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.

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 T E S T OF RECONSTRUCTIVE-SCHEMATIC  THE  MODEL OF MEMORY  by DAVID JOSEPH B.A.,  University  A THESIS THE  of  SUBMITTED  CREIGHTON B r i t i s h Columbia,  IN  REQUIREMENTS  PARTIAL FOR THE  M A S T E R OF  FULFILLMENT DEGREE  OF  ARTS  in THE  FACULTY  OF GRADUATE  (Department  We a c c e p t t h i s to  THE  the  of  required  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  Psychology)  thesis  as  conforming  standard  OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  August 1978 ©  David  Joseph Creighton,  1974  1978  OF  In  presenting  this  an a d v a n c e d  degree  the  shall  I  Library  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by h i s of  this  written  thesis at  the U n i v e r s i t y  make  that  it  purposes  for  freely  permission may  representatives. thesis  in p a r t i a l  financial  is  of  British  Columbia,  British  by  for  gain  Columbia  shall  the  that  not  requirements I  agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying  t h e Head o f  understood  Depa rtment  2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  of  for extensive  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y  of  available  be g r a n t e d  It  fulfilment  of  this  be a l l o w e d  or  that  study. thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  without  my  ii  ABSTRACT  The p r e s e n t  study i n v o l v e d a t e s t of the  model of memory.  reconstructive-schematic  T h i s model i s p r e s e n t e d w i t h i n the h i s t o r i c a l con-  t e x t i n which i t d e v e l o p e d , w i t h the emphasis b e i n g p l a c e d on P i a g e t ' s research. 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 s assumptions  a n a l y z e d and i t s  c o n c e r n i n g the n a t u r e of memory and r e c a l l are  Thus a c c o r d i n g to t h i s model:.  ( 1 ) representation  and dependent upon the n a t u r e of p e r c e p t i o n . i n d i v i d u a l during perception i s  is  two key isolated.  closely  The a c t i v e r o l e of  of c r i t i c a l importance as  "rules"  tuve p r o c e s s i n which these r u l e s adequately  as  the  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 -  are used to r e c o n s t r u c t  the o r i g i n a l  possible.  To t e s t these two assumptions i n v o l v i n g two d i f f e r e n t  of  (2) Memory i n v o l v e s a c o n s e r v a t i o n of  i n schematic form and r e c a l l i s  s t i m u l u s as  the  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 a n a l y s i s stimuli, during perception.  linked  an i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g paradigm  o r i e n t i n g t a s k s was u s e d .  Twelve s e r i e s of  p i c t u r e s per s e r i e s comprised the v i s u a l s t i m u l i which were employed in this  study.  Six: .groups of seventeen v o l u n t e e r u n i v e r s i t y  per group were t e s t e d . w h i l e t h r e e groups  Three groups  s o l v e d an analogy o r i e n t i n g t a s k  completed a r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k .  t e r m i n o l o g y , the analogy o r i e n t i n g t a s k was assumed "operative"  In P i a g e t i a n  to emphasize  the  aspect of c o g n i t i o n w h i l e the r a n k i n g t a s k emphasized  the " f i g u r a t i v e " All  students  aspect.  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  performing  iii  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  r e c a l l i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r c o m p l e t i n g the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . groups  free  Four of  the  (AImm and RImm as w e l l as AWk and RWK, two. groups not t e s t e d  for  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 i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r completing 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 t h e probed r e c a l l  test.  To t e s t a l l p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t f o l l o w e d from t h e two major assumpt 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 m o d e l , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o 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 p h a s e ^ f o c u s e d on t h e  s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e on the dependent v a r i a b l e s : f r e e , and probed r e c a l l ,  immediate, f i n a l  " c l u s t e r i n g " , "component c l u s t e r i n g " ,  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 .  time  I n t h e second p h a s e ,  the s c o r e s on each dependent v a r i a b l e were c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s  subjects,  r e s u l t i n g i n a; mean s c o r e 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 t y p e of a n a l y s i s was r e q u i r e d t o examine 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 n b o t h p h a s e s , one way a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e were conducted f o r dependent v a r i a b l e and each comparison under The f i r s t  each  consideration.  assumption was s u p p o r t e d by the f i n d i n g t h a 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 s c o r e s and r e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e s v a r i e d w i t h t h e t y p e of o r i e n t i n g t a s k i n v o l v e d . assumption r e c e i v e d support from the f i n d i n g t h a t t h e  The second "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 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  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 recall.  to p r e free  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page  Abstract  ii  L i s t of Tables  vi  L i s t of Figures  ix  Acknowledgement  x  1  Introduction Method Scoring  33 Procedure  33  Subj e c t s  33  Procedure  34  Summary  35  Results  36  Overview  36  Phase... I  37  Phase I I  56  Discussion  82  Conclusion  88  Footnotes  92  Bibliography  94  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS continued  Page  Appendix A:  The Twelve Series of P i c t u r e s Presented During Problem Solving  Appendix B:  I n s t r u c t i o n s to Subjects  97  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 T a b l e f o r One-way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r t h e L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent Variables: Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed Recall Mean C l u s t e r i n g Scores i n Both Immediate and F i n a l F r e e R e c a l l f o r A l l Groups Summary T a b l e f o r One-way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e 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 T a b l e f o r One-way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e Dependent V a r i a b l e of Component C l u s t e r i n g S c o r e . Mean Number of E r r o r s Made i n F i n a l and Probed Recall Summary T a b l e f o r One-way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r t h e 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 P e r c e n t a g e of H i t and F a l s e A l a r m 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 T a b l e f o r the One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e Dependent V a r i a b l e of Time Spent i n Problem S o l v i n g Mean P e r c e n t a g e Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l Scores O b t a i n e d 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 c o n t i n u e d  Summary T a b l e f o r the One-Way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e Dependent Variables: Immediate, F i n a l , and Probed R e c a l l f o r Both t h e A and NA P o s i t i o n s Mean P e r c e n t a g e Immediate and F i n a l R e c a l l Scores O b t a i n e d by A l l Ranking Groups f o r Both the F and NF P o s i t i o n s Summary T a b l e f o r the One-Way ANOVAs, Conducted f o r t h e L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e Dependent Variables: 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 P e r c e n t a g e C l u s t e r i n g Scores f o r A l l Groups i n Both t h e A and NA P o s i t i o n s Summary T a b l e f o r t h e 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 Positions Mean P e r c e n t a g e of H i t and F a l s e A l a r m 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 P e r c e n t a g e of H i t and F a l s e A l a r m S c o r e s , and Mean d.' Scores f o r Groups ARec and RRec f o r . Both t h e A and NA P o s i t i o n s Summary T a b l e f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e Dependent V a r i a b l e of d_' Score f o r Both t h e A and NA P o s i t i o n s Summary T a b l e f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e 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 T a b l e f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r t h e 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  viii  LIST OF TABLES c o n t i n u e d  Page  T a b l e 23  Summary T a b l e f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r t h e L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of d ' Score  81  ix  LIST OF FIGURES  Page  Figure 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  Firstly, support,  I would l i k e to e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r  the  e m o t i o n a l and f i n a n c i a l , t h a t I have r e c e i v e d from my p a r e n t s ,  w i t h o u t w h i c h c o m p l e t i o n 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 ,  o t h e r committee members, Raymond C o r t e e n and M i c h a e l C h a n d l e r ,  and  for  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 . Finally,  I would l i k e t o 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 i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e s c r a w l i n t o typed manuscript.  this  1  INTRODUCTION  The purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s to t e s t the  schematic-reconstructive  model of memory by s t u d y i n g l o n g term r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n of stimuli.  visual  However, b e f o r e such a study can be d e s c r i b e d , i t w i l l be  n e c e s s a r y t o g i v e 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 r e p r e s e n t e d by a u n i t a r y , well-formulated theory.  Instead,  i t r e p r e s e n t s a common c o n c e p t i o n  or approach to memory t h a t can be found i n the works of s e v e r a l r i s t s w i d e l y removed i n time and b a c k g r o u n d .  T h i s approach i s  u n d e r s t o o d when viewed w i t h i n the h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t i n w h i c h  theobest  it  evolved. The b e g i n n i n g s of the s c i e n t i f i c study of memory can be t r a c e d t o Ebbinghaus' century.  now c l a s s i c memory e x p e r i m e n t s i n the l a t e  nineteenth  E a r l y i n h i s r e s e a r c h , Ebbinghaus found t h a t a l t h o u g h  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 across i n d i v i d u a l s . history  He r e a l i z e d t h a t because of the unique  t h a 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  varied learning  the same  s t i m u l u s d i d not have the same meaning a c r o s s i n d i v i d u a l s and c o n s e q u e n t 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 o v e r  the e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n and c o n s e q u e n t l y t o e l i m i n a t e the " c o n f o u n d i n g " meaning e f f e c t , Ebbinghaus used o n l y nonsense s y l l a b l e s as stimuli.  He reasoned t h a t i f t h e s t i m u l i were m e a n i n g l e s s t o  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 .  all This  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 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 ,  retention interval,  of and  2  so on. This emphasis on maximum control of the experimental s i t u a tion by conducting laboratory studies with "simple" s t i m u l i , such as l i s t s of nonsense s y l l a b l e s , set the tone i n memory research for the next seventy years.  Also, i t has only been i n the l a s t f i f t e e n years  or so that memory experiments involving sentences or more complex l i n g u i s t i c units, as well as memory studies with perceptual s t i m u l i have begun to be carried out.  (The notable exceptions  to this rule  are the studies of B a r t l e t t and Piaget which w i l l be discussed  shortly.)  Although i n 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 i n the process. that such studies many be c r i t i c i z e d as:  Thus B a r t l e t t noted  "(a) I t i t impossible to  r i d s t i m u l i of meaning as long as they remain capable of arousing any human response; (b) The e f f o r t 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 r e c a l l responses depend mainly upon v a r i a t i o n o f - s t i m u l i and of t h e i r order, frequency, and mode of presentation, i s to ignore dangerously those equally important conditions of response which belong to the subjective attitude and to predetermined reaction tendencies."  1  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that such  c r i t i c i s m s may s t i l l be applied to much of the verbal memory work that has been carried out i n the f o r t y years subsequent to B a r t l e t t ' s reproof. Early animal studies i n memory for  also had important consequences  the d i r e c t i o n that human memory research would take.  the r e s u l t s of such animal research, "trace" formulations  To explain of memory  3  became p o p u l a r .  In the l a t e n i n e t e e n - t w e n t i e s such " t r a c e " f o r m u l a -  t i o n s were extended to human v e r b a l memory r e s e a r c h . p o s i t i o n s h o l d t h a t whenever an o b j e c t  i s perceived  Such " t r a c e " or an event  occurs,  a p e r c e p t i a l t r a c e of such an o b j e c t  or event i s " s t o r e d " i n the  i n d i v i d u a l ' s mind.  i n time a s t i m u l u s  At a l a t e r p o i n t  r e - e x c i t e s or  re-evokes t h i s t r a c e , which r e s u l t s i n the e x p e r i e n c e of r e c a l l . we  s h a l l seem such a t r a c e p o s i t i o n i s a n t i t h e t i c a l to the  tive-schematic  reconstruc-  approach.  In r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t  such r e s e a r c h ,  B a r t l e t t was  concerned w i t h  c o n d u c t i n g more " n a t u r a l " s t u d i e s t h a t s t r e s s e d the r o l e of the v i d u a l ' s " s u b j e c t i v e r e s p o n s e " i n memory and  recall.  i n s t e a d of e l i m i n a t i n g meaning, the work was  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  of such h i g h l y m e a n i n g f u l s t i m u l i as p i c t u r e s and concluded that.:  "Remembering i s not  f i x e d , l i f e l e s s , and  fragmentary t r a c e s .  e x p e r i e n c e , and  to a l i t t l e  i n image or language f o r m . "  outstanding 2  organism a c q u i r e s 'schemata' and organic  perception,  innumerable re-  our  reactions  or  d e t a i l which commonly appears  B a r t l e t t employs the concept of "schema" past  reactions  or  " 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 "...  the c a p a c i t y to t u r n around upon i t s  to c o n s t r u c t  development.  i s what g i v e s  past  use  Bartlett  of the r e l a t i o n of  to r e f e r to t h i s "whole a c t i v e mass of o r g a n i z e d The  stories.  the  I t i s an i m a g i n a t i v e  a t t i t u d e toward a whole a c t i v e mass of o r g a n i z e d  indi-  Consequently,  the r e - e x c i t a t i o n of  c o n s t r u c t i o n or c o n s t r u c t i o n , b u i l t out  experience".  As  them a f r e s h .  I t i s where and why  T h i s i s a c r u c i a l step  i s not p a s s i v e .  in  c o n s c i o u s n e s s comes i n , i t  c o n s c i o u s n e s s i t s most prominent f u n c t i o n . "  the s u b j e c t  own  Instead,  3  Thus  during  "when m a t e r i a l i s  4  p r e s e n t e d , a s u b j e c t , perhaps i m m e d i a t e 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 t a k e s t o be i t s r u l e of arrangement.  Then ; t h e 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 . " *  Therefore,  1  a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s p o s i t i o n such r u l e s and not i s o m o r p h i c 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.  D u r i n g r e c a l l t h e s e r u l e s are used  t o 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 stimulus.  T h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n may l e a d t o d i s t o r t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y  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 ,  in  by  ordinary  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 g r e a t s i g n i f i c a n c e . B a r t l e t t ' s work r e p r e s e n t e d a r a d i c a l d e p a r t u r e 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 t h o u g h one might d i s a g r e e w i t h  d e t a i l s of h i s methodology o r t h e o r y , h i s approach r e p r e s e n t e d the  first  w e l l f o r m u l a t e d 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 .  ignored  N e v e r t h e l e s s , h i s work was l a r g e l y  and r e s e a r c h e r s c o n t i n u e d t o conduct a r t i f i c i a l memory s t u d i e s  involving  l i s t s of nonsense s y l l a b l e s o r nouns equated f o r m e m o r a b i l i t y .  Bartlett  was p a r t l y t o 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  constructs  "schema" and " a t t i t u d e " i n a v a g u e , i n c o m p l e t e and o f t e n c o n f u s i n g manner.  F u r t h e r m o r e , a c r i t i c a l argument i n B a r t l e t t ' s t h e o r y i s  that  he a t t r i b u t e s t o " c o n s c i o u s n e s s " " . . . ;the c a p a c i t y t o t u r n around upon i t s own ' s c h e m a t a ' and t o c o n s t r u c t them a f r e s h . " w i t h Anderson and Bower  6  5  One must agree  who f i n d t h i s argument " a l i t t l e h a r d t o  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 s c h e m a t i c r e c o n s t r u c t i v e approach t o 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 p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n . r e c a l l .  Because  5  h i s work r e p r e s e n t s 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 a p p r o a c h , 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 u n d e r t a k e n . 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 t h e v a l i d i t y of the r o l e t o w h i c h i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s a s s i g n e d i n such a m o d e l .  However, b e f o r e 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 n e c e s s a r y t o g i v e a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of n a t u r e of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h i s a p p r o a c h .  the  One of the b e s t ways t o  a c c o m p l i s h t h i s i s t o 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,  this  i s the t e c h n i q u e 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 "dual-coding hypothesis".  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 c o n c e r n i n g t h a t a r e 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 .  representation  Also, his position  i s w e l l f o r m u l a t e d and has g e n e r a t e d a good d e a l of r e s e a r c h . P a i v i o v i e w s imagery and v e r b a l p r o c e s s e s as " a l t e r n a t e c o d i n g systems or modes of s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , w h i c h a r e d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y l i n k e d t o e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s and events as w e l l as language.  