f i c a n t , F_(l,31) = 4 . 4 , p_ < . 0 5 , w i t h the analogy groups hav ing t h r e e percent more c l u s t e r i n g than the r a n k i n g groups i n p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d from the NA p o s i t i o n s . 79 Table 22 Summary Table f o r One-way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of C l u s t e r i n g f o r Both the A and NA P o s i t i o n s Comparison df MSe P i c t u r e s i n Analogy Immediate R e c a l l AlmmA vs RImmA 20 ,02 17.65 <.0004 F i n a l R e c a l l AlmmA vs RImmA 20 AWkA + ARecA vs RWkA + RRecA 42 P i c t u r e s not i n Analogy Immediate R e c a l l AlmmNA vs RImmNA 20 ,01 ,0032 ,02 3 .24 13 .0 ,02 n. s . <.0008 n . s . F i n a l R e c a l l AWkNA + ARecNA vs RWkNA 31 AWkNA + ARecNA vs ARecNA 31 E q u a l i t y of Groups Being C o l l a p s e d RWkA vs RRecA RWkNA vs RRecNA AWkA vs ARecA AWkNA vs ARecNA 20 20 20 20 ,0006 .0016 ,0018 ,0003 ,0048 ,0029 .29 4 .4 .003 4 .63 .377 1.24 n. s . <.05 n . s . <.04 n . s . n . s . 80 Recognition Table 23 summarizes the results of the comparisons between groups ARec and RRec on the dependent variable of recognition, for pictures from both the A and NA positions. (All means are displayed in Table 16.) The difference in d_' scores between group ARec and RRec was in the expected direction with group RRecA having a mean d_' score of 2.35 and group ARecA a mean d_' score of 1.97. However this difference did not reach significance, F_(l,32) = 2.56, j3 < .12. For those pictures that were not involved in the analogy, the difference was in the ex-pected direction and was significant, _F(1,32) = 11.67, p. < -0017. Thus group RRecNA had a mean detectability score of 2.30 compared to a score of 1.35 for group ARecNA. 81 Table 23 Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of d ' Score Comparison df MSe R e c o g n i t i o n P i c t u r e s i n Analogy P i c t u r e s not i n Analogy 32 32 ,4849 2.56 n. s . ,6532 11.67 <.0017 82 DISCUSSION Cont rary to what was p r e d i c t e d by the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e - s c h e m a t i c p o s i t i o n the analogy c o n d i t i o n was not c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s u p e r i o r i m -mediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l s c o r e s . However, when a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s was c a r r i e d out i n Phase I I , a dramat ic d i f -fe rence i n " p a t t e r n i n g " of r e c a l l between the two c o n d i t i o n s was demonstrated. Thus i n the analogy groups more p i c t u r e s were r e c a l l e d from the A p o s i t i o n s than from the NA p o s i t i o n s . T h i s e f f e c t was .not found i n the r a n k i n g groups when p i c t u r e s from the same p o s i t i o n s were compared. (This c o n c l u s i o n must be q u a l i f i e d by a s i m i l a r e f f e c t , a l though of c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r magnitude, tha t was found i n the RWkA + RRecA vs RWkNA + RRecNA compar ison. ) S i m i l a r l y i n the r a n k i n g groups more p i c t u r e s tha t were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s were r e c a l l e d than those p i c t u r e s tha t were not so chosen. These two se ts of r e s u l t s c o n f i r m the p r e d i c t i o n tha t the o r i e n t i n g t a s k does indeed determine o r g a n i z a t i o n d u r i n g r e c a l l . Hence as p r e d i c t e d by the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e schematic p o s i t i o n , i t i s important to understand what the sub jec t does d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n , i f one wishes to complete ly understand the nature of r e c a l l . A l s o , as demonstrated i n the second stage of t h i s d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s , when the " o v e r a l l " score was broken down i n t o r e c a l l scores f o r the A and NA p o s i t i o n s , d e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e s were found. Thus d u r i n g immediate r e c a l l , r e c a l l f o r p i c t u r e s tha t had been i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems i n group Almm f a r exceeded r e c a l l f o r the same p i c t u r e s i n group RImm. S i m i l a r l y , f i n a l r e c a l l i n groups AWk and 83 ARec was superior to the f i n a l r e c a l l of the same pictures i n groups RWk and RRec. However the differe n c e i n f i n a l r e c a l l between groups AImm and RImm f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . These r e s u l t s suggest that multiple dependent va r i a b l e s should be used i n memory research. Using a sing l e dependent v a r i a b l e , such as free r e c a l l , may f a i l to uncover c r i t i c a l differences i n the nature of r e c a l l amongst the various conditions being studied. The