Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Transfer in serial learning as a function of interlist positional relations Whitmore, Sally Jean 1973

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 W45.pdf [ 3.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101786.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101786-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101786-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101786-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101786-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101786-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101786-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101786-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101786.ris

Full Text

G 1 TRANSFER IN SERIAL LEARNING AS A FUNCTION OF INTEHLIST POSITIONAL RELATIONS by SALLY JEAN WHITMORE 3 . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department o f Psychology We ac c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia A p r i l , 1973 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada D a t e ClUfyuJL gq, 1973-Abstract Transfer i n s e r i a l learning as a function of i n t e r -l i s t p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s was examined i n a s e r i a l to s e r i a l transfer paradigm. After learning a 16-adjective s e r i a l l i s t to a c r i t e r i o n of two consecutive perfect r e c i t a t i o n s , 128 Ss,were given ten t r i a l s on a l6-adjective transfer task. There were four conditions of transfer defined by the p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of Items between successive l i s t s . F i r s t - , second-, and fourth-order derived l i s t conditions and a con t r o l condition were used. Half of the experimental Ss were instructed as to the p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l i s t s while the remaining Ss were given no p o s i t i o n a l Information. The r e s u l t s indicated s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e transfer i n the DL^ and DL^ groups when compared to the control group. DL£ performance was s l i g h t l y superior to performance of the co n t r o l group but th i s difference did not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e . Performance of instructed Ss was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than performance of non-instructed Ss. The i n s t r u c t i o n s variable was not found to have a d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t among conditions. The r e s u l t s were interpreted as being Incompatible with either the sequential or the o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n hypothesis of s e r i a l learning, but as evidence i n support of a r e l a t i v e o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n hypothesis. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ...... i Table of Contents l i L i s t of Tables i i i L i s t of Figures i v Acknowledgment ......................•...*.*...*••*•• v Introduction • 1 Method 40 Subjects, Materials and Design, Procedure. Results 44 Discussion 49 References 56 i i i LIST OP TABLES Page TABLE I: Hypothetical Remote Associations Assumed to he Established During The A c q u i s i t i o n of an 8-Item S e r i a l L i s t . . . . 6 TABLE I I : Hypothetical Strength of Remote Associations Assumed to be Established During The A c q u i s i t i o n of an 8-ltem S e r i a l L i s t (Bugelskl, 1950) 9 TABLE III: Conventional Arrangements Representing Derived L i s t s of F i r s t , Second and Third Orders of Remoteness And Degree Of Remoteness For Each Item In Terms of I n t e r l i s t P o s i t i o n a l Relations 32 TABLE IV: Arrangements Conforming to DL^, D L 2 And DL/4,. Degree of Remoteness i s Defined as the Amount of Change i n Ordinal P o s i t i o n Across L i s t s . . , . . 