I n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n they may be r e l a t i v e l y  directly  a r o u s e d i n t h e sense t h a t an o b j e c t or an event i s r e p r e s e n t e d  in  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 a r o u s e d i n the sense t h a 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 t h e r o b j e c t s )  and a word  a r o u s e s 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 t h a t c h a i n s of s y m b o l i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s can o c c u r .'  6  involving  e i t h e r words or images, or b o t h , and t h a t t h e s e can s e r v e  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 s y s t e m , 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 Narrow,  sense.  i n the sense t h a 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  sensorial representation. a direct configurative the " r e a l t h i n g " .  Configurative  i n the sense t h a t t h e r e  is  correspondence between t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and  Thus the r e a l t h i n g i s the " e f f i c i e n t c a u s e " o f  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  o f 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 o u t , i n such a p o s i t i o n , "  (emphasis m i n e ) . 9  points  knowledge has i t s adequate source  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 tations"  8  A c c e p t i n g such a v i e w ,  "...  in  represen-  leaves un-  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 p e r s o n to the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w h i c h .would be i n h e r e n t i n any true symbol b e h a v i o u r " .  By  1 0  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 t h e " f i g u r a t i v e " )  p e c t s of knowledge.  T h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e f a c t t h a t much of  asthe  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 c o - w o r k e r s i s concerned w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g 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 t y p e s of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " e v o k e d " .  Only when t h e " 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  fully  c o n s i d e r the a c t i v e r o l e of the "knowing p e r s o n " i n the f o r m a t i o n of memory.images. S i n c e the " v e r b a l s y s t e m " s e r v e s a s u m b o l i c f u n c t i o n f o r P a i v i o ,  7  1  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 s e n s e .  In t h i s  case,  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 t h e e f f i c i e n t cause of the w o r d , s i n c e the word i s s y m b o l i c 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 a c c e p t 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 i e w of the i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i b e d above. C o n s e q u e n t l y , he does not u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y a c c e p t 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 a s p e c t of larger epistemological questions.  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 c o n c l u d e d t h a t the image i s not an a u t o m a t i c copy of an o b j e c t or e v e n t .  Thus he w r i t e s :  o r l a t e r r e a l i t y comes t o be seen as c o n s i s t i n g of a system of f o r m a t i o n s beneath the appearance of t h i n g s . .  "Sooner trans-  These t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  cannot be c o p i e d u n l e s s they a r e a c t i v e l y reproduced by b e i n g p r o l o n g e d . T h i s means t h a t t h e r e cannot be a copy a t a l l i n the s t r i c t s e n s e .  In  o r d e r t o know o b j e c t s i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o a c t on them, t o b r e a k them down and t o 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 o b j e c 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 t h a t go t o produce i t ,  en-  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 it.  Hence the i m p o r t a n t p a r t p l a y e d by the o p e r a t i o n s w h i c h a r e 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 c o m p l e x 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 a r e more d i f f i c u l t to " b r e a k down" or P i a g e t uses r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n a s y m b o l i c s e n s e .  "apprehend". The image  s y m b o l i z e s the a b s t r a c t knowledge w h i c h r e s u l t s whenever an o b j e c t 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  c a r r y out the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , the image r e p r e s e n t s them. 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 , w i t h the o p e r a t i o n i t s e l f .  or  operations Now,  the  and does not merge  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 g e s t u r e i m i t a t e s an a c t i o n w i t h o u t b e i n g i d e n t i cal with i t . structure,  Between the image . . .  and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g  cognitive  t h e r e 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 t h a t s e p a r a t e s the s y m b o l i z e r from the t h i n g b e i n g symbolized."  I 2  A l t h o u g h b o t h P i a g e t and P a i v i o use the term " s y m b o l " to  describe  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 t o s u b s t i t u t e " s i g n " or " s i g n a l " f o r " s y m b o l " 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 t h a t e l i c i t s a b e h a v i o u r 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 . " A c c o r d i n g to P a i v i o , images and words a r e " s t o r e d " i n memory as images and words o r , traces".  i n h i s terminology,  as " p e r c e p t u a l " and " v e r b a l  I n such a model remembering s i m p l y c o n s i s t s of  "re-evoking"  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 t h e n r e s u l t s when t h e s e are " s c a n n e d " or " r e a d o f f " .  Consequently . f o r P a i v i o and  o t h e r t r a c e t h e o r i s t s " m e n t a l images" and " m e n t a l 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 a r e viewed as fundamental c o g n i t i v e  elements.  9  On the o t h e r h a n d , f o r P i a g e t " t h e image t h e n 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 o n l y u s e f u l t o , but i n many i n s t a n c e s n e c e s s a r y f o r f u n c t i o n i n g o f the o p e r a t i o n s . it  the  A f t e r h a v i n g s t r u c t u r e d and f a s h i o n e d  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  image."  1 3  S e v e r a l r e c e n t r e s e a r c h e r s have a r r i v e d a t 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 n a t u r e of c o g n i t i o n . Y u i l l e and C a t c h p o l e w r i t e :  I n a r e c e n t a r t i c l e on i m a g e r y ,  "The fundamental form of s t o r a g e i s  not  i n the form of images, w o r d s , o r sounds, or any o t h e r s e n s o r y a n a l o g u e . R a t h e r the f l e x i b i l i t y  of m e n t a l f u n c t i o n s demands t h a 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 t h e s e 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. c o n t e n t l e s s code . . .  B a s i c knowledge must be i n t h e form of 1 1 1 1 1  abstract  •  Other r e c e n t r e s e a r c h e r s , Anderson and Bower ( 1 9 7 4 ) , K i n t s c h ( 1 9 7 5 ) , Norman and Rumelhart ( 1 9 7 5 ) , and P y l y s h y n at s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s .  arrived  Anderson and Bower's and Norman and R u m e l h a r t ' s  work w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r . Loftus  (1973) have  Other contemporary r e s e a r c h e r s ,  i.e.,  ( 1 9 7 5 ) , Sachs ( 1 9 6 7 ) , B r a n s f o r d and F r a n k s ( 1 9 7 1 ) , and B a r c l a y  and F r a n k s (1971) have r e p o r t e d f i n d i n g s t h a t c o n t r a d i c t t r a c e  notions  of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , but a r e 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 i m a g e r y , P i a g e t c a s t l i g h t upon the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the f i g u r a t i v e and o p e r a t i v e a s p e c t s of c o g n i t i o n .  Since  he c o n c l u d e s t h a t images and words a r e 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 t h o u g h t ,  it  follows that 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 s h a l l see, f o r  Piaget, the explanation of memory must extend beyond representation. From his study of the development of memory i n 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. F i r s t l y , the c h i l d only remembered those stimuli that he was able to "break down" or apprehend during perception. the c h i l d could not understand stimuli  Apparently i f  the "transformations" underlying the  during perception, he was unable to reconstruct these during  recall. Secondly,  i n many cases, a f t e r a period of s i x months, the child's  memory actually improves.  Piaget attributes this surprising r e s u l t  to the role played by the operations i n 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 r e c a l l , the memory image i s 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 t h e i r own functioning.  The memory image simply symbolizes  which i s conserved i n .the schemata.  the abstract information  In Piaget's words:  nevertheless remains d i s t i n c t from r e c a l l :  "The image  the image i s a symbol and  r e c a l l a mental act which includes ( a t t r i b u t i o n a l , r e l a t i o n a l , and  11  existential)  judgements.because i t i s not e x c l u s i v e l y  a l s o comprises a s c h e m a t i s m . "  an image but  1 6  B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g , i t would be w o r t h w h i l e  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 .  If  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 r e p r e s e n t a v a l i d assessment of  this  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 a s s u m p t i o n s . First,  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  n a t u r e 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  during  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 a r e d e t e r m i n e d by how the i n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s e s the s t i m u l i , i . e . , down" and apprehends.  by the r u l e s he " b r e a k s  Thus, what the i n d i v i d u a l does d u r i n g  must be u n d e r s t o o d i f one wants to u n d e r s t a n d the n a t u r e of t i o n and r e c a l l .  perception representa-  T h i s 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  c o n c e p t i o n t h a t the s t i m u l u s i s an " e f f i c i e n t  c a u s e " of  and c o n s e q u e n t l y t h a t memory i s s i m p l y a p a s s i v e copy of S e c o n d l y , memory i n v o l v e s  representation reality.  c o n s e r v a t i o n of such " r u l e s " i n s c h e m a t i c  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 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 q u a t e l y as p o s s i b l e .  trace  process i n which  the o r i g i n a l s t i m u l u s as a d e -  A g a i n 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  that  r e c a l l s i m p l y i n v o l v e s a r e - e v o k i n g and s c a n n i n g 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 t h a t 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  the  schematic-reconstructive  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  explanation  t h a t 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 c o n c e p t i o n s of memory.  However,  recently several researchers  &Tulving,  (Craik  S - L o c k h a r t , . J972; C r a i k  12  1 9 7 5 ) , w o r k i n g w i t h i n a t r a c e model of memory, do n o t 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 .  Instead, these authors  s t r e s s the i m p o r t a n c e of u n d e r s t a n d i n g what t h e i n d i v i d u a l does during perception.  T h i s p o s i t i o n w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n some d e t a i l  a t i t not o n l y p r o v i d e s s u p p o r t f o r t h e f i r s t  t e n e 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 but a l s o and more i m p o r t a n t l y , i t  provides  the methodology t h a t make i t p o s s i b l e t o t e s t t h i s p o s i t i o n . C r a i k and L o c k h a r t v i e w t h e memory t r a c e as a b y p r o d u c t of  the  p e r c e p t u a l a n a l y s i s t h a 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 tion:  "Thus w e . p r e f e r  tual processing.  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 -  A l t h o u g h t h e s e l e v e l s may be grouped i n t o s t a g e s  (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 ,  for  e x a m p l e ) , 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 e n v i s a g e d as a c o n tinuum of a n a l y s e s .  Thus, memory, t o o , i s viewed as a continuum from  t h e t r a n s i e n t p r o d u c t s of s e n s o r y a n a l y s e s to the h i g h l y p r o d u c t s 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  durable  And, "This conception  of a s e r i e s or h i e r a r c h y of s t a g e s 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 r e a t e r d e p t h 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 t h e b a s i s of t h e s u b j e c t ' s p a s t e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the w o r d . " F u r t h e r m o r e , deeper l e v e l s of a n a l y s i s a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  stronger  and more e n d u r i n g t r a c e s . The a u t h o r s 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 p a r a d i g m .  1  13  An i m p o r t a n t a r e a 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 , t h a t the a u t h o r s c i t e to p r o v i d e s u p p o r t 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 t h a 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 e x p e r i m e n t a l  situ-  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 task that i s being used.  In t h i s way t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r 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 stimuli.  analyses  The r e s u l t s of such s t u d i e s s u p p o r t the a u t h o r s '  conclusion  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 t h a t i s needed to complete t h e o r i e n t i n g t a s k . s i o n the a u t h o r s n o t e t h a t " . . .  an i m p o r t a n t g o a l of f u t u r e  the e x p e r i m e n t e r  research  types of  We have suggested t h e comparison of  t a s k s 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  processing  In t h e i r f i n a l d i s c u s -  w i l l be to s p e c i f y the m e m o r i a l consequences of v a r i o u s ceptual operations.  perform."  C r a i k and T u l v i n g  orienting  paradigm as one method by w h i c h  2 0  (1975) conduct t e n such s t u d i e s .  The  results  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 1973; Hyde & J e n k i n s ,  Walsh & J e n k i n s , clude that " . . .  1969, 1973; T i l l and J e n k i n s ,  1973; Shulman, 1971, 1974) l e a d the a u t h o r s to c o n it  i s the q u a l i t a t i v e n a t u r e of t h e t a s k , the k i n d of  the t r a c e may be c o n s i d e r e d the r e c o r d of encoding  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  2 2  and,  2 1  operations  these operations i s  a n a l y s e 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 . "  to  Finally,  a u t h o r s n o t e t h a 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 studies " . . .  (e.g.,  1971, 1974;  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 , t h a t d e t e r m i n e s r e t e n t i o n " "...  per-  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  Hyde,  the  the  their  conform t o the new l o o k i n memory r e s e a r c h t h a t the  stress  14  i s on mental o p e r a t i o n s , items a r e remembered n o t as p r e s e n t e d s t i m u l i a c t i n g on the organism, but as components o f mental  activity.  S u b j e c t s remember n o t what was 'out t h e r e ' but what they d i d d u r i n g encoding"  (emphasis  theirs).  2 3  Such statements echo many of the c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the n a t u r e o f memory t h a t were drawn by preponents o f t h e schematic r e constructive position.  Thus the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t "... the t r a c e may  be c o n s i d e r e d 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 o f these o p e r a t i o n s i s t o a n a l y s e 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 " i s v e r y s i m i l a r to the statement t h a t memory i n v o l v e s the c o n s e r v a t i o n of r u l e s t h a t have been apprehended by the i n d i v i d u a l as he "breaks down" the s t i m u l u s d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n . Thus both p o s i t i o n s s t r e s s t h a t i f one wishes t o understand  memory,  one must focus upon what the i n d i v i d u a l i s doing d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n . However, the l e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g p o s i t i o n o n l y l o o k s "... a t memory p u r e l y from t h e i n p u t or encoding s p e c i f y e i t h e r how items  a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from one another, a r e  grouped t o g e t h e r and o r g a n i z e d , system." * 21  and, no attempt has been made t o  or how they a r e r e t r i e v e d from the  T h i s c o n t r a s t s w i t h the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e schematic  which i s a l s o concerned w i t h p r o c e s s e s  position  i n v o l v e d i n r e t e n t i o n and  recall. The. " l e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g " p o s i t i o n was p r e s e n t e d  as i t suggests  the methodology t h a t can be used t o 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 position.  To t e s t t h i s p o s i t i o n , as i n the " l e v e l o f p r o c e s s i n g "  s t u d i e s , i t w i l l be n e c e s s a r y  t o have c o n t r o l over how the i n d i v i d u a l  p e r c e p t u a l l y and c o g n i t i v e l y a n a l y s e s  the s t i m u l i .  15  Note I t i s p o s s i b l e to assess memory by t e s t i n g e i t h e r an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e c a l l or r e c o g n i t i o n of a stimulus.  In h i s memory studies  with c h i l d r e n , Piaget demonstrated that the greater the emphasis that i s placed on the f i g u r a t i v e aspects of the stimulus the greater the r e c o g n i t i o n of that stimulus w i l l be. R e c a l l , on the other hand, was found to be r e l a t e d to operative involvement, that-i.is, to the type of r u l e s that were apprehended by the c h i l d . Thus the schematic-reconstructive  p o s i t i o n p r e d i c t s that both  r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n w i l l vary as a f u n c t i o n of the type of a n a l y s i s performed by the subject. R e c a l l w i l l vary w i t h the type of a n a l y s i s f o r , according to t h i s p o s i t i o n , r e c a l l i s characterized by.a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process, the nature of which i s determined by the nature of the r u l e s upon which i t i s based.  Thus, i f d i f f e r e n t analyses of the same stimulus r e s u l t in.:  d i f f e r e n t r u l e s 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 f u n c t i o n of the type of a n a l y s i s performed i f d i f f e r e n t analyses emphasize the f i g u r a l aspects of the stimulus to a greater or l e s s e r extent.  Thus the  schematic-reconstruc-  t i v e p o s i t i o n would p r e d i c t that i f two d i f f e r e n t 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 r e c o g n i t i o n of that stimulus.  (But not n e c e s s a r i l y better r e c a l l , since r e c a l l i s  determined by the operative aspect of c o g n i t i o n , that i s , by the type of r u l e s that are concerned.) Two o r i e n t i n g tasks were chosen which allowed one to vary both  16  t h e t y p e of r u l e s t h a t were apprehended as w e l l as the emphasis t h a t is  p l a c e d on the f i g u r a l a s p e c t s of the s t i m u l u s .  