confirmation of the predictions that the analogy groups would be characterized be greater c l u s t e r i n g and probed r e c a l l sug-gests that r e c a l l i n these groups i s based upon a reconstructive process. The hypothesis that the analogy rules are used to reconstruct r e c a l l i n the analogy groups was examined i n the det a i l e d analysis conducted i n stages 1 and 2. The greater probed r e c a l l score for pictures from the A p o s i t i o n i n group AImm supports t h i s hypothesis. The f a c t that the differe n c e ^ was not s i g n i f i c a n c t i n group AWk suggests that to be conserved over a period of a week, such rules must be used at least once i n recon-s t r u c t i n g free r e c a l l . The higher c l u s t e r i n g score f o r those pictures r e c a l l e d from the A positions i n both immediate and f i n a l free r e c a l l i n group AImm, and i n f i n a l r e c a l l i n group AWk also supports t h i s hypothesis. That a s i m i l a r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was not present i n group AWk i s unexpected, as groups AWk and ARec should not s i g n i f i -cantly d i f f e r on t h i s dimension. The e f f e c t found i n group AWk needs to be r e p l i c a t e d before i t can be d e f i n i t e l y concluded that without r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e , there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n c l u s t e r i n g scores i n f i n a l r e c a l l between pictures r e c a l l e d from the A and NA 84 p o s i t i o n s . Stage 2 of the a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l support both tha t i t i s the analogy r u l e s t h a t are be ing used to r e c o n s t r u c t r e c a l l i n the analogy groups and such r u l e s are not be ing used i n the r a n k i n g g r o u p s . ' Thus the s u p e r i o r probed r e c a l l of those p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the a n a l o g i e s by group AImm over group RImm supports t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . However, f o r the comparison i n v o l v i n g the groups t h a t d i d not r e c e i v e r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e , the d i f f e r e n c e i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . R e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e had a very power fu l and d i c r i m i n a t i v e e f f e c t on the analogy groups. Thus, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i n c r e a s e d p r o b e d - r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy by t h i r t y p e r c e n t , but only i n c r e a s e d the probed r e c a l l of the remaining p i c t u r e s by s i x p e r c e n t . I f the analogy r u l e s are to be conserved and used to r e c o n s t r u c t d u r i n g probed r e c a l l , i t appears tha t i t i s necessary t h a t the sub jec t p r a c t i c e u s i n g them. Such p r a c t i c e occured when the i n d i v i d u a l was t e s t e d f o r immediate . r e c a l l , and he was g i ven the o p p o r t u n i t y to e x e r s i c e the r u l e s he had l e a r n e d , to r e c o n s t r u c t each s e r i e s . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of c l u s t e r i n g scores i n t h i s stage of the a n a l y s i s a l s o supports the hypothes is tha t the analogy r u l e s are be ing used to r e c o n s t r u c t r e c a l l i n the analogy groups. Thus, g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , c l u s t e r i n g i n v o l v i n g p i c t u r e s from the A p o s i t i o n s i n the analogy groups exceeded the c l u s t e r i n g i n v o l v i n g the same p i c t u r e s i n the r a n k i n g groups. Only the comparison i n v o l v i n g c l u s t e r i n g d u r i n g f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l i n the two groups t h a t d i d not r e c e i v e r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . The d i f f e r e n c e was, however, i n the e x -pected d i r e c t i o n . 85 A l s o g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , c l u s t e r i n g i n v o l v i n g p i c t u r e s from the NA p o s i t i o n s i n the analogy groups d i d not exceed the c l u s t e r i n g i n -v o l v i n g the same p i c t u r e s i n the r a n k i n g groups. C l u s t e r i n g was s u r p r i s i n g l y low i n group RRecNA, and consequent ly the comparison ARecNA + AWkNA va RRecNA reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . However, bes ides t h i s unexpected f i n d i n g , the second p a r t of t h i s p r e d i c t i o n was supported by the remain ing comparisons. Thus the s u p e r i o r i t y of c l u s t e r i n g i n the analogy c o n d i t i o n can l a r g e l y be a t t r i b u t e d to the s u p e r i o r i t y of c l u s t e r i n g amongst those p i c t u r e s tha