3k « TABLE V: S e r i a l L i s t s f o r DL l t D L 2 . DL4. And Control Conditions kj iv LIST OP FIGURES Page Figure 1. Mean Number of Errors at Each P o s i t i o n Over Ten Transfer T r i a l s kS V ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author would l i k e to p a r t i c u l a r l y acknowledge the advice and the encouragement of Dr. G.J. Johnson throughout a l l phases of t h i s research. Thanks are also due to Dr. D. Foth who read and c r i t i c a l l y evaluated the writing of the thesis as a member of the Thesis Committee. Transfer i n S e r i a l Learning as a Function of I n t e r l i s t P o s i t i o n a l Relations S a l l y Jean Whitmore • University of B r i t i s h Columbia Since t h e i r Inception i n 1885» the connectionist views of the German psychologist, Ebbinghaus, have played an important r o l e in the shaping of the explanations proposed by modern psychologists f o r many verbal learning phenomena. His c l a s s i c monograph on rote verbal learning and retention (1885) has been accorded widespread recog-n i t i o n f o r i t s r o l e i n the establishment of the concept of remote associations i n s e r i a l learning. Ebbinghaus used d e r i v e d - l i s t experiments to study the remote associations which he assumed were formed during s e r i a l learning. Ebbinghaus was h i s own subject i n these early experiments. His method was to learn an original-l i s t of nonsense s y l l a b l e s to a c r i t e r i o n of one perfect r e c i t a t i o n . The following day, Ebbinghaus memorized a second s e r i a l l i s t composed of the same items as those he had learned the previous day. He re-arranged the order of the items i n the second l i s t according to the paradigm he wished to represent. A f i r s t - o r d e r derived l i s t (DL^) was one i n which items separated by one item in the f i r s t l i s t were adjacent to one another i n the 2 second l i s t . A second-order derived l i s t (DL2) was one i n which Items separated by two words i n the o r i g i n a l l i s t were adjacent to one another i n the second l i s t . In h is d e r i v e d - l i s t experiments, Ebbinghaus used the method of whole-l i s t presentation where the complete l i s t was always i n view. He would learn an o r i g i n a l l i s t , symbolized A, B, C, D, etc., and then, i f the d e r i v e d - l i s t condition was one of one-degree remoteness, he would learn a second l i s t composed of alternate f i r s t - l i s t items. Thus the second l i s t would be A, C, E,...B, D, P,...etc. If the desired paradigm was a l i s t of two degrees of remoteness, then the second l i s t was constructed by skipping two f i r s t -l i s t items, A, D, G....B, E, H,...etc. By studying several derived l i s t s of varying orders ( f i r s t , second, t h i r d , seventh and random), Ebbinghaus acquired data which supported h i s hypothesis that the percentage savings i n learning time of the second l i s t was greatest fo r the f i r s t - o r d e r condition and that the percentage savings i n learning time of the l i s t decreased as the order of the second-list d e r i v a t i o n increased. On the basis of these r e s u l t s and the r e s u l t s of an experiment in which the second l i s t was the reverse of the f i r s t (a backward de r i v a t i o n ) , Ebbinghaus proposed that during s e r i a l learning, associative strength accrues not only between adjacent items, but also, and at the same time, between items farther separated i n the l i s t i n both the forward and backward d i r e c t i o n s . The strength of a given remote association was in f e r r e d to decrease as the degree of remoteness increased. Backward associations were assumed to be much weaker than forward associations. Largely on the basis of the r e s u l t s of the d e r i v e d - l i s t studies, Ebbinghaus (1913) formulated what has come to be known as the "chaining" .or "sequential association" conception of the s e r i a l learning process. According to t h i s view, the s e r i a l l i s t i s a highly organized group of items Which are r e l a t e d to or associated with each other. It i s implied that the fu n c t i o n a l stimulus operating i n s e r i a l learning i s the preceding word i n the l i s t . Thus, a f t e r a subject has learned a s e r i a l l i s t symbolized A, B, C, D, etc., when A i s presented i n the transfer task, the response most l i k e l y to be emitted by the subject to t h i s stimulus i s the response B. The d e r i v e d - l i s t studies performed by Ebbinghaus "4 provided impetus f o r further experimentation, and i n the f i f t y years following the pu b l i c a t i o n of h i s work, considerable research i n s e r i a l learning was conducted. The concept of remote associations was used by investigators to explain other phenomena observed i n s e r i a l learning. Lepley (193*0 used the