B e f o r e t h e s e 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 n e c e s s a r y d i s c u s s the s t i m u l i t h a t were used i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t .  to  The m a t e r i a l s  were d e r i v e d from the a n a l o g y s u b s e c t i o n of the " C a l i f o r n i a  short-  term t e s t of m e n t a l m a t u r i t y " . T h i s s u b t e s t i n v o l v e s p r e s e n t i n g the s u b j e c t w i t h s e v e r a l s e r i e s of d r a w i n g s , each s e r i e s c o n s i s t i n g of seven drawings t h a t an analogy,'Which the s u b j e c t must r e s o l v e . the f i r s t  represent  Thus i n each s e r i e s ,  two drawings a r e r e l a t e d i n some way;  the s u b j e c t must  r e c o g n i z e t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p and then d e c i d e w h i c h of the r e m a i n i n g drawings i s r e l a t e d t o the t h i r d drawing i n the same way.  In  this  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 t h e same p i c ture occurred i n several series.  A f t e r the s e r i e s w i t h e i t h e r a m b i -  guous p i c t u r e s or p i c t u r e s t h a t were r e p e a t e d i n o t h e r 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 t o 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 t u d y .  One  of the s e r i e s was used as a p r a c t i c e r u n t o t e a c h the s u b j e c t the r e quired a n a l y s i s ; the remaining ment p r o p e r .  t w e l v e b e i n g employed i n the e x p e r i -  A l t h o u g h t w e l v e s e r i e s were used f o r t e s t i n g ,  e l e v e n of t h e s e were s c o r e d and a n a l y s e d .  The f i r s t  t r a y of  only pictures  c o n s i s t e d of s e r i e s of l i n e s and d o t s w h i l e the r e m a i n i n g e l e v e n 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 t o 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 o t h e r 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 . presented.)  (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  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 : a "ranking" task.  an " a n a l o g y " t a s k and  I n t h e a n a l o g y t a s k , the s u b j e c t was i n s t r u c t e d t o  s o l v e the analogy problem w h i c h each s e r i e s r e p r e s e n t e d .  On the o t h e r  h a n d , 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 t o p i c k t h e i r f o u r f a v o u r i t e drawings from amongst the s e v e n , and r a n k them a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r o r d e r of p r e f e r e n c e :  favourite,  second f a v o u r i t e , and so o n .  A t no time was the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t each s e r i e s r e p r e s e n t e d an a n a l o g y problem s u g g e s t e d . 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 r u l e s b e i n g apprehended.  of  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 t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t e x i s t s amongst t h e four p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy.  Consequently,  the r e s u l t i n g  analogy r u l e s e m p h a s i z e ; a " u n i f y i n g " theme as the f o u r p i e t u r . e s a r e p e r c e i v e d as a u n i t .  Thus t o s o l v e the analogy t a s k the i n d i v i d u a l  must " b r e a k down" the r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t e x i s t s between the f i r s t pictures.  The s c a n n i n g of the r e m a i n i n g p i c t u r e s i s g u i d e d by  conceptual r u l e .  two this  Thus the f o c u s i s upon the r e l a t i o n s h i p or r u l e  that  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  this  t a s k , t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s more concerned w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g 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 t u d y i n g t h e i r p h y s i c a l q u a l i t i e s . I n c o n t r a s t the r a n k i n g t a s k d i d n o t emphasize a u n i f y i n g as the s u b j e c t ' s a t t e n t i o n i s not drawn t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s amongst the f o u r p i c t u r e s .  Instead,  rule  that  to p e r f o r m 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 t o t h e 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  t h e p i c t u r e s i f he was to r a n k them i n o r d e r of p r e f e r e n c e .  The  s u b j e c t had to d e c i d e 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 t h e p h y s i c a l appearance of the p i c t u r e s .  When compared to the a n a l o g y  t a s k , the r a n k i n g t a s k 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 a s p e c t of  cognition.  Thus these two o r i e n t i n g t a s k s p r o v i d e d the means to 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 , reconstructive  s c h e m a t i c p o s i t i o n c o u l d be examined.  exercise  such t h a t  Note a l s o  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 the c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t have been drawn from i n c i d e n t a l l e a r n i n g  the  that of  studies  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 . T h i s i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h C r a i k and L o c k h a r t ' s s u g g e s t i o n t h a t " . . .  an  i m p o r t a n t 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 t h e m e m o r i a l consequences of v a r i o u s  types of p e r c e p t u a l  operations."  2 5  S i x groups of seventeen subj e c t s per group were i n v o l v e d t h i s study.  Three groups performed the r a n k i n g t a s k and t h r e e  in groups  performed the analogy t a s k . . One of the g o a l s 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 t h a t 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 c o m p l e t i n g the o r i e n t i n g  a l l groups were t e s t e d f o r f r e e r e c a l l .  tasks  I t was f e l t t h a 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 t h a n i s an i n t e r v a l of seconds or minutes w h i c h 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 .  This also provides  the o p p o r t u n i t y  t h e 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 t h a t use r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s of a few s e c o n d s , to l o n g e r  to  test  studies  intervals.  19  I n a d d i t i o n to b e i n g t e s t e d a f t e r one week, an analogy (Almm) and a r a n k i n g group  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 completing the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . i n c l u d e d i n the study f o r two r e a s o n s .  These two groups  Firstly,  were  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 i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s have been c o m p l e t e d .  Thus i f  the r e s u l t s of  this  study a r e 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 s a r y t o have a t l e a s t two groups t h a t a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s i m i l a r short-term retention  intervals.  The second r e a s o n 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). .?  demonstrated t h a t r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g  2  learning  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 s u b s e 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  study was to t e s t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y  the  of t h i s " p r a c t i c e e f f e c t "  to  the l o n g 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 t h a 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 w h i c h i m m e d i a t e l y 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 c o m p l e t e d .  T h i s 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 t h e names of as many drawings from the r e s t of the s e r i e s w h i c h were brought mind.  to  The n e x t 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 .  T h i s p r o c e d u r e was  r e p e a t e d u n t i l a l l t h e drawings i n the s e r i e s were shown.  The n e x t  s e r i e s of drawings were then p r e s e n t e d i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n . The r e a s o n 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 c o u l d 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 t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i v e - s c h e m a t i c position.  Thus i f g i v e n p a r t of the s e r i e s , c o u l d the s u b j e c t u s i n g  t h e 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 t h e r e s t of  the  series? 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 u s i n g the analogy r u l e s as the f i r s t  reconstruction  t h r e e probes a r e always the  t h r e e 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 p r o b l e m s .  It  first  would  have been p o s s i b l e t o examine the r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s u s i n g e i t h e r t h e analogy or r a n k i n g r u l e s .  The r e a s o n 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 f o u r p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e analogy problem and t h e r a n k i n g rule did not,  i t was expected t h a 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  a n a l o g y 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 t h a t  existed  amongst t h e f o u r p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e a n a l o g y p r o b l e m s , i t was e x p e c t e d t h a t i f one (or more) of t h e s e p i c t u r e s was shown t o the s u b j e c t , he c o u l d use the analogy r u l e t o r e c o n s t r u c t pictures.  the r e m a i n i n g  A l t h o u g h a s i m i l a r r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s c o u l d 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 was not expected t h a 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 .  it  Thus a  21  probed r e c a l l t a s k t h a 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 a n a l o g y r u l e was chosen as such a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s was expected t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e analogy c o n d i t i o n . The r e m a i n i n g 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 t h e s e two groups were p r e s e n t e d w i t h a s t a c k of drawings w h i c h c o n t a i n e d a l l those p i c t u r e s p r e s e n t e d a week e a r l i e r randomly combined w i t h an e q u a l number of drawings they had never s e e n .  The  subjects  had t o s e p a r a t e 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 t o  t e s t the p r e d i c t i o n t h a 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 a s p e c t of c o g n i t i o n more than the a n a l o g y o r i e n t i n g task.  If  t h i s were the case i t would a l s o be expected t h a 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 s c o r e s f o r as P i a g e t has shown, r e c o g n i t i o n s h o u l d p r o v i d e an i n d i r e c t meas u r e of the f i g u r a t i v e a s p e c t of c o g n i t i o n . Now t h a t ; 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 t o be more s p e c i f i c c o n c e r n i n g the type of outcome t h a t would be expected i f  it  i s t o r e p r e s e n t a v a l i d t e s t of the s c h e m a t i c r e c o n s t r i c t i v e p o s i t i o n . If  the f i r s t a s s u m p t i o n i s v a l i d , t h a t i s , i f what the  subject  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 d e t e r m i n a n t of the n a t u r e of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , then i t i s expected t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l v a r y as a f u n c t i o n of the type of o r i e n t i n g t a s k w h i c h the s u b j e c t p e r f o r m s . Thus i t i s expected t h a t f o r t h e analogy groups r e c a l l of those p i c t u r e s t h a t a r e m e a n i n g f u l w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of the analogy problem (i.e.,  the four, t h a t a r e 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 r e m a i n i n g t h r e e p i c t u r e s t h a t a r e not meaningful w i t h i n t h i s context.  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 f o u r 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 w i l l be s u p e r i o r to t h e r e c a l l of the t h r e e t h a t were not so c h o s e n . 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 a s p e c t of 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 recognition .  Furthermore,  Also cognition,  superior  s i n c e t h e 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 l o n g e r a s u b j e c t spends s o l v i n g t h i s t a s k , the b e t t e r he s h o u l d do on the r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t .  orienting  S i n c e 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  aspect,.the  amount of time spent on t h i s t a s k s h o u l d n o t be r e l a t e d t o the  indi-  v i d u a l ' s recognition score. 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 d e c i d e w h i c h a r e h i s f a v o u r i t e s .  Consequently,  it  is  expected t h a t 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 nized.  On the o t h e r hand, i n s o l v i n g the analogy t a s k i t i s  n e c e s s a r y t h a t the s u b j e c t pay c l o s e a t t e n t i o n to the f o u r r e l a t e d by the analogy r u l e .  Consequently,  only  pictures  in this situation i t  is  expected t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n of the f o u r 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 y ^ 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 t h e t h r e e not so involved. The second a s s u m p t i o n s t a t e s t h a t memory i n v o l v e s  conservation  of r u l e s i n s c h e m a t i c 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 p r o c e s s i n w h i c h such r u l e s a r e u t i l i z e d t o r e c o n s t r u c t o r i g i n a l s t i m u l u s as a d e q u a t e l y as p o s s i b l e .  If  the  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 s h o u l d s c o r e w e l l on t h e 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 r o v i d e s them w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x e r c i s e the analogy r u l e s t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e r e s t of t h e s e r i e s . Also, if recall,  the analogy r u l e s a r e b e i n g used to r e c o n s t r u c t d u r i n g probed then most of the p i c t u r e s t h a t a r e r e c a l l e d i n t h i s t e s t  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 p r o b l e m s . contrast,  s u b j e c t s i n the r a n k i n g groups s h o u l d have a lower  will  In probed  r e c a l l s c o r e s i n c e the probed r e c a l l t a s k t h a t i s used i n t h i s  study  does not p r o v i d e s u b j e c t s i n t h e s e groups w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y  t o use  the ranking 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 r o v i d e d such an o p p o r t u n i t y  (that.is,  were those 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 ) ,  if-:the.probes  i t would  still  be expected t h a 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 a r e 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 w h i c h 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 . If  the analogy r u l e s a r e . u s e d t o r e c o n s t r u c t f r e e r e c a l l ,  it  is  e x p e c t e d t h a t i n b o t h 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 t h e same s e r i e s w i l l tend t o 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,  if  indeed i t i s the a n a l o g y r u l e s t h a t a r e b e i n g used t o  reconstruct during r e c a l l ,  t h e n most of t h e c l u s t e r i n g s h o u l d  involve  p i c t u r e s that occurred i n the analogy problems, t h a t i s the f i r s t 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  t h a 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 free r e c a l l , analogy  expected  reconstruct  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  groups.  three  the  24  Because t h e r a n k i n g r u l e s a r e expected t o be l e s s s u c c e s s f u l i n reconstructing r e c a l l ,  i t i s expected t h a t when they a r e r e q u e s t e d t o  r e c a l l i n both t h e 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 c o u n t e r p a r t s i n the analogy g r o u p s .  Thus  more e r r o r s s h o u l d 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 b o t h 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 t h a 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 b o t h the immediate and d e l a y e d c o n d i t i o n s . An u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n t h a t i s made when the above p r e d i c t i o n s were g e n e r a t e d i s t h a t the o r i e n t i n g t a s k s would be s u c c e s s f u l i n d e t e r m i n i n g how t h e s u b j e c t s a n a l y z e d the s t i m u l i . i n c i d e n t a l learning study,  However,  i n any  the p o s s i b i l i t y always e x i s t s t h a 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 t o 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 a n a l y s e 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 s t u d y 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 g e n e r a t e t h e i r own r u l e s b e s i d e s t h o s e t h a t a r e encouraged by the orienting tasks. study,  Because of the n a t u r e of t h e s t i m u l i used i n t h i s  i t i s very p o s s i b l e that t h i s , s i t u a t i o n could occur i n the  ranking condition.  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 t h a t some of the c a r d s 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 i g n o r e the f a c t  t h a t i n each t r a y the c a r d s a r e r e l a t e d i n some way.  Thus i n  tray  4 a l l the p i c t u r e s a r e of a n i m a l s 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 p e o p l e and s i x of them a r e d o i n g s o m e t h i n g ; s e v e r a l  (—  25  c a r d s i n t r a y 7 a r e r e l a t e d m e d i c a l l y i n some way; f o u r of the p i c tures i n t r a y 9 are r e l a t e d to photography;  i n t r a y 6, t h r e e of  c a r d s a r e r e l a t e d to t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , and so o n .  The r e a d e r has o n l y  to c a u s a l l y s c a n Appendix E to a p p r e c i a t e the l a r g e number of r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t e x i s t i n each s e r i e s .  the  possible  Hence, even though an i n d i -  v i d u a l might n o t 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 f o r m u l a t e h i s own r u l e s t h a 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 m o d e l , f o r as B a r t l e t t has c o n c l u d e d from h i s s t u d i e s , the  individual  c o n t i n u o u s l y a t t e m p t s to " c o n f e r meaning" on every s t i m u l u s he e n counters.  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 t h e 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 c o n c e r n i n g 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 t h e i n c l u s i o n of t h i s independent v a r i a b l e  in  t h i s s t u d y was f o r e x p l o r a t o r y  reasons.  B e f o r e p r e s e n t i n g the study t h a t i s d e s c r i b e d above, two r e c e n t approaches to t h e problem of memory t h a 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 a r e 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  a r e Anderson and Bower's "Human A s s o c i a t i v e Memory" (HAM) model and the approach r e p r e s e n t e d by the "LNR R e s e a r c h Group" headed by Norman and R u m e l h a r t .  