t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems. Th is i s j u s t as would be expected , s i n c e c l u s t e r i n g d u r i n g r e c a l l r e f l e c t s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and such r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , i f i t indeed i n v o l v e s the analogy r u l e s , g e n e r a l l y should be l i m i t e d to those p i c -t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems. The p r e d i c t i o n that s u b j e c t s i n the analogy groups would make fewer e r r o r s d u r i n g f r e e and probed r e c a l l than t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n the r a n k i n g groups , i s on ly p a r t i a l l y suppor ted . When no r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e was prov ided a g rea te r number of e r r o r s were made d u r i n g f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l by the r ank ing groups than by the analogy groups. Th is suggests tha t s u b j e c t s i n these r a n k i n g groups guessed more than t h e i r counte rpar ts i n the analogy groups. A s i m i l a r e f f e c t of o r i e n t i n g t a s k was not found w i t h the Almm and RImm groups on e i t h e r immediate or delayed r e c a l l . The reason t h i s i s the case may be r e l a t e d to the p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e on the two groups. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w i l l be cons idered when the r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e e f f e c t i s d i s c u s s e d . The p a t t e r n of g r e a t e r e r r o r s i n the r a n k i n g group was c o n s i s t e n t 86 but only reached significance in the Almm vs RImm comparison. As predicted, subjects in the group RRec in which the figural aspect was emphasized had better recognition scores than subjects in ARec. However, one cannot definitely conclude that the increased sensitivity of group RRec is due to the greater emphasis on the figura-tive aspect. Since subjects in the ranking group spent on the average one and a half minutes longer than subjects in the analogy group in completing their orienting task, time spent on orienting task was confounded with the manipulation of the figurative aspect of cognition. That the time spent on the ranking task is an important determinant of recognition is.reflected In the significant correlation between these two variables. Thus the greater sensitivity of group RRec could be more parsimoniously explained by a trace position that would pre-dict that recognition would increase as a function of the amount of time spent perceiving the picture. To adequately test the relationship between orienting task and the figurative aspect in cognition, i t would be necessary to conduct another study involving two orienting tasks which take the same amount of time to complete (e.g., Nelson, 1977). Although overall recognition was superior for the ranking group, the prediction that recognition of pictures from both the A and NA positions in group RRec would exceed recognition of the same pictures in group ARec was only partially supported. Thus, only the recognition of pictures from the NA positions in group Rrec was significantly superior to the recognition of the same pictures in group ARec. A l -though i t did not reach significance, the difference in recognition 87 scores between groups ARec and RRec f o r A p i c t u r e s was i n the expected d i r e c t i o n (p_ < .12). The f a c t . t h a t the analogy group d i d not recogn i ze p i c t u r e s from the A p o s i t i o n s b e t t e r than the r a n k i n g group suggests tha t r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n are somewhat independent , s i n c e the analogy group d i d r e c a l l these p i c t u r e s b e t t e r . Thus b e t t e r r e c a l l does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply b e t t e r r e c o g n i t i o n . A l s o p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k were e q u a l l y r e c o g n i z e d , w h i l e i n the analogy groups , p i c t u r e s from the A p o s i -t i o n s were recogn ized b e t t e r than p i c t u r e s from the NA p o s i t i o n s . Thus the o r i e n t i n g t a s k determined o r g a n i z a t i o n d u r i n g r e c o g n i t i o n as w e l l as r e c a l l . Such r e s u l t s do n o t , however, support a P i a g e t i a n concept ion of the dependent r o l e of the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n i n memory. Such a concept ion would p r e d i c t t h a t both r e c o g n i t i o n and r e c a l l of f a v o u r i t e p i c t u r e s would be g r e a t e r . For both the analogy and r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e had a very power fu l e f f e c t on a l l dependent v a r i a b l e s except the number of e r r o r s made i n probed r e