Ebbinghaus concept to account f o r the commonly observed bowed s e r i a l - l e a r n i n g curve. He assumed that every item i n a s e r i a l l i s t i s associated with every other item In the l i s t during s e r i a l learning and that a l l but the correct associations i n t e r f e r e with learning. The Lepley hypothesis, however, predicted a symmetrical s e r i a l -p o s i t i o n curve with the most d i f f i c u l t items at the middle of the l i s t . H u l l (1935) extended the Lepley hypothesis to account f o r the greater d i f f i c u l t y of learning s y l l a b l e s i n the middle of a s e r i a l l i s t compared to those at either end of a l i s t . His deduction was based on the assumption that each item i n a s e r i a l l i s t becomes associated, through stimulus trace conditioning, with each of the succeeding items i n the l i s t . These trace conditioned responses were supposed to be held i n check by an assumed " i n h i b i t i o n of delay". H u l l counted the number of remote associations for each item i n a s e r i a l l i s t and c a l c u l a t e d the a l l e g e d amount of i n h i b i t i o n p r e v e n t i n g the o c c u r r e n c e o f each r e s p o n s e . He p l o t t e d the v a l u e s and p r e d i c t e d a symmetrical c u r v e w i t h a peak i n the middle and zero v a l u e s a t e i t h e r end. However, d a t a show a curve t h a t i s non-symmetrical w i t h the l a r g e s t number of c o r r e c t responses o c c u r r i n g a t the f i r s t few p o s i t i o n s , the next l a r g e s t number of c o r r e c t responses a t the end p o s i t i o n s , and the most d i f f i c u l t items, not i n the middle of the l i s t , but somewhat beyond the m i d d l e . B u g e l s k i (1950) used the remote a s s o c i a t i o n concept i n an attempt to modify the L e p l e y - H u l l h y p o t h e s i s to p r o v i d e a more adequate f i t of the symmetrical t h e o r e t i c a l curve to the a s s y m e t r i c a l d a t a . T h e o r e t i c a l remote a s s o c i a t i o n s spanning each s e r i a l p o s i t i o n i n an e i g h t -item l i s t are shown i n Table 1. In t h i s t a b l e , X r e f e r s to the s t a r t i n g symbol In the l i s t . The numbers r e f e r to the o t h e r items i n the l i s t . B u g e l s k i suggested t h a t H u l l ' s system c o u l d approximate e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a most c l o s e l y i f h i s s t i m u l u s t r a c e and a f f e r e n t n e u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n p o s t u l a t e s were more c o m p l e t e l y e x p l o i t e d . B u g e l s k i h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the remote a s s o c i a t i o n s a l l e g e d to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the p r e v e n t i o n of c o r r e c t responses v a r y not o n l y i n number, 6 Table 1 Hypothetical Remote Associations Assumed to be Established during the A c q u i s i t i o n of an 8-Item S e r i a l L i s t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 X-2 X-3 X-4 x-5 X-6 x-7 X-8 x-3 X-4 X-5 X-6 X-7 X-8 1-8 X-4 x-5 X-6 X-7 X-8 1-7 2-8 x-5 X-6 X-7 X-8 1-6 1-8 3-8 x-6 x-7 X-8 1-5 1-7 2-7 4-8 x-7 X-8 1-4 1-6 1-8 2-8 5-8 X-8 1-3 1-5 1-7 2-6 3-7 6-8 1-4 1-6 1-8 2-7 3-8 1-5 1-7 2-5 2-8 4-7 1-6 1-8 2-6 • 3-6 4-8 1-7 2-4 2-7 3-7 5-7 1-8 2-5 2-8 3-8 5-8 2-6 3-5 4-6 2-7 3-6 4-7 2-8 3-7 4-8 3-8 TOTAL 0 35 66 90 104 105 90 56 0 7 but a l s o i n s t r e n g t h . He attempted to determine how v a r i a t i o n s i n t o t a l remote a s s o c i a t i o n s t r e n g t h a r i s e a t d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s i n a s e r i a l l i s t . A c c o r d i n g to B u g e l s k i , the s t r e n g t h of i c u i o t e a s s o c i a t i o n s i s a f u n c t i o n o f two f a c t o r s . The f i r s t o f these f a c t o r s i s the p o i n t i n time a t which a response o c c u r s when a s t i m u l u s t r a c e i s p r e s e n t . He assumed t h a t the s t r e n g t h o f a remote a s s o c i a t i o n decreased as a f u n c t i o n of degree of remoteness, t h a t i s , i f the s t a r t i n g p o i n t i s symbolized as X, then X - l i s s t r o n g e r than X-2; X-2 i s s t r o n g e r than X-3> e t c . H u l l assumed g e n e r a l l y t h a t s t i m u l u s t r a c e s are a c t i v e f o r about 30 