Anderson and Bower's "Human A s s o c i a t i v e Memory" model  w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d  first.  HAM i s r e l e v a n t to t h i s t h e s e s 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 o t h e r  trace  f o r m u l a t i o n s a r e 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 t h e  schematic-reconstructive  26  c o n c e p t i o n of memory). r e p r e s e n t e d i n HAM.  C o n s e q u e n t l y , a s p e c t s of b o t h approaches a r e  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 w h i c h p l a y s a c r i t i c a l r o l e HAM's o p e r a t i o n . that " . . .  in  The b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r l y i n g t h i s component i s  l o n g term memory, i t s e l f ,  is strategy-invariant,  that  probes a r e always matched to memory i n the same way, t h a t i d e n t i c a l o u t p u t s w i l l be generated to i d e n t i c a l p r o b e s , and t h a t a g i v e n i n put always i s r e p r e s e n t e d and encoded i n the same manner. s t r a t e g i e s :.  Mnemonic  . 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 w h i c h a r e s e n t to memory and i n terms of t a t i o n s given to o u t p u t . "  2 7  interpre-  And " D e s p i t e t h a t t e c h n i c a l i t y about t h e  i d e a s of the base s e t b e i n g 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 a c c e p t whatever i s sent t o 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 t o encode l i n k s i n t h a t i n p u t .  D u r i n g decoding  i t g e n e r a t e s o u t p u t t r e e s i n r e s p o n s e to probe t r i e s i n a s i m i l a r l y n2 8  manner. This passive, reproductive,  a u t o m a t i c c o n c e p t i o n 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 , approach.  problem-solving  Bower and Anderson r e c o g n i z e t h i s as they w r i t e :  example, t h i s a t t i t u d e appears f r e q u e n t l y  "For  i n a s s e r t i o n s t h a t memory  i s n o t 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 t h a t remembering  b e a r s s t r o n g resemblances to ' p r o b l e m s o l v i n g ' or t h a 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 a r e c a l l e d i n by ' h i g h e r m e n t a l p r o c e s s e s ' i n o r d e r f o r the p e r s o n to r e c o n s t r u c t an event from memory. This viewpoint,  t h a t 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  and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g r o u t i n e s b o t h a t the time of i n p u t  inference  (e.g.,  27  comprehending a s e n t e n c e ) and a t o u t p u t  ( 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 t h e r e 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 m o d e l l e d i n HAM) t h a t t i o n s i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the r e s t of the m e n t a l system . . . "  func-  They  2 9  a l s o r e a l i z e t h e p o s s i b l e consequences of t a k i n g such an approach when they note t h a t : '  "It  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 i m p o r t  t o s t a t e t h a t t h e r e i s a c o r e . s t r a t e g y - f r e e memory component common t o a l l memory p e r f o r m a n c e s .  The c l a i m i s e q u i v a l e n t t o a s s e r t i n g  t h a t memory performance can be a n a l y s e d 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.  If  so,  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 two s m a l l e r and hence more t r a c t a b l e s u b - p r o b l e m s ;— t h a t of the memory component and t h a t of s p e c i f y i n g the p r e v a i l i n g of the s u b j e c t - . . .  into  specifying  strategy  The r e a d e r s h o u l d a p p r e c i a t e t h a t t h i s d e c o m p o s i -  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 . . .  b o t h 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 t h a t i t was I m p o s s i b l e t o e x t r i c a t e memory from such m a t t e r s as problem s o l v i n g and i n f e r e n c e . If  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 e x t e n t t h a t  this  t h e s i s c o r r o b o r a t e s t h e s c h e m a t i c 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 r e p r e s e n t e d by HAM w i l l be d i s c o n f i r m e d . C o n t r a s t e d t o the r e d u c t i o n i s t i c p o s i t i o n t a k e n by Bower and A n d e r s o n , Norman and Rumelhart adopt a s c h e m a t i c approach t o memory and c o g n i t i o n .  Hence they w r i t e :  "One v i e w of the r o l e of  world  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 w h i c h newly a c q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n must be f a s t e n e d .  T h i s s k e l e t a l or  28  s c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n then g u i d e s b o t h the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  infor-  m a t i o n and the s e a r c h f o r new i n f o r m a t i o n to f i l l t h e gaps l e f t i n the structure  ...  frameworks i s n o t new.  The n o t i o n t h a t knowledge i s packaged i n t o c o n c e p t u a l  t h a t g u i d e 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  experiences  Under t h e name of schema t h e i d e a has a l o n g h i s t o r y  in  p s y c h o l o g y , 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 t h e 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 a p p r o p -  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 h e l p a m e a n i n g f u 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 . :  provide  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 t h e c h a p t e r s that follow.  In a d d i t i o n , we use frames and schemata as the c o n c e p t u a 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  F u r t h e r m o r e , by s t u d y i n g the t y p e s of c o n c e p t u a 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 a u t h o r s were f o r c e d to c o n c l u d e t h a t such e r r o r s r e v e a l e d " . . . n a t u r e of the r e t r i e v a l p r o c e s s . . .  the  constructive  The memory r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s not  s i m p l y an a c c u r a t e 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 combinat 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 t h e w o r l d i n g e n e r a l . "  3 2  S i m i l a r l y , after exa-  m i n i n g the n a t u r e 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 u d y i n g memory f o r board games, i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t "The memory f o r the board appeared t o be more l i k e a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n based upon the c o n c e p t u a l n a t u r e of the game than upon an a c c u r a t e image of board."  the  3 3  Thus Norman and Rumelhart c o n c l u d e : t h a t r e c a l l i s by a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e p r o c e s s .  characterized  A l s o i n agreement w i t h o t h e r  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 t o the assumption b e h i n d the c o n s t r u c t i o n of HAM t h a t " . . .  t h e r e e x i s t s a s t r a t e g y f r e e component  of memory ( e . g . , t h a t m o d e l l e d i n HAM), t h a t f u n c t i o n s  independently  of the r e s t of the m e n t a l s y s t e m " , they c o n c l u d e t h a t "A b a s i c t e n e t 3 4  of our approach t o t h e s t u d y of c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i s t h a t o n l y 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 ,  u s u a l p r o c e d u r e i s t o s e p a r a t e d i f f e r e n t a r e a s of s t u d y : c e p t i o n , problem s o l v i n g , language s y n t a x ,  semantics.  the  memory,  We b e l i e v e  t h a t a common c o g n i t i v e system u n d e r l i e s t h e s e a r e a s , and t h a t they a r e p a r t i c a l l y decomposable . . .  although  the i n t e r a c t i o n s among t h e  f e r e n t components a r e of c r i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e .  1 , 3 5  per-  dif-  T h e 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 t o above w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n g r e a t e r  detail  as i t i s p e r t i n e n t t o the study p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s e s . The purpose of t h i s work was t o study t h e n a t u r e of  representation  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  in  game p l a y i n g . Towards t h i s end the a u t h o r s employed two board games "Go" and "Gomuku". A l t h o u g h b o t h t h e s e games a r e p l a y e d 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 a r e based upon d i f f e r e n t s e t s of r u l e s .  I n the e x p e r i m e n t ,  t h e s u b j e c t was shown a board p o s i t i o n w h i c h o s t e n s i b l y r e p r e s e n t e d 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 t o a n a l y z e the  game and make the b e s t 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 s u b j e c t was r e q u i r e d t o 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 a n a l y s e s of the same g e n e r a l t y p e but was not r e q u i r e d t o r e c o n s t r u c t . t h e m .  Finally,  each  s u b j e c t was r e q u i r e d t o a n a l y s e and r e c o n s t r u c t a board p o s i t i o n t h a t  30  r e p r e s e n t e d a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n on t h e f i r s t board p o s i t i o n they were shown. (If  However, t h i s t i m e they were t o l d t h a t i t was a game of  "Go".  the board was not t r a n s f o r m e d t h e i n d i v i d u a l might have r e a l i z e d  t h a t i t was the f i r s t p o s i t i o n t h a t was shown t o h i m .  Although the  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n d i d change t h e s u r f a c e appearance of the board t h e b a s i c arrangement of the p i e c e s was not a l t e r e d . t i o n s were d i r e c t l y c o m p a r a b l e . )  Thus b o t h r e c o n s t r u c -  The a u t h o r ' s major f i n d i n g was t h a t  the n a t u r e of the board problem determined t h e t y p e s of p i e c e s remembered.  Hence, i f  the i n d i v i d u a l was t o l d t h a 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 t o w i n n i n g i n "Gomuku" t h a n " G o " .  The r e v e r s e was t r u e i f  been i n f o r m e d t h a t i t was a "Go" game.  the s u b j e c t had  Thus the a u t h o r s w r i t e  "The board r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t u d y demonstrates t h a t s u b j e c t i v e t i o n is....affected by the n a t u r e of the p r o b l e m .  that:  organiza-  Thus o r g a n i z a t i o n  c e n t r e s 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 a r e m e a n i n g f u l i n the c o n t e x t of the game b e i n g 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 t o r e p r e s e n t t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d i n terms of m e a n i n g f u l or highly familiar segments."  3 6  And a l s o , " . . .  when we t a l k about  'what  i s s e e n ' , we a r e 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 t o i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , w h i c h can d i f f e r f o r d i f f e r e n t a n a l y s e s of t h e same s c e n e "  3 7  (emphasis m i n e ) .  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 c o n c e p t i o n 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 A n d e r s o n . ever,  How-  t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e 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.  T h i s i s r e f l e c t e d by the f a c t t h a t the study  corroborates  t h e two t e n e t 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 p o s i t i o n t h a t were  31  described e a r l i e r i n the t h e s i s .  Thus,  the n a t u r e of  representation  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 ( t h a t 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 t h e 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 p r o c e s s based upon the r u l e s of  the  game t h a t was a n a l y s e d . Note t h a t t h e 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 t o the s t u d y j u s t p r e s e n t e d .  It  i s s i m i l a r i n the sense t h a 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 w h i c h two f e r e n t a n a l y s e s of the same s t i m u l i a r e i n v o l v e d . study,  dif-  As i n the p r e v i o u s  the i n t e n t i s t o 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 u n d e r t a k e n by the s u b j e c t .  However,  study a l s o r e p r e s e n t s an improvement over the p r e v i o u s work.  this Firstly,  the s t i m u l i i n v o l v e d a r e f a m i l i a r p i c t u r e s of p e o p l e 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 p e o p l e and  o b j e c t s a r e more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h a n board p o s i t i o n s would be of  the  t y p e of s t i m u l i 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. S e c o n d l y , the t y p e of problems i n v o l v e d a r e d i f f e r e n t . of a n a l y s i n g b a s i c a l l y t h e same board p o s i t i o n s under two  Instead different  s e t s 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 ranking 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 n e c e s s a r y t o t r a n s f o r m t h e s t i m u l i i n any way. identical.  Thus, a c r o s s the two a n a l y s e s the s t i m u l i were  truly  T h i s a l l o w e d f o r a more .adequate s t u d y 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 a n a l y s e s of t h e same s c e n e . "  (Although the board p o s i t i o n s used i n t h e p r e v i o u s s t u d y were i d e n t i c a l as f a r as t h e arrangements of p i e c e s were c o n c e r n e d , t h e second  32  p o s i t i o n d i d r e p r e s e n t 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 t h e 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 a c r o s s vertical axis.  Consequently,  b o t h p o s i t i o n s were not t r u l y  the  identical.)  T h i r d l y , i n t h e p r e v i o u s study r e c a l l was t e s t e d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r a n a l y z i n g the p r o b l e m .  I n t h i s study b o t h an immediate and a d e l a y e d  t e s t of one week a r e u s e d . Finally,  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  f i g u r a t i v e a s p e c t of  cognition.  the  33  METHOD  Scoring Procedure The p r o c e d u r e t h a t was u s e d . t o d e t e r m i n e 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 s c o r e d c o r r e c t ,  a r e s p o n s e g i v e n d u r i n g f r e e r e c a l l had  t o be s p e c i f i c enough t o i d e n t i f y one of t h e 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 l e v e n s e r i e s .  It  s h o u l d be noted t h a t i f  a  s u b j e c t gave a vague r e s p o n s e , he was q u e s t i o n e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r i n o r d e r t o make h i s d e s c r i p t i o n more s p e c i f i c . D u r i n g f r e e r e c a l l a r e s p o n s e was s c o r e d i n c o r r e c t i f :  (1)  It  i d e n t i f i e d a p i c t u r e t h a t had not o c c u r r e d i n any of the e l e v e n s e r i e s , (2) t h e d e s c r i p t i o n was so vague t h a t i t c o u l d a p p l y t o s e v e r a l p i c tures, e . g . ,  "a person", "scenery",  etc.,  (3) the r e s p o n s e d e s c r i b e d  a " c o m p o s i t e " of two or more p i c t u r e s . To be s c o r e d as c o r r e c t d u r i n g probed r e c a l l a r e s p o n s e had t o d e s c r i b e a p i c t u r e w h i c h 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 ' r e s p o n s e r e f e r r e d t o a  p i c t u r e t h a t o c c u r r e d i n one of the t e n s e r i e s n o t b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d , i t was s c o r e d 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 t u d e n t s i n e i t h e r f i r s t or second year p s y c h o l o g y c o u r s e s .  enrolled  The r e m a i n i n g  two were s e n i o r s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n a f o u r t h year e d u c a t i o n 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 a s s i g n e d randomly t o groups  34  b e f o r e they were c o n t a c t e d .  No attempt was made t o equate the groups  a c c o r d i n g t o sex of the s u b j e c t s ment).  The c o m p o s i t i o n  (except,  of c o u r s e , by random a s s i g n -  of each group a c c o r d i n g t o the sex of  the  members i s p r e s e n t e d b e l o w . AImm  RImm  AWk  RWk  7  7  5  8  9  9  10  10  12  9  8  8  Male Female  ARec  RRec  Procedure Because the s t u d y 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 only necessary to 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 a s p e c t s of t h e s t u d y t h a t were not p r e v i o u s l y mentioned . B e f o r e 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 t o 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 t h a 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 t h e study a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Append i x B. I n groups AImm and RImm, i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t r e h e a r s a l b e f o r e t h e immediate r e c a l l t e s t was g i v e n , each s u b j e c t had t o complete a brief d i s t r a c t i o n task.  T h i s i n v o l v e d c o u n t i n g backwards out l o u d by  t h r e e s from an a s s i g n e d random number f o r t h i r t y  seconds.  Two d i f f e r e n t o r d e r s were used t o p r e s e n t the t w e l v e s e r i e s of drawings t o t h e s i x g r o u p s .  I n each group h a l f t h e s u b j e c t s  one o r d e r and t h e o t h e r h a l f r e c e i v e d the second o r d e r . possible "order-effects",  received  To a v o i d  t h i s o r d e r was r e v e r s e d i n t h e p r o b e d - r e c a l l  t e s t t h a t was conducted a week l a t e r .  The t i m e r e q u i r e d to complete  t h e f r e e - r e c a l l t e s t was r e c o r d e d f o r each s u b j e c t .  A l s o , during  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 " p r o b e " drawing and the c o m p l e t i o n 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 e c t completed e i t h e r an a n a l o g y or a r a n k i n g orienting task.  If  an i n d i v i d u a l was t o be t e s t e d f o r immediate r e c a l l  he had t o f i r s t complete a d i s t r a c t i o n t a s k w h i c h i n v o l v e d c o u n t i n g backward by " t h r e e s " from an a s s i g n e d 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 t h a t he c o u l d 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 r e t u r n e d and  once a g a i n would attempt t o 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 t h e group he was i n , the s u b j e c t would complete e i t h e r t h e probed r e c a l l t e s t o r t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t d e s c r i b e d a b o v e . 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 study.  Three of the groups  ("A" groups)  t a s k w h i l e t h r e e groups ("R" groups) task.  solved the analogy o r i e n t i n g  solved the ranking o r i e n t i n g  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  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 immediately a f t e r completing the o r i e n t i n g Four of the groups  per-  tasks.  (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  for  probed r e c a l l i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r c o m p l e t i n g the d e l a y e d f r e e r e c a l l test.  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  i n s t e a d of t h e probed r e c a l l t a s k .  test  36  RESULTS  Overview To a d e q u a t e l y t e s t a l l the p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t were g e n e r a t e d by t h e 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 n e c e s s a r y t o  subject  the d a t a 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 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 . tion is v a l i d — process.