c a l l . However, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e appeared to have a more power fu l e f f e c t on the r a n k i n g groups. Th is d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t of r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e may he lp e x p l a i n why groups AImm and RImm d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r w i t h respec t to the number of e r r o r s made d u r i n g f r e e r e c a l l . Thus r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e reduced the number of e r r o r s made, by one and a h a l f f o r the r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n , but on ly reduced i t by one i n the analogy c o n d i t i o n . When component c l u s t e r i n g scores are c o n s i d e r e d , some i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups tha t r e c e i v e r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e and 88 those groups that do not have the b e n e f i t of such p r a c t i c e become, e v i d e n t . Thus, f o r the comparison i n v o l v i n g the r a n k i n g and analogy groups tha t d i d not r e c e i v e r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e , a l l d i f f e r e n c e s except the d i f f e r e n c e i n th ree p o i n t groupings were s i g n i f i c a n t . In c o n t r a s t , i n the comparison between groups Almm and RImm on ly the d i f f e r e n c e i n the three p o i n t groupings score reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . Once a g a i n , i t appears tha t the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t tha t r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e has on the analogy and r a n k i n g groups i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these apparent l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s . Thus, f o r the analogy groups r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i n c r e a s e d , by a f a c t o r of f i v e , the number of th ree p o i n t g roup ings , but had no e f f e c t on any of the other g roup ings . . On the other hand, i n the r a n k i n g groups, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e s i g n i -f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d the number of one and two p o i n t g roup ings . When t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e e f f e c t i s taken i n t o account , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that group Almm d i f f e r s from group RImm o n l y i n terms of the number of th ree p o i n t g roup ings . Thus i t can be concluded tha t the r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e e f f e c t tha t was found to improve the r e c a l l of p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e s , does g e n e r a l i z e to the l e a r n i n g of v i s u a l m a t e r i a l , w i t h i n an i n c i d e n t a l , . l e a r n i n g paradigm. C o n c l u s i o n I t i s p o s s i b l e to draw s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s from the s t u d y : (1) The s c h e m a t i c - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s i t i o n i s supported i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s . Thus what the i n d i v i d u a l does d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n p l a y s an important r o l e i n determin ing subsequent r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n . Th is i s r e -f l e c t e d i n the f i n d i n g s that f o r a l l groups the type of o r i e n t i n g 89 task a subject i s involved i n determines the organiza t ion of r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n . These r e s u l t s a l so demonstrate that (a) the con-clusions dervied from i n c i d e n t a l l ea rn ing studies .conducted with v e r - b a l mater ia l s a l so genera l ize to v i s u a l s t i m u l i , and (b) these r e s u l t s a l so hold for long term r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n . (2) R e c a l l i n the analogy groups does d e f i n i t e l y appear to be character ized by a recons t ruc t ive process that u t i l i z e s the analogy r u l e s . Thus r e c a l l i n these groups i s more parsimoniously explained by the ac t ive - recons t ruc t ive approach adapted by the L . N . R . research group than by the pass ive approach pos i ted by Bower and Anderson. (3) The r e s u l t s confirm that the r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e e f fec t de^. monstrated by Y u i l l e wi th verba l mater i a l does indeed genera l ize to v i s u a l m a t e r i a l . Furthermore, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e appears to have a more f a c i l i t a t i v e e f fect i n the ranking cond i t ion where the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of cogni t ion i s emphasized. (4) The p r e d i c t i o n that the