sees. In an e i g h t -item l i s t the f i r s t s t i m u l u s (X) w i l l be a c t i v e throughout the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the e n t i r e s e r i e s i f the items appear at a 3-sec. r a t e as the l a s t Item w i l l appear 24 sees, a f t e r the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the i n i t i a l s t i m u l u s . However, s i n c e 24 sees, have e l a p s e d , the t r a c e i s not l i k e l y to be v e r y s t r o n g and the l a s t remote a s s o c i a t i o n should be c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y weak. S i m i l a r l y , f o r a l l o t h e r items i n the l i s t , each item s e r v e s as a s t i m u l u s , r e s u l t i n g i n a st i m u l u s t r a c e o f d i m i n i s h i n g i n t e n s i t y . The second f a c t o r assumed to a f f e c t the s t r e n g t h o f remote a s s o c i a t i o n s Is the number of a d d i t i o n a l responses 8 o c c u r r i n g w h i l e a t r a c e i s a c t i v e . F o r r e m o t e a s s o c i a t i o n s o f any. g i v e n d e g r e e , t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h a t a s s o c i a t i o n w i l l i n c r e a s e f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e l i s t t o t h e end o f t h e l i s t , t h a t I s , X-2 < 1 - 3 < 2-4, e t c . I n t h i s m a n n e r , n o t o n l y t h e number o f a s s o c i a t i o n s a t e a c h p o i n t i n t h e l i s t , b u t a l s o t h e s t r e n g t h o f e a c h r e m o t e a s s o c i a t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d . On t h e b a s i s o f t h e a b o v e a s s u m p t i o n s , B u g e l s k i c a l c u l a t e d w e i g h t e d f r e q u e n c i e s t o p r o v i d e a t h e o r e t i c a l c u r v e w h i c h showed t h e g r e a t e s t e f f e c t o f t h e r e m o t e a s s o c i a t i o n s o c c u r r i n g j u s t b e y o n d t h e m i d d l e o f t h e l i s t . H y p o t h e t i c a l s t r e n g t h s o f r e m o t e a s s o c i a t i o n s a s s u m e d t o b e e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f a n e i g h t - i t e m l i s t a r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 2. E a c h o f t h e r e m o t e a s s o c i a t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e t o a n e i g h t - I t e m l i s t a c c o r d i n g t o H u l l ' s ( .1935) c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n a p p e a r s I n T a b l e 2 i n c o l u m n s l a b e l l e d ( a ) . The v a l u e o f e a c h r e m o t e a s s o c i a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o B u g e l s k l ' s a n a l y s i s i s shown i n c o l u m n ( b ) . An i n c r e m e n t o f o n e u n i t o f a s s o c i a t i v e s t r e n g t h w i t h e a c h s u c c e s s i v e d e c r e a s e i n d e g r e e o f r e m o t e n e s s i s a d d e d , s t a r t i n g w i t h t h e a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e f i r s t s t i m u l u s a n d t h e l a s t r e s p o n s e . P r o g r e s s i v e l y h i g h e r v a l u e s a r e a s s i g n e d t o t h e a s s o c i a t i o n s o f t h e same d e g r e e o f r e m o t e n e s s . T h a t i s , 9 T a b l e 2 H y p o t h e t i c a l S t r e n g t h of Remote A s s o c i a t i o n s Assumed to be E s t a b l i s h e d During The A c q u i s i t i o n of an 8-item S e r i a l L i s t ( B u g e l s k i , 1950) P o s i t i o n X I 2 3 • 4 5 6 7 8 a b a b a b a b a b a b a b X - 2 (7) x - 3 ( 6 ) x-4 ( 5 ) x - 5 (4) x - 6 ( 3 ) x - 7 ( 2 ) x-8 (1) X - 3 (6) x-4 (5) x - 5 (4) x - 6 (3) x - 7 ( 2 ) x-8 (1) 1-8 ( 3 ) x-4 ( 5 ) x - 5 (4) x - 6 ( 3 ) x - 7 ( 2 ) x-8 ( i ) 1-7 (4) 2-8 ( 5 ) x - 5 (4) x - 6 ( 3 ) x - 7 ( 2 ) x-8 (1) 1-6 ( 5 ) 1-8 ( 3 ) 3-8 ( 7 ) x - 6 ( 3 ) x - 7 ( 2 ) x-8 (1) 1-5 ( 6 ) 1-7 (4) 2-7 ( 6 ) 4-8 ( 9 ) x - 7 (2) x-8 (1) 1-4 ( 7 ) 1-6 (5) 1-8 ( 3 ) 2-8 ( 5 ) 5-8 (11) x-8 (1) 1-3 (8) 1-5 (6) 1-7 (4) 2-6 (7) 3 - 7 (8) 6-8 0-3) 1-4 (7) 1-6 ( 5 ) 1-8 ( 3 ) 2-7 ( 6 ) 3-8 (7) 1-5 ( 6 ) 1-7 (4) 2 - 5 • (8) 2-8 ( 5 ) 4 -7 (10) 1-6 ( 5 ) 1-8 (3) 2-6 (7) 3-6 ( 9 ) 4-8 ( 9 ) 1-7 (4) 2-4 ( 9 ) 2-7 (6) 3-7 (8) 5-7 (12) 1-8 (3) 2 - 5 (8) 2-8 (5) 3-8 ( 7 ) 5-8 ai) 2 - 6 (7) 3 - 5 ao) 4 -6 (11) 2 - 7 ( 6 ) 3-6 (9) 4 -7 (10) 2-8 ( 5 ) 3-7 3-8 (8) (7) 4-8 ( 9 ) 0 7 28 12 5k 15 75 16 88 15 90 12 78 7 49 0 10 although the associations between stimulus 1 and. response 3 and