—  t h e second assumpreconstructive  i t i s expected t h a t t h e analogy r u l e s w i l l be more s u c c e s s T h i s s h o u l d be r e f l e c t e d  o v e r a l l f r e e r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l ,  and fewer e r r o r s If  Thus, i f  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  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 . superior:  several  i n the analogy  clustering  in  scores,  groups.  t h e f i r s t assumption i s v a l i d —  t h a t the n a t u r e of  repre-  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 n a t u r e of p e r c e p t i o n then i t i s expected t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e s w i l l be h i g h e r 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 a s p e c t of c o g n i t i o n was emphas 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 t h e r e  s h o u l d be a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e t i m e 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 t h e  a n a l o g y group no such c o r r e l a t i o n s h o u l d be found s i n c e the f i g u r a t i v e a s p e c t i s not emphasized i n t h i s Phase I I  group.  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 d a t a and i s  concerned w i t h t e s t i n g t h o s e p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t were not i n Phase I.  A more complete d e s c r i p t i o n of Phase I I  evaluated  w i l l be g i v e n  —  37  when t h a t p a r t of t h e a n a l y s i s i s c o n s i d e r e d .  Results —  Summary  Immediate and F i n a l F r e e R e c a l l T a b l e 1 shows t h e mean immediate f r e e , f i n a l f r e e , and probed r e c a l l s c o r e s f o r the s i x g r o u p s .  T a b l e 2 summarizes t h e r e s u l t s  of  the one-way ANOVAs ; t h a t were conducted f o r each of the l i s t e d comparisons. error  (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 "  term was n o t u s e d , as t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n a l s o a f f e c -  t e d 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 o n l y 1 6 . 3 2 f o r the comparison AWk + ARec v s RWk + RRec.  This decision  resulted  i n a s m a l l e r number of degrees i n t h e denominator of t h e F_ r a t i o and c o n s e q u e n t l y a more c o n s e r v a t i v e dent e r r o r  test.  The d e c i s i o n to use i n d e p e n -  terms f o r each comparison and c o n s e q u e n t l y a more i n d e -  pendent t e s t ,  s h o u l d be k e p t i n mind when e v a l u a t i n g t h o s e c o m p a r i -  sons t h a t j u s t f a i l t o r e a c h  significance.)  A l s o n o t e t h a t groups AWk and ARec a r e c o l l a p s e d t o g e t h e r  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 t h e d e p e n dent v a r i a b l e of f r e e r e c a l l .  T h i s 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 r e p e a t e d whenever p o s s i b l e , throughout  the remainder of the a n a l y s e s .  Groups  a r e c o l l a p s e d o n l y when t h e r e 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 w h i c h they a r e b e i n g combined.  The comparison f o r t h e groups b e i n g  combined, i s always p r e s e n t e d under t h e " e q u a l i t y of Groups B e i n g  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  Group  Immediate Recall  Final Recall  Probed Recall  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 RWk + RRec  -  8.68 8.33  39  Table 2 Summary Table f o r One-Way ANOVAs C o n s t r u c t e d L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e Dependent  for  the  Variables:  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  32  49.25  Final Recall AImm v s RImm AWk + ARec v s RWk + RRec  32 66  58.46 16.32  Probed R e c a l l AImm v s RImm AWk vs RWk  32 32  24.21 26.74  28.43 20.35  32 32  21.88 11.73  .07 ,02  2.45 .9740 .1298  n.s. n. s . n. s . <.0000 <.0001  E q u a l i t y of Groups Being Collapsed Final Recall AWk vs ARec RWk vs RRec  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 r e c a l l between groups AImm or RImm was s i g n i f i c a n t .  Although the  main e f f e c t of o r i e n t i n g t a s k was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , the 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 ) = 16.79.  interaction  = 1 0 . 2 , _p_ < . 0 0 3 , MSe  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 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  d e c r e a s e 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 b o t h g r o u p s .  interaction percent 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 , r e c a l l i n group RImm o n l y d e c r e a s e d 24%. significant, F(l,32)  free  while  T h i s 14% d i f f e r e n c e  is  = 4 . 7 9 , £ < 2 . 0 3 , MSe = 3 . 2 8 .  The above r e s u l t s a r e p a r a l l e l e d by t h e i n s i g n i f i c a n t  difference  between groups AWk and ARec, and groups RWk and RRec. Probed R e c a l l T a b l e 1 d i s p l a y s t h e probed r e c a l l s c o r e s f o r t h e groups AImm, Rimm, AWk, and RWk.  T a b l e 2 summarizes the r e s u l t s of t h e  listed  comparisons. As p r e d i c t e d the comparison between group AImm and RImm was highly s i g n i f i c a n t , F(l,32)  = 28.53, £ <  . 0 0 0 0 , as the analogy  group  had a mean probed r e c a l l s c o r e of about t w i c e t h a 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 v e r y  significant, F(l,32)  = 20.35, p < .0001.  I n t h i s case t h e r e c a l l  s c o r e of the analogy group b e i n g almost t r i p l e ; t h a t of t h e r a n k i n g group. Immediate and F i n a l F r e e 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 :  if  two  41  Figure 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  •  .  Almm  o  o  RImm  30  25  20  15  10  I.R.  I.R.  =;Immediate Free R e c a l l  F . R . = F i n a l Free R e c a l l  F.R.  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 , t i o n was g i v e n one p o i n t .  If  such a combina-  t h r e e p i c t u r e s were r e c a l l e d  together,  two p o i n t s were a s s i g n e d , and so o n , to a maximum p o s s i b l e of p o i n t s per s e r i e s .  six  I n p r a c t i c e , t h e 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 f o u r p o i n t s i n f i n a l  recall.  T a b l e 3 d i s p l a y s t h e mean c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by a l l groups on b o t h immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l .  T a b l e 4 summarizes  t h e r e s u l t s of t h e l i s t e d c o m p a r i s o n s . As e x p e c t e d , t h e r e 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 g r o u p s .  I n immediate r e c a l l the  analogy g r o u p ' s mean c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e was more t h a n t w i c e the r a n k i n g g r o u p ' s s c o r e , F_(l,32) = 2 8 . 1 3 , £ < . 0 0 0 0 .  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  difference  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 t h o u g h the e f f e c t was somewhat r e d u c e d , F_(l,32) = 4 . 3 0 , _p_ < . 0 4 ; w i t h seventy p e r c e n t 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 practice  the groups t h a t d i d not r e c e i v e  retrieval  (AWk + ARec v s 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 t h r e e t i m e s 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 t o examine i n d e t a i l t h e 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 a n a l o g y and r a n k i n g g r o u p s . end,  the number of one, two, t h r e e , f o u r ,  determined f o r a l l s i x g r o u p s . mine i f  Towards  this  and f i v e p o i n t g r o u p i n g s was  T h i s a n a l y s i s was conducted to  deter-  the a n a l o g y groups were s u p e r i o r on a l l p o i n t g r o u p i n g s or  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 s c o r e c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d  if  43  Table 3 Mean C l u s t e r i n g  Scores i n B o t h Immediate and  F i n a l Free R e c a l l f o r A l l  Groups  Group  Immediate Free R e c a l l  Final 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 T a b l e f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of  the  Clustering  Comparison  df  MSe  Immediate R e c a l l Almm vs RImm  32  18.22  28.13  Final Recall Almm v s RImm  32  10.42  4.30  AWk + ARec vs RWk + RRec  66  6.32  12.40  <.0009  32 32  11.38 .16  .09 .46  n.s. n.s.  <.0000 <.04  E q u a l i t y , o f Groups Being Collapsed Free R e c a l l AWk vs ARec RWk v s RRec  45  t o one or two g r o u p i n g s .  Thus i t c o u l d be p o s s i b l e , f o r i n s t a n c e ,  t h a t t h e a n a l o g y 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 t h e s u p e r i o r  overall  c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e found i n the analogy group was o n l y due t o a l a r g e r number of t h r e e p o i n t  clusterings.  T a b l e 5 d i s p l a y s t h e 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 b o t h immediate and f i n a l free r e c a l l .  T a b l e 6 summarizes the r e s u l t s of t h e one-way  ANOVAs t h a t were c a r r i e d out f o r t h e l i s t e d c o m p a r i s o n s . 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 t h e f i v e p o s s i b l e p o i n t c o m b i n a t i o n s i n immediate r e c a l l were i n t h e expected d i r e c t i o n .  However, o n l y t h r e e and  f o u r p o i n t c o m b i n a t i o n s a c h i e v e d 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 )  = 9.26, £ < .005, respectively.  For the same groups i n f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l , one,  the d i f f e r e n c e f o r  the  t h r e e , and f o u r p o i n t c o m b i n a t i o n s were i n the expected d i r e c t i o n ,  but o n l y t h e d i f f e r e n c e on the t h r e e p o i n t c o m b i n a t i o n r e a c h e d 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  c o m b i n a t i o n was i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n than e x p e c t e d , but the  dif-  f e r e n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t , J _ ( l , 3 2 ) = 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 t h e 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 t h e r a n k i n g and analogy groups t h a t d i d n o t retrieval practice.  receive  I n t h i s case a l l of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s except  the  t h r e e p o i n t c o m b i n a t i o n were i n t h e 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 ) = 13.95, £ <  .0005; F (1,32) =  F ( l , 3 2 ) = 4 . 4 , _p_ < . 0 4 , r e s p e c t i v e l y .  5.80, p < .02;  46  Table 5 Mean Number of Component C l u s t e r i n g Scores i n B o t h 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 Group  1  2  3  Score 4  5  Immediate R e c a l l Almm RImm  3.94 3.25  1.47 .71  1.05 .24  2.41 1.62 1.65 .47 1.59 .83 1.62 .65  .47 .77 .24 .24 .33  .58 .12 .18 .12 .12 .06 .15 .09  .52 0  Lnal R e c a l l Almm RImm AWk RWk ARec RRec AWk + ARec RWk + RRec  0 .38 .12  .18 0 .12 0 .12 0 .12 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  47  Table 6 Summary T a b l e f o r One-way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d C o m p a r i s o n s . o n the Dependent V a r i a b l e of Clustering  Comparison  Component  Score  df_  MSe  F_  _p_  32 32 32 32 32  4.85 1.29 .68 .26 .24  1.03 3.28 8.39 9.26 1.97  n.s. n.s. <.007 <.005 n.s.  32 32 32 32  2.19 .62 .31 .06  2.63 .76 6.10 2.13  n.s. n.s. <.02 n.s.  66 66 66 66  1.15 .21 .06 .05  13.95 5.80 .72 4.40  <.0005 <-02 n.s. <.04  Problem E f f e c t 1.  Immediate R e c a l l Almm vs RImm 1 2 3 4 5  2.  Final Recall Almm vs RImm 1 2 3 4 AWk + ARec v s RWk + RRec 1 2 3 4  48  E r r o r Made D u r i n g F r e e and Probed R e c a l l T a b l e 7 d i s p l a y s the mean number of e r r o r s made i n b o t h f i n a l f r e e and probed r e c a l l .  T a b l e 8 summarizes t h e r e s u l t s of the o n e -  way ANOVAs t h a t were performed f o r each of the l i s t e d c o m p a r i s o n s . (Immediate r e c a l l i s n o t 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 d u r i n g 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 t h e expected d i r e c t i o n , w i t h t h e 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 only 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 a r e 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 t h e e x p e c t e d 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 t h e a n a l o g y groups making on t h e average one l e s s  error  d u r i n g 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 g r o u p s . I n t h e 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  for  b o t h c o m p a r i s o n s , Almm vs RImm, and AWk vs RWk, i s i n the expected d i r e c t i o n , but o n l y 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 s c o r e s f o r groups ARec and RRec were 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. v a l u e s , 1  subjected percentage  of h i t s and percentage of f a l s e a l a r m s , a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 9 . As p r e d i c t e d , t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e cl s c o r e s was i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of 1  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 t h e r a n k i n g group and i s  significant,  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 F i n a l Free R e c a l l  E r r o r s Made i n Probed R e c a l l  AImm  .41  4.71  RImm  1.00  8.18  AWk  1.18  5.06  RWk  2.53  7.65  ARec  1.65  RRec  2.59  AWk + ARec  1.41  RWk + RRec  2.56  50  Table 8 Summary T a b l e 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_  32 66  1.00 3.31  2.93 6.75  n.s. <.01  32 32  16.56 31.40  6.18 1.81  <.02 n.s.  32 32  52.35 5.14  1.41 .006  Problem E f f e c t 1.  F i n a l Free R e c a l l AImm v s RImm AWk + ARec v s RWk + RRec  2.  Probed R e c a l l AImm v s RImm AWk v s RWk  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 v s ARec RWk v s RRec  n.s. n.s.  51  Table 9 Mean Percentage of Hit and False Alarm Scores and Mean d  Group  1  Scores f o r Groups ARec and RRec  % of Hits  % of False Alarms  d'  ARec  63  12  1.76  RRec  80  15  2.23  52  F ( l , 3 2 ) = 4 . 0 8 , £ < . 0 5 , MSe = . 4 4 9 8 . 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 T a b l e 10 shows t h e mean time i n minutes spent by the s i x i n c o m p l e t i n g 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  groups  ARec and RRec t h e t i m e t h a t was t a k e n by s u b j e c t s t o s o l v e t h e e l e v e n 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 t h e r a n k i n g g r o u p , _r = . 6 0 , £ < . 0 0 5 . However, i n t h e analogy group the c o r r e l a t i o n was not (r = . 1 9  significant  , £ < .24).  B e f o r e l e a v i n g t h i s s e c t i o n , i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t the  dif-  f e r e n c e s i n time spent on s o l v i n g t h e t a s k between t h e 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 ) = 19.58, £ < .0000.  Thus, s u b j e c t s i n t h e  r a n k i n g groups spent on the average one and a h a l f m i n u t e s l o n g e r p e r f o r m i n g t h e r a n k i n g 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 t h e analogy groups i n s o l v i n g t h e analogy o r i e n t i n g t a s k s . Retrieval Practice Effect To examine t h e 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  will  be n e c e s s a r y t o compare groups AImm and RImm, on a l l dependent v a r i a b l e s , w i t h t h e o t h e r analogy and r a n k i n g groups t h a t d i d not  receive  retrieval practice. T a b l e 11 summarizes t h e r e s u l t s of such comparisons t h a 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  free r e c a l l ,  probed r e c a l l ,  free 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 .  c l u s t e r i n g i n b o t h immediate and f i n a 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 p r e s e n t e d s e p a r a t e l y below.  T a b l e 10 Mean Time i n M i n u t e s Spent on t h e 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  T a b l e 11 Summary T a b l e f o r the One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r t h e L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e 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 v s RImm + RWk + RRec  100  2.54  19.58  <.0000  Almm v s AWk v s A R e c ,  48  1.46  1.16  n.s.  RImm v s RWk vs RRec  48  3.74  .10  n.s.  E q u a l i t y of  Groups  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  t o be b o t h p o w e r f u 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 c o m b i n a t i o n of groups AWk and ARec, _F(1,49) = 2 6 . 7 5 , JD < . 0 0 0 0 .  Hence f o r the a n a l o g y g r o u p s , the e f f e c t of  retrieval  p r a c t i c e was t o 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 t h e r a n k i n g groups was even more p o w e r f u l .  Thus t h e 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_ < . 0 0 0 0 .  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  practice  i s t o 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 also s i g n i f i c a n t .  For the a n a l o g y c o m p a r i s o n , AImm v s AWk,  t h e e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t but was not of t h e same magnitude as t h e 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 f i f t y percent.  approximately  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 1/(1,32) = 1 5 . 1 9 , 2.  <  '0005.  recall,  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 t h e probed r e c a l l s c o r e . 3.  Clustering.  I n b o t h the a n a l o g y 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 practice s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased c l u s t e r i n g .  Thus,  for  t h e analogy g r o u p s , AImm v s 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 t h e 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 g r o u p s , RImm v s RWk + RRec, r e t r i e v a l  prac-  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) = 16.99, £ < .002.  56  4.  Component C l u s t e r i n g S c o r e s .  I n t h e analogy c o n d i t i o n , Almm  v s 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 t h e number of t h r e e p o i n t c l u s t e r i n g s , of f i v e . point  F_(2,48). = 1 0 . 5 6 , p_ < . 0 0 2 , by a f a c t o r  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 t h e o t h e r  combinations. On t h e o t h e r hand, i n t h e r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n , RImm v s 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 t h e one and two p o i n t c l u s t e r i n g s ficantly,  but f a i l e d t o i n c r e a s e the number of t h r e e p o i n t  clusterings,  F ( 2 , 4 8 ) = 1 1 . 2 1 , p_ < . 0 0 1 7 , and F ( 2 , 4 8 ) = 1 2 . 7 6 , p_ < . 0 0 0 7 , tively. f a c t o r of  signi-  respec-  I n b o t h 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 four.  A d i s c u s s i o n of t h e r e s u l t s t h a t have been presented.Lin the  first  phase of the a n a l y s i s w i l l be d e l a y e d u n t i l t h e second phase has.. . been p r e s e n t e d .  Phase  II  Overview I n Phase I I  a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the d a t a i s c a r r i e d  out.  Two " s t a g e s " a r e 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, I n Stage 1 , t h e s c o r e s i n each of t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s collapsed across subjects, eleven t r a y s .  were  r e s u l t i n g i n a mean s c o r e f o r each of  A n a l y s i n g t h e d a t a i n t h i s way a l l o w e d one t o  the p o s i t i o n of the p i c t u r e s i n t h e s e r i e s as a dependent T h i s t y p e 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  the  study  variable.  