immediate and f i n a l free r e c a l l of the analogy groups would exceed s i m i l a r r e c a l l i n the ranking groups was not corroborated. Thus, although r e c a l l i n the analogy groups appears to be character ized by a recons t ruc t ive process , such a pro-cess does not , as p red i c t ed , r e s u l t i n superior free r e c a l l . A hypothesis that might account for these r e s u l t s was suggested i n the Introduct ion . That i s , at l ea s t part of the time, i t i s pos s ib le that the ranking o r i e n t i n g task . . fa i led and the subjects generated t h e i r own i d i o s y n c r a t i c ru l e s which may be more success fu l than the ranking ru les i n recons t ruct ing r e c a l l . However, i f t h i s were the case, i t would be expected that the ranking groups would be character ized 9 0 by greater clustering than was found i n these groups. Such clustering would be expected to r e f l e c t any rule biased reconstructive process. A second p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the greater emphasis on the fi g u r a -t i v e aspect i n the ranking groups accounts for the high free r e c a l l scores i n these groups. This would necessitate a t t r i b u t i n g a more central, independent role to the fig u r a t i v e aspect i n memory that characterizes the Piagetian conception. Thus the fig u r a t i v e aspect may not be simply a direct translation of the operative aspect, as depicted by Piaget, but may play a more c r i t i c a l role i n r e c a l l . However, i f th i s were the case a l l the pictures i n each series would be expected to be recalled equally w e l l , since the f i g u r a l characteristics of a l l the pictures were emphasized. As had already been pointed out, those pictures that were picked as favourites were recalled better. That those pictures picked as favourites were re-called better could be interpreted as suggesting that perhaps r e c a l l i n the ranking condition was also characterized by a reconstructive process i n which the ranking rules were used to reconstruct r e c a l l . However, i f th i s were so, i t would also be expected that r e c a l l i n these groups would be characterized by greater clustering than was found to be the case. To test t h i s hypothesis further i t would be necessary to (a) examine the clustering that did occur i n the ranking groups to determine more "favourite" pictures were involved, (b) repeat the study using a probed r e c a l l task which would test for recon-struction u t i l i z i n g the ranking rules. The fact that subjects i n the ranking groups spent 54% longer than the i r counterparts i n the analogy groups i n solving the orienting 91 t a s k may a c c o u n t f o r the r e l a t i v e l y h i g h r e c a l l i n t h e s e g r o u p s . To-conduct a f a i r e r assessment o f t h e r o l e of r e c o n s t r u c t i o n d u r i n g r e c a l l , i t would be n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y out a s t u d y i n w h i c h the t i m e spent s o l v i n g the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s i n the two c o n d i t i o n s was e q u a t e d . 92 FOOTNOTES 1 1 B a r t l e t t , F .C . Remembering: A study i n exper imenta l and s o c i a l  psychology . London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967, p. 4. 2 I b i d . , p. 213. 3 l b i d . , , p . . 2 0 6 . l f I b i d . , p. 52. 5 I b i d . , p. 206. 6 Anderson , J . R . & Bower, G.H. Human a s s o c i a t i v e memory. Washington, D . C . : Hemisphere P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1973, p. 60. 7 P a i v i o , A. Imagery and v e r b a l p r o c e s s e s . New York : H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston , I n c . , 1971, p. 8. 8 F u r t h , H.G. P i a g e t and knowledge: T h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s . E n g l e -wood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1969, p. 72. 9 I b i d . , p. 93. 1 0 P i a g e t , J . & I n h e l d e r , B. Menta l imagery i n the c h i l d . New York : B a s i c Books, 1971. " i b i d . , p. 228. 1 2 I b i d . , p. 378. 1 3 I b i d . , p. 378. ^ Y u i l l e , J . C . & C a t c h p o l e , M . J . The r o l e of imagery i n model of c o g n i t i o n . 1 5 P i a g e t , J . & I n h e l d e r , B. , 1973, op., c i t . , p. 385. 1 6 I b i d . , p. 395. 1 7 C r a i k , F . I . & L o c k h a r t , R . S . L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g : A framework f o r memory r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behav iour , 93 1972 1_1(6), p. 676. 1 8 I b i d . 1 9 I b i d . , p. 675. 2 0 I b i d . , p. 681. 2 1 C r a i k , F . I . & T u l v i n g , E. Depth of p r o c e s s i n g and the r e t e n t i o n of words i n e p s i o d i c memory. J o u r n a l of Exper imenta l Psycho logy : G e n e r a l , 1975, 1 0 4 ( 3 ) , p. 290. 