stimulus 6 and response 8 are both of one degree of remoteness, Bugelski does not value them e q u a l l y He assumes that when a stimulus trace from stimulus 6 i s i n i t i a t e d , there w i l l be competition f o r associations from responses 6, 7, and 8. When stimulus 1 i s presented, there w i l l be competition f o r associations from a l l eight possible responses. Bugelski states that i t Is reasonable to i n f e r that associations made i n competition with a large number of others are l i k e l y to be l e s s strong than associations made when there i s l i t t l e competition. As there i s l e s s competition possible towards the end of the l i s t , he assigns a higher value to associations of the same degree of remoteness If they occur l a t e r i n the l i s t . Another phenomenon observed i n s e r i a l learning, the error gradient In s e r i a l r e c a l l , has also been c i t e d as evidence of remote associations. McGeoch (1936) found that i n the r e c a l l of s e r i a l l i s t s , the items clo s e s t to the correct response which the subject i s attempting to emit w i l l be more l i k e l y to be the responses given i n c o r r e c t l y . That i s , i f the correct response i s "C", the response of "B" or "D" i s more l i k e l y to occur as an incorrect response than Is a response of "A" or "E". A 11 gradient of incorrect responses occurs with the larg e s t number of incorrect responses being adjacent to the correct response, the next largest number being one p o s i t i o n removed i n both the forward and backward d i r e c t i o n s , and continuing i n t h i s manner with the number of Incorrect responses decreasing as a function of distance i n the l i s t . It has been pointed out by Jensen (1962) that c e r t a i n s e r i a l - l e a r n i n g phenomena, such as the skewed s e r i a l - p o s i t i o n curve, have been explained i n terms of stimulus-response connections. These connections have been considered i n terms of t h e i r r e l a t i v e strengths as affected by the interactions of excitatory and Inhibitory processes assumed to accrue during learning or by response competition or interference between items r e s u l t i n g from stimulus generalization or from the formation of remote associations. These explanations must be r e s t r i c t e d to s e r i a l a n t i c i p a t i o n learning, where there i s a consistent temporal sequence of item presentation. Jensen (1962) conducted several experiments designed to determine whether the occurrence of the s e r i a l - p o s i t i o n e f f e c t depends upon a temporal s e r i a l presentation of the items or whether the e f f e c t i s a more general phenomenon which may also be present when items are ordered s p a t i a l l y rather than temporally. In the 12 f i r s t experiment, nine d i f f e r e n t geometric forms were used as s t i m u l i . These s t i m u l i were presented simultaneously i n a row, the series being predominantly s p a t i a l . Subjects were allowed to study the order for ten sees., a f t e r which E scrambled the items and S was required to r e p l i c a t e the order. The error curve r e s u l t i n g from t h i s task was t y p i c a l of s e r i a l p o s i t i o n curves obtained by temporal s e r i a l presentation of items, although the greater proportion of errors occurred somewhat beyond the middle p o s i t i o n . Further, the curve was less skewed than would be normally expected. In the second experiment, Jensen presented nine geometric s t i m u l i i n d i v i d u a l l y . These s t i m u l i were always in one l o c a t i o n and always appeared i n random order. The s p a t i a l s e r i a l arrangement was i n the S's response-a l t e r n a t i v e s which consisted of a row of nine buttons on a response panel. The subject's task was to learn, by t r i a l and error, which button was associated with a p a r t i c u l a r stimulus randomly presented on a screen i n front of him. A correct response was reinforced by a "bong" before the next stimulus item appeared. The plotted r e s u l t s of the errors incurred f o r t h i s task showed a s e r i a l - p o s i t i o n e f f e c t . That i s , the buttons on 13 the ends of the panel were learned most r e a d i l y and those in the middle were learned with the greatest d i f f i c u l t y . Jensen noted that t h i s curve