organization  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 i s t o be examined.  57  The p r e d i c t i o n s t o be t e s t e d i n t h i s s t a g e of t h e 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 .  T h i s means t h a t  (a)  i n the  analogy g r o u p s , of t h e seven p i c t u r e s i n each s e r i e s , t h e f o u r t h a t 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 g r o u p s , of t h e seven p i c t u r e s i n each s e r i e s , t h e f o u r t h a 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:  I n t h e analogy g r o u p s , most of the p i c t u r e s  re-  c a l l e d d u r i n g probed r e c a l l w i l l be t h o s e p i c t u r e s t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n t h e a n a l o g y p r o b l e m s . P r e d i c t i o n 3:  I n . t h e analogy groups most of t h e c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s can be a t t r i b u t e d t o c l u s t e r i n g of t h e p i c t u r e s t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n the a n a l o g y p r o b l e m s .  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 s h o u l d be r e c o g n i z e d b e t t e r t h a n t h o s e p i c t u r e s n o t so involved.  If  t h e above p r e d i c t i o n s a r e v e r i f i e d , t h i s would support  conclusions that is,  (a) what t h e s u b j e c t does d u r i n g p e r c e p t i o n ,  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 , d e t e r m i n e s t h e  the that  organization  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  is  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 n v o l v i n g t h e analogy rules.  That i t  i s the analogy r u l e s t h a t a r e b e i n g used t o 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 t h e c l u s t e r i n g and probed r e c a l l s c o r e s 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 t h e analogy p r o b l e m s . To t e s t P r e d i c t i o n 1 ( a ) ,  i t w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o compare t h e  r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s t h a t have been i n v o l v e d i n t h e 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 To t e s t P r e d i c t i o n 1 ( b ) ,  ("NA"  pictures).  i t w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o compare t h e r e c a l l  of t h o s e 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 t h e r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s n o t so chosen ("NF"  ("F"  pictures)  with  pictures).  When comparing t h e 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 s c o r e s of A and NA p i c t u r e s , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o use t h e r a n k i n g groups as c o n t r o l s and c o n s e q u e n t l y c a r r y out t h e same comp a r i s o n s i n the r a n k i n g g r o u p s . r e c a l l , probed r e c a l l ,  Thus, as i n t h e a n a l o g y g r o u p s ,  the  c l u s t e r i n g , and r e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e s of t h e A and  NA p i c t u r e s were c a l c u l a t e d and t h e same comparisons were c a r r i e d o u t . Without such c o n t r o l s i t c o u l d not c o n c l u s i v e l y be c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e " p a t t e r n i n g " of s c o r e s i n t h e analogy groups was due t o t h e a n a logy o r i e n t i n g task.  Thus, s i n c e t h e same p i c t u r e s were always i n -  v o l v e d i n the analogy p r o b l e m s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s e f o u r  dif-  f e r e d from t h e r e m a i n i n g t h r e e i n a manner t h a t c o u l d produce such patterning, e.g.,  they c o u l d be more " m e m o r a b l e . "  If  t h i s was the  case t h e n i t would be e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e same " p a t t e r n i n g " e f f e c t would be found i n t h e r a n k i n g groups when s c o r e s from the A and NA p o s i t i o n s a r e compared.  If  ference i n r e c a l l ,  t h i s i s not t h e c a s e , t h a t i s i f t h e r e i s no d i f 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 s c o r e s  between A and NA p i c t u r e s i n t h e r a n k i n g g r o u p s , then i t can be c o n c l u d e d t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n found i n the analogy groups i s due t o 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 r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h p i c t u r e s from each of t h e seven p o s i t i o n s were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s .  Group  1  2  3  RImm  107  108  106  RWk  109  107  RRec  104  112  Position 4  5  6  7  105  101  111  110  110  105  108  107  102  107  110  105  109  101  Scanning t h i s t a b l e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t p i c t u r e s from a l l t h e 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 .  C o n s e q u e n t l y , because d i f -  f e r e n t p i c t u r e s a r e 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  is  n o t n e c e s s a r y t o employ t h e t y p e 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 t h e F and NF p i c t u r e s can be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e 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 d e s i g n e d t o t e s t w i l l not be p r e s e n t e d u n t i l t h e 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 t h e a n a l y s i s w i l l be o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e 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 t h e 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 d e t e r m i n i n g f o r each t r a y t h e number of p i c t u r e s t h a t were r e c a l l e d from the  four  p o s i t i o n s t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n the a n a l o g y . t a s k and the t h r e e p o s i t i o n s t h a t were n o t so i n v o l v e d .  I n each s e r i e s the f i r s t t h r e e  posi-  t i o n s were always p a r t of t h e analogy t a s k w h i l e t h e f o u r t h p o s i t i o n , t h e answer, v a r i e d w i t h t h e analogy p r o b l e m .  S i n c e 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 s c o r e s were c o n v e r t e d t o p e r c e n t a g e s of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l .  Because t h e s c o r e s  f o r each t r a y a r e c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s 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 t h e f o u r p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e 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 t h e f o u r p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e a n a l o g y t a s k , t h e 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  e  A  > _ number of p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d from f o u r p o s i t i o n s ~ 68  For t h e t h r e e p o s i t i o n s not i n v o l v e d i n t h e a n a l o g y ,  percentage  of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l i s PNA  =  number of p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d from t h e t h r e e p o s i t i o n s — c  c  T h i s procedure was f o l l o w e d f o r b o t h immediate f r e e and f i n a l free r e c a l l .  The same procedure was r e p e a t e d w i t h the t h r e e r a n k i n g  groups i n o r d e r t o have c o n t r o l groups w i t h w h i c h m e a n i n g f u l c o m p a r i sons c o u l d be made. T a b l e 12 d i s p l a y s the mean p e r c e n t a g e i m m e d i a t e , f i n a l , r e c a l l s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by a l l groups f o r those p o s i t i o n s  and probed  involved  i n t h e analogy problems ("A" p o s i t i o n s ) and t h o s e p o s i t i o n s not so involved  ("NA" p o s i t i o n s ) .  T a b l e 13 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the o n e -  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 c o m p a r i s o n s . As expected i n group AImm, immediate r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s from t h o s e p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the a n a l o g y f a r exceeded immediate r e c a l l of p i c t u r e s f r i m t h e r e m a i n i n g 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 t h e A p o s i t i o n s b e i n g t h i r t y p e r c e n t g r e a t e r than r e c a l l  61  T a b l e 12 Mean P e r c e n t a g e 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  Final Recall  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  T a b l e 13 Summary T a b l e f o r the One-way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons o n r t h e 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  Analogy C o n d i t i o n AlmmA vs AlmmNA  20  0024  22.73  <.0001  Ranking C o n d i t i o n RImmA v s RImmNA  20  .0132  .03  n. s .  20 20 20  0070 ,0018 ,0031  30.00 45.90 31.70  <.0000' <.0000 <.0000  42  ,0024  77.30  <.0000  20 20 20  ,0018 ,0038 ,0029  .004 4.20 2.30  42  ,0032  6.70  Analogy C o n d i t i o n AlmmA vs AlmmNA AWkA vs AWkNA  20 20  .0197 .0104  23.46 1.62  <.0001 n.s.  Ranking C o n d i t i o n RImmA v s RImmNA RWkA v s RWkNA  20 20  .0093 .0070  .41 .71  n.s. n. s .  Immediate R e c a l l ai. b.  Final Recall a.  b.  Analogy C o n d i t i o n AlmmA v s AlmmNA AWkA vs AWkNA ARecA vs ARecNA AWkA + ARecA vs . . . . AWkNA + ARecNA Ranking C o n d i t i o n RImmA vs RImmNA RWkA v s RWKNA RRecA v s RRecNA RWkA +RRecA v s RWkNA + RRecNA  n. s. n. s . n. s . <.01  Probed R e c a l l a.  b.  63  from the NA p o s i t i o n s . difference  Also  as expected, t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t  i n r e c a l l a c r o s s t h e same p o s i t i o n s  i n group RImm.  A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n was found i n the f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l o f a l l t h e analogy groups.  The mean p e r c e n t r e c a l l i n t h e A p o s i t i o n s f o r  groups AImm, AWk, ARec, and AWk + ARec was r e s p e c t i v e l y and  .18.  In c o n t r a s t ,  .30, .18,  the mean p e r c e n t a g e r e c a l l f o r p i c t u r e s  .18,  i n the  NA p o s i t i o n s f o r t h e same groups was .10, .05, .05, and .05. The d i f f e r e n c e s between these means were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0000 level  (see T a b l e 13). As expected i n t h e r a n k i n g groups, none o f t h e s i n g l e compari-  sons w i t h i n  groups RImm, RWk, o r RRec reached s i g n i f i c a n c e .  when groups RWk and RRec were c o l l a p s e d ,  the d i f f e r e n c e  However,  i n r e c a l l be-  tween t h e A and NA p o s i t i o n s d i d r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e , 1/(1,42) = 6.7, g_ < .01, w i t h r e c a l l d f p i c t u r e s from the A p o s i t i o n s b e i n g percent greater  than r e c a l l from the NA p o s i t i o n s .  three  Although t h i s  d i f f e r e n c e i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n as the d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e analogy groups, i t only and  reaches s i g n i f i c a n c e when the groups a r e c o l l a p s e d ,  the d i f f e r e n c e i s o n l y  t h r e e p e r c e n t compared t o a d i f f e r e n c e o f  t h i r t e e n p e r c e n t f o r the analogous comparison i n the analogy Free R e c a l l "Pattern" The for  first  condition.  i n t h e Ranking Groups  step i n t h i s p a r t o f the a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d  determining  each t r a y and f o r a l l r a n k i n g groups t h e percentage of both t h e  pictures  t h a t were chosen as f a v o u r i t e s  so chosen ("NF" p i c t u r e s )  ("F" p i c t u r e s )  t h a t were r e c a l l e d .  and those n o t  For the p i c t u r e s  chosen  as f a v o u r i t e s t h e 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 and each group was 4 x 17 = 68 p i c t u r e s .  F o r those p i c t u r e s n o t so chosen, t h e 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, t h e p e r c e n t a g e  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 t h o s e p i c t u r e s chosen as f a v o u r i t e s was P  (  F  )  _ number of f a v o u r i t e_  Similarly,  pictures  recalled  the p e r c e n t a g e of t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l f o r t h o s e p i c -  t u r e s n o t so chosen was P(NF)=  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 * — :  T h i s p r o c e d u r e was r e p e a t e d f o r a l l t r a y s and a l l r a n k i n g g r o u p s . T a b l e 14 d i s p l a y s t h e mean p e r c e n t a g e r e c a l l s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by a l l r a n k i n g groups f o r b o t h F and NF p i c t u r e s .  T a b l e 15 summarizes  t h e r e s u l t s of the one-way ANOVAs conducted f o r the l i s t e d c o m p a r i s o n s . 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 b o t h immediate and f i n a l  free  r e c a l l , r e c a l l of those p i c t u r e s t h a t were chosed as f a v o u r i t e s  is  s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n r e c a l l of t h o s e p i c t u r e s not so c h o s e n . A l l comparisons a r e s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .009 l e v e l or beyond  (see  Table 15). Probed-Recall Pattern I n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e 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 p r o c e d u r e used i n c a l c u l a t i n g  t h e p e r c e n t a g e 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 u s e d .  However, b e -  cause t h e f i r s t c a r d i n each s e r i e s was always p r e s e n t e d t o t h e s u b j e c t as a p r o b e , i n probed r e c a l l , three remaining  the t o t a l p o s s i b l e r e c a l l f o r  p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e a n a l o g y was 5 1 .  the  Thus f o r  probed r e c a l l i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e 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 b o t h c a s e s .  65  T a b l e 14 Mean P e r c e n t a g e 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  Group  % R e c a l l of P i c t u r e s Chosen as F a v o u r i t e s  % R e c a l l of P i c t u r e s ' Not Chosen as F a v o u r i t e s  Immediate Recall RImm  36  20  RImm  28  16  RWk  13  5  RRec  16  8  RWk + RRec  14  7  Final Recall  66  T a b l e 15 Summary T a b l e 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 t h e F and NR P o s i t i o n s  Comparison  1.  MSe  Immediate R e c a l l RImmF v s RImmNF  2.  df  20  .01  10.16  <.005  20 20 20  .008 .003 .004  10.79 10.71 8.31  <.004 <.004 <.009  42  .004  18.48  <.0001  Final Recall RImmF vs RImmNF. RWkF v s RWkNF RRecF vs RRecNF RWkF.+RRecF v s RWkNF + RRecNF  67  T a b l e 12 d i s p l a y s the mean p e r c e n t a g e of probed r e c a l l s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by groups AImm, RImm, AWk, and RWk f o r A and NA p o s i t i o n s . T a b l e 13 summarizes t h e r e s u l t s of t h e one-way ANOVAs w h i c h were c a r r i e d out f o r the l i s t e d c o m p a r i s o n s . As expected i n group  AImm t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c a l l f o r  pictures  from the A and NA p o s i t i o n s was i n t h e 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 g r e a t e 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 . I n group AWk, a l t h o u g h t h e d i f f e r e n c e was i n t h e expected t i o n , w i t h a mean of tively,  . 1 3 and . 0 8 f o r the A and NA p o s i t i o n s  t h i s d i f f e r e n c e f a i l e d to r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e .  direc-  respec-  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 t h e 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 As i n r e c a l l ,  Groups  the raw c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s were c o n v e r t e d t o  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 i n c e t h e r e were f o u r  t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n the a n a l o g y , a maximum of t h r e e p o i n t s per c o u l d be earned i f a l l f o u r p i c t u r e s were remembered  perposi-  series  correctly.  Thus, the t o t a l maximum c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e f o r t h e A p o s i t i o n s f o r t r a y was 17 x 3 = 51 p o i n t s / g r o u p .  For the NA p o s i t i o n s ,  tht  each  total  maximum c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e 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 t h e p e r c e n t a g e s c o r e s f o r t h e A and NA p o s i t i o n s  clustering  respectively.  T a b l e 16 shows the mean p e r c e n t a g e c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s f o r groups i n b o t h t h e A and NA p o s i t i o n s .  all  T a b l e 17 summarizes t h e o n e -  way ANOVAs conducted f o r t h e l i s t e d c o m p a r i s o n s .  68  T a b l e 16 Mean P e r c e n t a g e C l u s t e r i n g ..the A . and M  Group  Scores f o r A l l Groups i n Both Po s i t i o n s  Immediate R e c a l l  Final Recall  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  T a b l e 17 Summary T a b l e f o r the One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r t h e L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e Dependent V a r i a b l e of  Clustering  f o r b o t h 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 v s AlmmNA RImmA vs RImmNA  20 20  .0244 .0108  11.25 0.05  < .003  F i n a l R e c a l l Analogy C o n d i t i o n AlmmA vs AlmmNA AWkA v a AWkNA ARecA vs ARecNA AWkA + ARecA vs AWkNA + ARecNA  20 20 20 42  .0072 .0024 .0053 .0038  6.10 14.90 1.40 9.85  <. 0 2 < .001  20 20 20 42  .0087 .0009 .0029 .0018  F i n a l R e c a l l Ranking RImmA v s RImmNA RWkA vs RWkNA RRecA vs RRecNA  ns  ns  < .003  Condition 0.002 1.30 0.35 1.20  ns ns ns ns  70  As e x p e c t e d , 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 t h e A p o s i t i o n s  than  f o r t h o s e 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 t w e n t y - t w o p e r c e n t g r e a t e r f o r p o s i t i o n s  recalled  from t h e 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 r o m . t h e 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 s c o r e s f o r p i c t u r e s from t h e A and NA p o s i t i o n s i n group RImm was n o t In f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l ,  significant..  i n group Almm, t h e r e was s t i l l  significantly  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 from t h e NA p o s i t i o n s , _F(1,20) = 6 . 1 , £ < . 0 2 .  But t h i s  decreased, from t w e n t y - t w o p e r c e n t i n immediate r e c a l l , cent i n f i n a l r e c a l l .  than  difference  to eight  per-  I n group AWk t h e d i f f e r e n c e was a l s o i n t h e  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 . Surprisingly,  i n group ARec, a l t h o u g h the d i f f e r e n c e was i n t h e  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 .  ex-  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 )  = 9.85,  £ < .003. Recognition As i n Phase I,  i t was n e c e s s a r y t o 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 t h e s u b j e c t s '  h i t and f a l s e a l a r m s c o r e s .  However, now  it  was n e c e s s a r y t o " b r e a k down" t h e d.' s c o r e s i n b o t h t h e analogy and ranking conditions.  Thus when examining the r e c o g n i t i o n p a t t e r n i n t h e  analogy groups s e p a r a t e cl' s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r b o t h t h e 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 a t the r e c o g n i t i o n p a t t e r n  the ranking groups, NF p o s i t i o n s .  in  s e p a r a t e d.' s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r the F and  71  I n c a l c u l a t i n g d_' s c o r e s , a s c o r e 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 p r o c e s s i t was n e c e s s a r y t o 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 l a r m s c o r e s a c r o s s the 11 t r a y s . v a r i a b l e s a n a l y z e d i n Phase I I .  