2 2 I b i d . , p. 291. 2 3 I b i d . , p. 294. 2 1 f C r a i k , F . I . & L o c k h a r t , R . S . , 1972, op. c i t . , p. 682. 2 5 I b i d . , p. 681. 2 5 Y u i l l e , J . C . An a n a l y s i s of cod ing processes and r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e . Unpubl ished manusc r ip t . 2 7 A n d e r s o n , J . R . & Bower, G . H . , 1973, op. c i t . , p. 140. 2 8 I b i d . , p. 186. 2 9 I b i d . , p. 44. 3 0 I b i d . , p. 141. 3 1 Norman, D.A. & Rumelhart , D.E. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n c o g n i t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. Freeman and Company, 1975, p. 7. 3 2 I b i d . , p. 23. 3 3 I b i d , p. 26. 3 k A n d e r s o n , J . R . & Bower, G . H . , 1973, op. c i t . , p. 44. 3 5 Norman, D.A. & Rumelhart , D . E . , 1975, op. c i t . , p. 159. 3 6 I b i d . , p. 330. 3 7 I b i d . , p. 317. 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, J . R . & Bower, G.H. Human a s s o c i a t i v e memory. Washington, D . C . : Hemisphere P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1973, p. 60. B a r t l e t t , F .C . Remembering: A study i n exper imenta l and s o c i a l psychology . London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967. B r a n s f o r d , J . D . & B a r c l a y , J . R . , & F r a n k s , J . J . Sentence memory: a c o n s t r u c t i v e versus i n t e r p r e t i v e approach. C o g n i t i v e Psycho logy , 1971, _3. B r a n s f o r d , J . D . & F r a n k s , J . J . The a b s t r a c t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c i d e a s . C o g n i t i v e Psycho logy , 1971, 3_. C r a i k , F . I . & L o c k h a r t , R . S . L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g : a framework f o r memory r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l f o r V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1972 (Dec) , L L ( 6 ) , 676. C r a i k , F . I . & T u l v i n g , E. Depth of p r o c e s s i n g and the r e t e n t i o n of words i n e p i s o d i c memory. J o u r n a l of Exper imenta l Psycho logy : G e n e r a l , 1975, 124. F u r t h , H.G. P i a g e t and knowledge: T h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s . E n g l e -wood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1969, p. 72. G i n s b u r g , H. & Opper, S. P i a g e t ' s theory of i n t e l l e c t u a l development: An i n t r o d u c t i o n . Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1969. Hays, W.L. S t a t i s t i c s f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . New York : H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston , 1973. Hyde, T . S . D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of e f f o r t and type of o r i e n t i n g t a s k on r e c a l l and o r g a n i z a t i o n of h i g h l y a s s o c i a t e d words. J o u r n a l of Exper imenta l Psycho logy , 1973, 7_9, 111-113. 95 Hyde, T . S . & Jenkens, J . J . D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of i n c i d e n t a l tasks on the o r g a n i z a t i o n of r e c a l l of a l i s t of h i g h l y a s s o c i a t e d words. J o u r n a l of Exper imenta l Psycho logy , 1969, 82 , 4 7 2 - 4 8 1 . Hyde, T . S . & Jenkens , J . J . R e c a l l f o r words as a f u n c t i o n of semant i c , g r a p h i c , and s y n t a c t i c o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l Learn ing  and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1973, 12, 471-480. K i n t s c h , W. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of meaning i n memory. H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Lawrence E i lbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1975. L o f t u s , E .F . Leading ques t ions and eyewitness r e p o r t . C o g n i t i v e  Psycho logy , 1975, 1_, 560 -572. Norman, D.A. & Rumelhart , D .E . E x p l o r a t i o n s i n c o g n i t i o n . San F r a n -c i s c o : W.H. Fr ieman and Company, 1975. P a i v i o , A . Imagery and v e r b a l p r o c e s s e s . New York : H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston , I n c . , 1971. P i a g e t , J . The c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y i n the c h i l d . New Y o r k : B a s i c Books, 1954. P i a g e t , J . & I n h e l d e r , B. Menta l imagery i n the c h i l d . New York : B a s i c Books, 1971. P i a g e t , J . & I n h e l d e r , B. Memory and i n t e l l i g e n c e . New York : B a s i c Books, 1973. P y l y s h y n , Z.W. What the mind ' s eye t e l l s the mind 's b r a i n . a c r i t i q u e of menta l imagery. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1973, 80_, 1 -24 . Sachs, J . S . R e c o g n i t i o n memory f o r s u n t a c t i c and semantic aspects of connected d i s c o u r c e . P e r c e p t i o n and P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 1967, _ 437-442. 