Thus i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e o t h e r  mean s c o r e s per t r a y were not c a l c u l a t e d  and s c o r e s were not c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s s u b j e c t s . were 32 degrees of freedom ((2 x 17) -  Consequently,  there  2) f o r each of the c o m p a r i s o n s .  T a b l e 18 d i s p l a y s t h e mean p e r c e n t a g e of h i t and f a l s e a l a r m s c o r e s as w e l l as t h e mean d_' s c o r e s f o r groups RRec f o r b o t h t h e 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 r e c o g n i z e d b e t t e r than those p i c t u r e s not so c h o s e n , J _ ( l , 3 2 ) = 1 . 1 8 , p_ < . 2 9 .  T a b l e 19 d i s p l a y s t h e mean p e r c e n -  tage of h i t s , mean p e r c e n t a g e of f a l s e a l a r m s , and mean d.' s c o r e s 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 t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n t h e analogy problems and those not so i n v o l v e d .  Table  20 summarizes t h e r e s u l t s of t h e 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 c o m p a r i s o n s .  As p r e d i c t e d , i n group.  ARec more p i c -  t u r e s were r e c o g n i z e d from t h e A p o s i t i o n s than from t h e 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, t h e r e 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 f r o m b o t h t h e s e 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 c o n c l u d e d t h a 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 scores.  However, c o n t r a r y t o 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 n o t exceed the immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l i n the ranking groups.  Phase I a l s o demonstrated t h a 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 s c o r e s when compared  72  T a b l e 18 Mean P e r c e n t a g e of H i t and F a l s e A l a r m 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  82  15  2.33  RRecNF  80  15  2.04  73  T a b l e 19 Mean P e r c e n t a g e of H i t s and F a l s e A l a r m 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  % Hits  % 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  T a b l e 20 Summary T a b l e f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r t h e 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 t h e A and NA P o s i t i o n s  Comparison  df  MSe  Analogy C o n d i t i o n ARecA v s ARecNA  32  .242  Ranking C o n d i t i o n RRecA v s RRecNA  32  .896  F  Recognition  13.41 0.027  <.0009 n.s.  75  to t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s  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  in  t h e sense t h a t the analogy and r a n k i n g groups a r e compared on t h e d e pendent v a r i a b l e s of r e c a l l , tion.  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 -  However, Phase I was a " g e n e r a l " t y p e of a n a l y s i s or the com-  p a r i s o n s t h a 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 t h e 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 s t a g e t h e f o c u s 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 a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e  dif-  f e r e n c e s i n probed r e c a l l ,  that  c l u s t e r i n g , and r e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e s  were found t o 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 t a g e of t h e a n a l y s i s i s concerned w i t h t e s t i n g t h e  prediction  t h a t t h e 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 s c o r e s between the analogy and r a n k i n g groups can be accounted f o r by t h e  superior  probed r e c a l l and c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s of p i c t u r e s t h a t were i n v o l v e d the analogy problems ("A" p i c t u r e s ) .  A l s o , a l t h o u g h the a n a l o g y  in  groups  a r e 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 t h a t p i c t u r e s from t h e A p o s i t i o n s 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 t h e 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 t h e f a c t t h a t i f t h e a n a l o g y r u l e s used t o r e c o n s t r u c t r e c a l l , t e r i n g , probed r e c a l l ,  will  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  are  clus-  and f r e e r e c a l l of t h e s e 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 t h e p i c t u r e s from b o t h t h e 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. T a b l e 21 summarizes the r e s u l t s of t h e one-way ANOVAs  conducted  76  T a b l e 21 Summary T a b l e f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e 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 AlmmA v s RImmA  20  .02  11.300  <.003  Final Recall AlmmA vs RImmA AWkA + ARecA vs RWKA + RRecA  20 42  ,01 ,0031  1.60. 12.45  n. s . <.001  Probed R e c a l l AlmmA vs RImmA AWkA vs RWkA  20 20  01 01  54.52 .943  <.0000 n. s .  Immediate R e c a l l AlmmNA vs RImmNA  20  ,02  Final Recall AlmmNA vs RImmNA  20  AWkNA + ARecNA vs RWKNA + RRecNA  42  .01 ,0025  P i c t u r e s i n Analogy  P i c t u r e s Not i n Analogy  Probed R e c a l l AlmmNA v s RImmNA AWkNA vs RWkNA E q u a l i t y of Groups b e i n g RWkA v s RRecA RWkNA v s RRecNA AWkA vs ARecA AWkNA vs ARecNA  20 20  3.1  n.s.  11.9 2.8  <.003 n.s.  ,02 ,01  .016 ,53  n. s . n. s .  ,0029 .0038 .0036 .0013  .006 ,385 ,020 ,167  n. n. n. n.  Collapsed 20 20 20 20  s. s. s. s.  77  f o r the l i s t e d comparisons i n v o l v i n g t h e analogy groups on t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s of i m m e d i a t e , f i n a l f r e e , and probed r e c a l l . mean s c o r e s a r e l i s t e d i n T a b l e  (All  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 I n immediate r e c a l l group AImm r e c a l l e d twenty p e r c e n t more p i c t u r e s from t h e A p o s i t i o n t h a n d i d group RImm. significant, F(l,20)  This difference  is  = 11.3, £ < .003.  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 t h e 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 t h e comparison i n v o l v i n g  groups AWk and ARec, and groups RWk and RRec, t h e 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 t o 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 g r o u p s . ever,  How-  o n l y the comparison between group AImm and RImm i n f i n a l r e c a l l  a c h i e v e d 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 t h e r a n k i n g group r e c a l l i n g f i f t e e n p e r c e n t more p i c t u r e s from t h e 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 t h e analogy group r e c a l l i n g t h i r t y - t w o p e r c e n t 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 t h o u g h t h e d i f f e r e n c e was i n t h e expected d i r e c tion,  i t d i d not r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e .  78  None of t h e 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 . T a b l e 22 i n d i c a t e s t h e 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 b o t h immediate and f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l .  for  ( A l l means a r e l i s t e d i n T a b l e  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 I n v o l v e d i n t h e Analogues I n immediate r e c a l l , g r o u p Almm had t w e n t y - f o u r p e r c e n t 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 t h a t were r e c a l l e d from t h e A positions, F(l,20)  = 1 7 . 6 5 , p_ < . 0 0 0 4 .  In f i n a l f r e e r e c a l l ,  f o r the AlmmA v s 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 s c o r e s were i n t h e expected d i r e c t i o n , but o n l y t h e l a t t e r comparison was s i g n i ficant, F(l,42)  = 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 p e r c e n t a g e c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s f o r the NA p o s i t i o n s . Groups RWk and RRec c o u l d not be c o l l a p s e d as t h e r e 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 t h a n i n group RRec, F_(l,20) = 4 . 6 3 , _p < . 0 4 .  I n s t e a d the two comparisons ARecNA + AWkNA vs RWkNA and  ARecNA + AWkNA vs RRecNA were made.  Only t h e 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 t h e analogy groups h a v i n g 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 t h e NA p o s i t i o n s .  79  T a b l e 22 Summary T a b l e f o r One-way ANOVAs Conducted f o r the L i s t e d Comparisons on t h e Dependent V a r i a b l e of  Clustering  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 AlmmA vs RImmA  20  ,02  17.65  <.0004  Final Recall AlmmA vs RImmA AWkA + ARecA vs RWkA + RRecA  20 42  ,01 ,0032  3.24 13.0  n. s . <.0008  Immediate R e c a l l AlmmNA v s RImmNA  20  ,02  Final Recall AWkNA + ARecNA vs RWkNA AWkNA + ARecNA vs ARecNA  31 31  P i c t u r e s i n Analogy  P i c t u r e s not i n Analogy  ,02  n.s.  ,0006 .0016  .29 4.4  n. s . <.05  ,0018 ,0003 ,0048 ,0029  .003 4.63 .377 1.24  n.s. <.04 n. s. n.s.  E q u a l i t y of Groups B e i n g C o l l a p s e d RWkA v s RRecA RWkNA vs RRecNA AWkA vs ARecA AWkNA v s ARecNA  20 20 20 20  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.  ( A l l means are displayed i n Table  16.) The difference i n d_' scores between group ARec and RRec was i n the expected d i r e c t i o n with group RRecA having a mean d_' score of and group ARecA a mean d_' score of 1.97.  2.35  However t h i s difference did  not reach significance, F_(l,32) = 2.56, j3 < .12.  For those pictures  that were not involved i n the analogy, the difference 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 , _F(1,32) = 11.67, p.  <  -0017.  Thus group RRecNA had a mean d e t e c t a b i l i t y score of 2.30 compared to a score of 1.35  for group ARecNA.  81  T a b l e 23 Summary T a b l e f o r One-Way ANOVAs Conducted f o r t h e L i s t e d Comparisons on the Dependent V a r i a b l e of d '  Comparison  Score  df  MSe  32  ,4849  2.56  n. s .  32  ,6532  11.67  <.0017  Recognition P i c t u r e s i n Analogy P i c t u r e s not i n Analogy  82  DISCUSSION  C o n t r a r y t o 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 t h e 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 dramatic d i f -  f e r e n c e 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 t h e 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 t h e r a n k i n g groups when p i c t u r e s from t h e same p o s i t i o n s were compared.  ( T h i s 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 t h o u g h of c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r m a g n i t u d e , t h a t was found i n t h e RWkA + RRecA v s RWkNA + RRecNA c o m p a r i s o n . ) S i m i l a r l y i n t h e r a n k i n g groups more 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 r e c a l l e d than those p i c t u r e s t h a t were not so chosen.  These two s e t s 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 t h a t  o r i e n t i n g t a s k does i n d e e d d e t e r m i n e o r g a n i z a t i o n d u r i n g  the  recall.  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 s c h e m a t i c p o s i t i o n , i t i m p o r t a n t t o u n d e r s t a n d 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 , one w i s h e s t o c o m p l e t e l y understand t h e n a t u r e of  is if  recall.  A l s o , as demonstrated i n t h e second s t a g e 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 " s c o r e was broken down i n t o r e c a l l s c o r e s 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 f o u n d . d u r i n g immediate r e c a l l ,  Thus  r e c a l l f o r p i c t u r e s t h a 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 s u p e r i o r RWk and RRec.  t o t h e f i n a l r e c a l l of t h e same p i c t u r e s  However t h e d i f f e r e n c e  AImm and RImm f a i l e d  i n f i n a l r e c a l l between groups  t o reach s i g n i f i c a n c e .  These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t m u l t i p l e be used i n memory r e s e a r c h .  dependent v a r i a b l e s  of r e c a l l amongst the v a r i o u s confirmation  would be c h a r a c t e r i z e d gests that r e c a l l The  should  Using a s i n g l e dependent v a r i a b l e ,  as f r e e r e c a l l , may f a i l t o uncover c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s  The  i n groups  conditions  of t h e p r e d i c t i o n s be g r e a t e r  being  such  i n the nature  studied.  t h a t t h e analogy groups  c l u s t e r i n g and probed r e c a l l  sug-  i n these groups i s based upon a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  hypothesis that  t h e analogy r u l e s a r e used t o r e c o n s t r u c t  i n t h e analogy groups was examined i n t h e d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s  process.  recall  conducted  i n stages 1 and 2. The  greater  probed r e c a l l s c o r e f o r p i c t u r e s  i n group AImm supports t h i s h y p o t h e s i s .  from the A p o s i t i o n  The f a c t t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e  was not s i g n i f i c a n c t i n group AWk suggests t h a t t o be conserved over a period  o f a week, such r u l e s must be used a t l e a s t once i n r e c o n -  structing free r e c a l l .  The h i g h e r c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e f o r those  r e c a l l e d from the A p o s i t i o n s  i n both immediate and f i n a l f r e e  pictures recall  i n group AImm, and i n f i n a l r e c a l l i n group AWk a l s o 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 p r e s e n t i n  group AWk i s unexpected, as groups AWk and ARec should n o t 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 b e f o r e i t can be d e f i n i t e l y concluded t h a t w i t h o u t retrieval  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  s c o r e s i n f i n a l r e c a l l between p i c t u r e s r e c a l l e d from t h e A and NA  ^  84  positions. 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 b o t h t h a t  it  i s the analogy r u l e s t h a t a r e b e i n g used t o r e c o n s t r u c t r e c a l l i n t h e analogy groups and such r u l e s a r e not b e i n g used i n the r a n k i n g g r o u p s . ' Thus t h e s u p e r i o r probed r e c a l l of t h o s e 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 s u p p o r t s t h i s  hypothesis.  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 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 .  receive  Retrieval  p r a c t i c e had a v e r y p o w e r f u l and d i c r i m i n a t i v e e f f e c t on t h e 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  pictures  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 o n l y i n c r e a s e d the probed r e c a l l of t h e r e m a i n i n g p i c t u r e s by s i x p e r c e n t .  If  t h e analogy  r u l e s a r e t o be conserved and used t o 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 t h a t i t  i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t the s u b j e c t p r a c t i c e u s i n g them.  Such p r a c t i c e o c c u r e d when t h e i n d i v i d u a l was t e s t e d f o r immediate . recall,  and he was g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y  t o e x e r s i c e the r u l e s he had  l e a r n e d , t o 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 s c o r e s i n t h i s s t a g e of t h e a n a l y s i s a l s o supports  t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the a n a l o g y r u l e s a r e b e i n g used t o  r e c o n s t r u c t r e c a l l i n the analogy g r o u p s .  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 ranking groups.  Only t h e 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  final  f r e e r e c a l l i n the two groups t h a t d i d n o 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 d i d not r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e . pected d i r e c t i o n .  The d i f f e r e n c e was, however,  i n the e x -  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 t h e same p i c t u r e s i n the r a n k i n g g r o u p s .  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 c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e comparison ARecNA + AWkNA v a RRecNA reached s i g n i f i c a n c e .  However, b e s i d e s 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 s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e m a i n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s .  Thus the s u p e r i o r i t y of c l u s t e r i n g  in  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 t o t h e 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 t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n the analogy problems.  T h i s i s j u s t as would be e x p e c t e d , 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  it  indeed  i n v o l v e s t h e analogy r u l e s , g e n e r a l l y s h o u l d be l i m i t e d t o those p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n the analogy p r o b l e m s . The p r e d i c t i o n t h a t s u b j e c t s i n t h e 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 i n the r a n k i n g g r o u p s , i s o n l y p a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d .  counterparts When no r e t r i e v a l  p r a c t i c e was p r o v i d e d a g r e a t e 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 t h e r a n k i n g groups t h a n by the a n a l o g y g r o u p s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t s u b j e c t s i n t h e s e r a n k i n g groups guessed more than t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e analogy g r o u p s . 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 t h e Almm and RImm groups on e i t h e r immediate or d e l a y e d r e c a l l .  The r e a s o n  t h i s i s t h e case may be r e l a t e d t o 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 g r o u p s .  T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w i l l be  c o n s i d e r e d 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 i n the Almm vs RImm comparison. As predicted, subjects i n the group RRec i n which the f i g u r a l aspect was ARec.  emphasized had better recognition scores than subjects i n  However, one cannot d e f i n i t e l y conclude that the  increased  s e n s i t i v i t y of group RRec i s due to the greater emphasis on the f i g u r a t i v e aspect.  Since subjects i n the ranking group spent on the average  one and a half minutes longer than subjects i n the analogy group i n completing their orienting task, time spent on orienting task  was  confounded with the manipulation of the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of cognition. That the time spent on the ranking task i s an important determinant of recognition i s . r e f l e c t e d In the s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between these two variables.  Thus the greater s e n s i t i v i t y of group RRec could  be more parsimoniously  explained by a trace p o s i t i o n that would pre-  d i c t that recognition would increase as a function of the amount of time spent perceiving the picture.  To adequately test the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between orienting task and the f i g u r a t i v e aspect i n 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 o v e r a l l recognition was  superior for the ranking group,  the prediction that recognition of pictures from both the A and  NA  positions i n group RRec would exceed recognition of the same pictures i n group ARec was  only p a r t i a l l y supported.  Thus, only the recognition  of pictures from the NA positions i n group Rrec was  significantly  superior to the recognition of the same pictures i n group ARec.  Al-  though i t did not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e , the difference i n recognition  87  s c o r e s 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 r e c o g n i z e p i c t u r e s from t h e 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 s u g g e s t s t h a t r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n a r e somewhat i n d e p e n d e n t , s i n c e t h e a n a l o g y 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 . imply 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  recognition.  A l s o p i c t u r e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e 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 g r o u p s , p i c t u r e s from t h e A p o s i t i o n s were r e c o g n i z e d b e t t e r than p i c t u r e s from t h e NA p o s i t i o n s . Thus t h e 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  c o n c e p t i o n of t h e dependent r o l e of the f i g u r a t i v e a s p e c t of i n memory.  cognition  Such a c o n c e p t i o n would p r e d i c t t h a t b o t h 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 b o t h 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 had a v e r y p o w e r f u l e f f e c t on a l l dependent v a r i a b l e s except number of e r r o r s made i n probed r e c a l l .  practice the  However, r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e  appeared t o have a more p o w e r f u l e f f e c t on t h e r a n k i n g g r o u p s .  This  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 h e l p e x p l a i n why groups AImm and RImm d i d n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e 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 t h e number of e r r o r s made, by one and a h a l f f o r t h e r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n , but o n l y reduced i t by one i n t h e a n a l o g y c o n d i t i o n . When component c l u s t e r i n g s c o r e s a r e 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 t h a 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 t h a t do not have the b e n e f i t of such p r a c t i c e become, evident.  Thus, f o r the comparison i n v o l v i n g the r a n k i n g and a n a l o g y  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 , 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 t h r e e p o i n t g r o u p i n g s were s i g n i f i c a n t . c o n t r a s t , i n t h e comparison between groups Almm and RImm o n l y  In  the  d i f f e r e n c e i n the t h r e e p o i n t g r o u p i n g s s c o r e reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . Once a g a i n , i t appears t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t t h a t  retrieval  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 these apparently c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s .  for  Thus, f o r t h e a n a l o g y 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  three  p o i n t g r o u p i n g s , but had no e f f e c t on any of the o t h e r g r o u p i n g s . . On t h e o t h e r hand, i n the r a n k i n g g r o u p 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 t h e number of one and two p o i n t g r o u p i n g s .  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 s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t group Almm d i f f e r s from group RImm o n l y terms of the number of t h r e e p o i n t g r o u p i n g s .  it  in  Thus i t can be c o n c l u d e d  t h a t t h e r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e e f f e c t t h a t was found t o 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 t o the l e a r n i n g of  visual  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 p a r a d i g m .  Conclusion It  (1)  i s p o s s i b l e t o draw s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e s t u d y :  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 s u p p o r t e d 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 i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g subsequent r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n .  This i s  re-  f l e c t e d i n the f i n d i n g s t h a t f o r a l l groups the type of  orienting  89  task a subject i s  i n v o l v e d i n determines the o r g a n i z a t i o n of  and r e c o g n i t i o n .  These r e s u l t s  a l s o demonstrate  that  (a)  recall  the c o n -  c l u s i o n s d e r v i e d 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 . c o n d u c t e d w i t h v e r bal materials  also generalize  to v i s u a l s t i m u l i , and (b)  these  results  a l s o h o l d f o r l o n g 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 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 t h a t u t i l i z e s rules.  the  to be analogy  Thus r e c a l l i n these groups i s more p a r s i m o n i o u s l y e x p l a i n e d  by the a c t i v e - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  approach adapted by the L . N . R .  research  group than by the p a s s i v e approach p o s i t e d by Bower and Anderson. (3) The r e s u l t s  c o n f i r m t h a 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  de^.  monstrated by Y u i l l e w i t h v e r b a l m a t e r i a l does indeed g e n e r a l i z e  to  visual material.  F u r t h e r m o r e , 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  effect  aspect of c o g n i t i o n i s  i n the r a n k i n g c o n d i t i o n where the  figurative  emphasized.  (4) The p r e d i c t i o n t h a t the immediate and f i n a l  f r e e 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 r a n k i n g groups was not c o r r o b o r a t e d .  Thus, a l t h o u g h r e c a l l i n the analogy  appears to 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 , cess does not  , as p r e d i c t e d , r e s u l t  i n superior free  h y p o t h e s i s t h a t might account f o r these r e s u l t s Introduction. that  That i s ,  such a p r o -  recall.  it  is  and the s u b j e c t s  possible generated  t h e i r own i d i o s y n c r a t i c r u l e s which may be more s u c c e s s f u l ranking rules case,  i n reconstructing r e c a l l .  A  was suggested i n the  at l e a s t p a r t of the t i m e ,  the r a n k i n g o r i e n t i n g t a s k . . f a i l e d  groups  However, i f  than the  t h i s were the  i t would be expected t h a 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  90  by greater c l u s t e r i n g  than was found i n these groups.  Such c l u s t e r i n g  would be expected to r e f l e c t any r u l e biased r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process. A second p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the greater emphasis on the f i g u r a t i v e aspect i n the ranking groups accounts f o r 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  c e n t r a l , independent r o l e to the f i g u r a t i v e aspect i n memory that characterizes the P i a g e t i a n conception.  Thus the f i g u r a t i v e aspect  may not be simply a d i r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n of the operative aspect, as depicted by Piaget, but may play a more c r i t i c a l r o l e i n r e c a l l . However, i f t h i s were the case a l l the p i c t u r e s i n each s e r i e s would be expected to be r e c a l l e d equally w e l l , since 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 were emphasized.  As had already  been pointed out, those p i c t u r e s that were picked as f a v o u r i t e s were recalled better.  That those p i c t u r e s picked as f a v o u r i t e s were r e -  c a l l e d better could be i n t e r p r e t e d as suggesting  that perhaps r e c a l l  i n the ranking condition was a l s o characterized by a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e process i n which the ranking r u l e s were used to reconstruct r e c a l l . However, i f t h 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 c l u s t e r i n g than was found to be the case.  To t e s t t h i s hypothesis f u r t h e r i t would be  necessary to (a) examine the c l u s t e r i n g that d i d occur i n the ranking groups to determine more " f a v o u r i t e " p i c t u r e s were involved, (b) repeat the study using a probed r e c a l l task which would t e s t f o r recons t r u c t i o n u t i l i z i n g the ranking r u l e s . The f a c t that subjects i n the ranking groups spent 54% longer than t h e i r counterparts  i n the analogy groups i n s o l v i n g the o r i e n t i n g  91  t a s k may  account f o r the r e l a t i v e l y  conduct a f a i r e r it  would  solving  assessment  high r e c a l l  i n these groups.  of the 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  Torecall,  be n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y o u t a s t u d y i n w h i c h t h e t i m e s p e n t the  orienting  t a s k s i n the two  c o n d i t i o n s was  equated.  92  FOOTNOTES  1 1  B a r t l e t t , F.C.  psychology. Ibid.,  2  London:  lb id.,, p..206.  l f  I b i d . , p. 5 2 .  5  Ibid.,  7  & Bower, G . H .  P a i v i o , A.  F u r t h , H.G.  1 0  Ibid.,  4.  1971, p.  Washington,  1973, p. 6 0 .  Imagery and v e r b a l p r o c e s s e s .  New Y o r k :  Holt,  Rinehart  8.  P i a g e t and knowledge:  wood C l i f f s , N . J . : 9  Human a s s o c i a t i v e memory.  Hemisphere P u b l i s h i n g C o . ,  & Winston, I n c . , 8  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967, p.  p. 206.  Anderson, J . R .  D.C.:  A study i n e x p e r i m e n t a l and s o c i a l  p. 213.  3  6  Remembering:  Prentice H a l l ,  Theoretical foundations.  Engle-  1969, p. 72.  p. 9 3 .  Piaget, J.  & I n h e l d e r , B.  M e n t a l imagery i n the c h i l d .  New Y o r k :  B a s i c Books, 1971. "ibid.,  p. 228.  1 2  Ibid.,  p. 378.  1 3  Ibid.,  p. 378.  ^Yuille,  J.C.  & Catchpole, M.J.  The r o l e of imagery i n model of  cognition. 1 5  Piaget, J.  1 6  Ibid.,  1 7  C r a i k , F.I.  & I n h e l d e r , B. , 1973, op., c i t . , p. 385.  p. 3 9 5 . & Lockhart, R.S.  memory r e s e a r c h .  L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g :  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  A framework Behaviour,  for  93  1972 1_1(6), p. 676. 1 8  Ibid.  1 9  I b i d . , p. 675.  2 0  Ibid.,  2 1  C r a i k , F.I.  p. 6 8 1 . & T u l v i n g , E.  words i n e p s i o d i c memory.  Depth of p r o c e s s i n g and t h e r e t e n t i o n of J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y :  General,  1975, 1 0 4 ( 3 ) , p. 290. 2 2  I b i d . , p. 2 9 1 .  2 3  I b i d . , p. 294.  2 1 f  Craik, F.I.  2 5  Ibid.,  2 5  Yuille,  & Lockhart, R . S . ,  1972, op. c i t . , p. 682.  p. 6 8 1 . J.C.  An a n a l y s i s of c o d i n g p r o c e s s e s and r e t r i e v a l p r a c t i c e .  Unpublished manuscript. 2 7  Anderson, J.R.  2 8  Ibid.,  p. 186.  2 9  Ibid.,  p. 4 4 .  3 0  Ibid.,  p. 141.  31  N o r m a n , D.A.  Francisco:  & Bower, G . H . ,  1973, op. c i t . , p. 140.  & Rumelhart, D.E.  Explorations i n cognition.  W.H. Freeman and Company, 1975, p.  3 2  I b i d . , p. 2 3 .  3 3  Ibid,  7.  p. 26.  3 k  Anderson, J.R.  35  N o r m a n , D.A.  & Bower, G . H . ,  1973, op. c i t . , p. 44.  & Rumelhart, D . E . ,  3 6  Ibid.,  p. 330.  3 7  Ibid.,  p. 317.  1975, op. c i t . , p. 159.  San  94  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Anderson, J . R . D.C.:  & Bower, G.H.  Human a s s o c i a t i v e memory.  Hemisphere P u b l i s h i n g C o . ,  B a r t l e t t , F.C. psychology. Bransford, J.D.  Remembering: London:  Washington,  1973, p. 6 0 .  A study i n e x p e r i m e n t a l and s o c i a l  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967.  & Barclay, J . R . ,  & Franks, J . J .  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.  Sentence memory: Cognitive  a  Psychology,  1971, _3. Bransford, J.D.  & Franks, J . J .  Cognitive Psychology, Craik, F.I.  ideas.  1971, 3_.  & Lockhart, R.S.  memory r e s e a r c h .  The a b s t r a c t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c  L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g :  a framework  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  for  Behavior,  1972 ( D e c ) , L L ( 6 ) , 676. Craik, F.I.  & Tulving,  E.  Depth of p r o c e s s i n g and t h e r e t e n t i o n  words i n e p i s o d i c memory.  J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l  of  Psychology:  G e n e r a l , 1975, 124. F u r t h , H.G.  P i a g e t and knowledge:  wood C l i f f s , N . J . :  Prentice H a l l ,  G i n s b u r g , H. & Opper, S. An i n t r o d u c t i o n . Hays, W.L.  Theoretical foundations.  Engle-  1969, p. 72.  P i a g e t ' s t h e o r y of i n t e l l e c t u a l development:  Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :  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 .  P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1969. New Y o r k :  Holt,  R i n e h a r t & W i n s t o n , 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 t y p e of o r i e n t i n g  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. of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  1973, 7_9, 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 .  task  Journal  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 t a s k s  on t h e 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. Hyde, T . S .  J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , & Jenkens, J . J .  R e c a l l f o r words as a f u n c t i o n of s e m a n t 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 . and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , K i n t s c h , W.  1969, 8 2 , 4 7 2 - 4 8 1 .  J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g  1973, 12, 4 7 1 - 4 8 0 .  The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of meaning i n memory.  Hillsdale,  N.J.:  Lawrence E i l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s , 1975. L o f t u s , E.F.  L e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s and e y e w i t n e s s r e p o r t .  Psychology, Norman, D.A. cisco: P a i v i o , A.  Cognitive  1975, 1_, 5 6 0 - 5 7 2 .  & Rumelhart, D.E.  Explorations i n cognition.  San F r a n -  W.H. Frieman and Company, 1975. Imagery and v e r b a l p r o c e s s e s .  New Y o r k :  Holt,  Rinehart  & W i n s t o n , I n c . , 1971. Piaget, J .  The c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y i n t h e c h i l d .  New Y o r k :  Basic  Books, 1954. Piaget, J .  & I n h e l d e r , B.  M e n t a l imagery i n t h e c h i l d .  New Y o r k :  B a s i c B o o k s , 1971. Piaget, 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 Y o r k :  Basic  Books, 1973. P y l y s h y n , Z.W.  What the m i n d ' s eye t e l l s t h e m i n d ' s b r a i n .  of m e n t a l imagery. Sachs, J . S .  P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1973, 80_, 1 - 2 4 .  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 s e m a n t i c a s p e c t s of  connected d i s c o u r c e . 442.  a critique  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-  96  Shulman, A . I . list.  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  B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y ,  Shulman, A . I .  Till,  Memory f o r words r e c e n t l y c l a s s i f i e d .  tion,  1974, 2, 4 7 - 5 2 .  R.E.  & Jenkens, J . J .  Behavior,  Memory and C o g -  The e f f e c t s of cued o r i e n t i n g t a s k s on  t h e f r e e r e c a l l of w o r d s .  W a l s h , D.A.  1971, ^ 2 , 3 3 5 - 3 4 6 .  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  1973, 1_2, 4 8 9 - 4 9 8 .  & Jenkens, J . J .  E f f e c t s of o r i e n t i n g t a s k s on f r e e r e c a l l  in incidental learning: explanations.  "difficulty",  "effort",  and " p r o c e s s "  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  Behavior,  1973, 1 2 , 4 8 1 - 4 8 8 . Y u i l l e , J.C.  An a n a l y s i s of c o d i n g p r o c e s s e s and r e t r i e v a l  practice.  Unpublished manuscript. Y u i l l e , J.C.  & Catchpole, M.J.  cognition.  The r o l e of imagery i n a model of  APPENDIX  TWELVE  SERIES DURING  A  OF P I C T U R E S P R E S E N T E D PROBLEM S O L V I N G  98  99  100  i  101  102  103  104 - - - - - -  i  i  105  106  107  109  110  Ill  112  i 1  I  113  114  115  117  APPENDIX  INSTRUCTIONS  B  TO  SUBJECTS  121  APPENDIX B. Instructions Instructions  The  Given to Anology Groups Before Problem  Solving,  purpose of t h i s experiment i s to study problem s o l v i n g ,  I w i l l e x p l a i n what you trial.  are to do by g i v i n g you  In f r o n t of you,  you  p i c t u r e i s r e l a t e d to the  in. the  same way.  You  The  first  of the remaining four  The  pictures  Tower,  Do  you  see how  i t works?  a p r a c t i c e run.  The  whole experiment w i l l  involve  Thus f o r each t r i a l  w i l l be  first  shown seven p i c t u r e s .  be r e l a t e d i n some way. same way  to one  The  The  t e l l me  keep t r a c k of the time you  any  take.  need to do each t r i a l  ready?  O.K.  will  are to  While you  your answer and  find are  I will  I want to s t r e s s t h a t  the time o n l y out o f i n t e r e s t .  questions?  Are you  You  i t s number.  speed t e s t or an i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t . time as you  pictures  you  third picture w i l l relate in  doing t h i s experiment I w i l l r e c o r d  recording  two  of the remaining f o u r .  the r e l a t e d p i c t u r e and  am  Are  questions?  twelve more t r i a l s l i k e t h i s one.  the  tell  In t h i s example, the answer i s  number s i x , the E i f f e l  T h i s was  seven p i c t u r e s .  are to f i n d the r e l a t e d p i c t u r e and  i t s number, (.pause).  there any  see  a practice  second p i c t u r e i n some way.  t h i r d p i c t u r e goes with one  me  to Subjects  You  T h i s i s not  can  a  take as much  as best you  I w i l l begin with the  I  can.  first  Are trial.  there  122 I n s t r u c t i o n s Given to Ranking Groups Before Problem  Solving.  T h i s experiment i s designed t o study the psychology o f a e s t h e t i c s , t h a t i s , the p r e f e r e n c e s people have i n making choices.  I w i l l e x p l a i n what you are to do by g i v i n g you a p r a c t i c e trial.  In f r o n t o f you, you see seven p i c t u r e s .  I want  you to i n d i c a t e from amongst these seven p i c t u r e s the four you l i k e  the most.  When you p i c k these four out, t e l l me  one you l i k e  the b e s t , the one you l i k e  one you l i k e  the t h i r d b e s t and f i n a l l y ,  f o u r t h b e s t , (pause)  Do you see how  the  the second b e s t , the the one you l i k e  i t works?  the  Are t h e r e  any q u e s t i o n s ?  T h i s was  a p r a c t i c e run.  The whole experiment w i l l  twelve more t r i a l s . l i k e t h i s one. w i l l be shown seven p i c t u r e s .  involve  Thus, f o r each t r i a l  you  You are to p i c k your four  f a v o u r i t e p i c t u r e s and rank them a c c o r d i n g t o your o r d e r of preference, that i s , f i r s t ,  second, t h i r d or f o u r t h .  While you are doing t h i s experiment, I w i l l r e c o r d your answer and I w i l l a l s o keep t r a c k of the time you take.  I  want t o s t r e s s t h a t I am r e c o r d i n g the time o n l y out of interest.  T h i s i s not a speed t e s t or an i n t e l l i g e n c e  You can take as much time as you need to do each t r i a l best you can. Are you ready?  O.K.  I w i l l begin w i t h the f i r s t  trial.  test. as  123 I n s t r u c t i o n s Given to Both Anology and Ranking Groups Before Immediate and F i n a l  Recall.  I want you t o w r i t e down the names o f as many p i c t u r e s as you can remember s e e i n g i n t h i s experiment.  Thus, t h e r e  were twelve t r i a l s and seven p i c t u r e s i n each o f these trials  f o r a t o t a l o f e i g h t y four p i c t u r e s .  Write down  the names o f as many o f these p i c t u r e s as you can r e c a l l . I f you cannot name some, d e s c r i b e them as best you can o r 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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094401/manifest

Comment

Related Items