96 Shulman, A . I . R e c o g n i t i o n memory f o r t a r g e t s from a scanned word l i s t . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Psycho logy , 1971, ^ 2 , 335-346. Shulman, A . I . Memory f o r words r e c e n t l y c l a s s i f i e d . Memory and Cog-t i o n , 1974, 2, 4 7 - 5 2 . T i l l , R .E . & Jenkens , J . J . The e f f e c t s of cued o r i e n t i n g tasks on the f r e e r e c a l l of words. J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1973, 1_2, 489 -498 . Walsh, D.A. & Jenkens , J . J . E f f e c t s of o r i e n t i n g tasks on f r e e r e c a l l i n i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g : " d i f f i c u l t y " , " e f f o r t " , and " p r o c e s s " e x p l a n a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l Learn ing and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1973, 12, 481 -488. Y u i l l e , J . C . An a n a l y s i s of coding processes and r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e . Unpubl ished manusc r ip t . Y u i l l e , J . C . & C a t c h p o l e , M . J . The r o l e of imagery i n a model of c o g n i t i o n . APPENDIX A TWELVE SERIES OF PICTURES PRESENTED DURING PROBLEM SOLVING 98 99 100 i 101 102 103 104 - - - - - -i i 105 106 107 109 110 I l l 112 i 1 I 113 114 115 117 APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS 121 APPENDIX B.  Instructions to Subjects Instructions Given to Anology Groups Before Problem Solving, The purpose of t h i s experiment i s to study problem solving, I w i l l explain what you are to do by giving you a practice t r i a l . In front of you, you see seven pictures. The f i r s t picture i s related to the second picture i n some way. The t h i r d picture goes with one of the remaining four pictures in. the same way. You are to f i n d the related picture and t e l l me i t s number, (.pause). In t h i s example, the answer i s number si x , the E i f f e l Tower, Do you see how i t works? Are there any questions? This was a practice run. The whole experiment w i l l involve twelve more t r i a l s l i k e t h i s one. Thus for each t r i a l you w i l l be shown seven pictures. The f i r s t two pictures w i l l be related i n some way. The t h i r d picture w i l l r e l a t e i n the same way to one of the remaining four. You are to f i n d the related picture and t e l l me i t s number. While you are doing t h i s experiment I w i l l record your answer and I w i l l keep track of the time you take. I want to stress that I am recording the time only out of i n t e r e s t . This i s not a speed test or an i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t . You can take as much time as you need to do each t r i a l as best you can. Are there any questions? O.K. I w i l l begin with the f i r s t t r i a l . Are you ready? 122 Instructions Given to Ranking Groups Before Problem Solving. This experiment i s designed to study the psychology of aesthetics, that i s , the preferences people have i n making choices. I w i l l explain what you are to do by giving you a practice t r i a l . In front of you, you see seven pictures. I want you to indicate from amongst these seven pictures the four you l i k e the most. When you pick these four out, t e l l me the one you l i k e the best, the one you l i k e the second best, the one you l i k e the t h i r d best and f i n a l l y , the one you l i k e the fourth best, (pause) Do you see how i t works? Are there any questions? This was a practice run. The whole experiment w i l l involve twelve more t r i a l s . l i k e t h i s one. Thus, for each t r i a l you w i l l be shown seven pictures. You are to pick your four favourite pictures and rank them according to your order of preference, that i s , f i r s t , second, t h i r d or fourth. While you are doing t h i s experiment, I w i l l record your answer and I w i l l also keep track of the time you take. I want to stress that I am recording the time only out of in t e r e s t . This i s not a speed test or an i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t . You can take as much time as you need to do each t r i a l as best you can. O.K. I w i l l begin with the f i r s t t r i a l . Are you ready? 123 Instructions Given to Both Anology and Ranking Groups Before Immediate and F i n a l Recall. I want you to write down the names of as many pictures as you can remember seeing i n t h i s experiment. Thus, there were twelve t r i a l s and seven pictures i n each of these t r i a l s for a t o t a l of eighty four pictures. Write down the names of as many of these pictures as you can r e c a l l . If you cannot name some, describe them as best you can or draw them. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094401/manifest

Comment

Related Items