was produced by a non-serial presentation of the s t i m u l i and a s p a t i a l s e r i a l arrangement of the response a l t e r n a t i v e s . He concluded that the e s s e n t i a l features of the s e r i a l - p o s i t i o n curve emerge under conditions other than the learning of a temporal sequence of item presentation by the method of s e r i a l a n t i c i p a t i o n . The theory of remote associations based on the stimulus trace notion cannot be used as an explanation of these r e s u l t s . Recently, other t h e o r i s t s have begun to assess the v a l i d i t y of the notion of remote associations. Slamecka (1964) reviewed the previous studies r e l a t i n g to what he r e f e r s to as the "doctrine" of remote associations. On the basis of a series of d e r i v e d - l i s t studies, Slamecka contended that superior performance of a DI4 over a scrambled co n t r o l l i s t , i n which second-list items were randomly placed i n sequence, was due to pattern recognition. When unfamiliar material was learned, no s u p e r i o r i t y of DI<1 over a scrambled control was found. In a l a t e r derived-l i s t study, i n order to prevent pattern recognition, Slamecka used a modified DL-j_ i n which 0, 1 or 2 Items were 14 skipped i n an Irregular manner, but which had an o v e r a l l mean of one skipped item. He found no.difference between performance under t h i s condition and that on a scrambled c o n t r o l l i s t . Slamecka suggested that the remote associations concept i n i t s o r i g i n a l form i s of doubtful v a l i d i t y and offered an a l t e r n a t i v e conception of s e r i a l memorization which emphasizes the acquiring of the items per se, and then the learning of t h e i r positions In the l i s t , rather than the formation of sequential associations. Hakes, James and Young (1964) designed a derived-l i s t study to t e s t the generality of the Ebbinghaus r e s u l t s . They used the s e r i a l a n t i c i p a t i o n method to investigate f i r s t - , second- and third-order d e r i v e d - l i s t conditions. The learning of these groups was compared to that of a control group who learned two unrelated s e r i a l l i s t s . The r e s u l t s indicated no p o s i t i v e transfer but suggested that the d e r i v e d - l i s t paradigms were paradigms of negative t r a n s f e r . The r e s u l t s were Interpreted as providing negative evidence f o r a theory based upon assumptions concerning the formation of remote associations during s e r i a l learning. Bugelski (1964) has questioned Slamecka's c r i t i c i s m on the grounds that the p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r o l l i s t 15 used In Slamecka's studies may not have been s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t In terms of degree of remoteness from the DLi since It was randomly derived. A better procedure might have been to compare Slamecka's modified DL^ with appropriately modified d e r i v e d - l i s t s of higher degrees of remoteness. The r e s u l t s of a study conducted by Johnson* at the Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia involving a comparison of performance on Slamecka's modified DL^ with that on modified DLs of higher degrees of remoteness confirmed Slamecka's f i n d i n g s . A DL-^  condition which varied on the order of 0 , 1 or 2 degrees of remoteness, and a DL-j condition which varied on the order of 2 , 3» or 4 degrees of remoteness were compared i n terms of t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n and number of errors over ten t r i a l s . The r e s u l t s indicated no diff e r e n c e between performance on the DLT_ and the DL3 conditions. Comparison of the two DLs combined with a control l i s t constructed of items unrelated to those i n the f i r s t l i s t revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n favor of the control Ss. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study underscore the suggestion of Hakes and Young ( 1966) that the Ebbinghaus theory does not imply p o s i t i v e transfer i n the d e r i v e d - l i s t 1. Johnson, G.J., "A re-appralsal of the concept of remote associations i n s e r i a l learning (Manuscript) 1 6 studies, but that a DL of any degree of remoteness greater than zero may contain elements which contribute towards negative t r a n s f e r . This reasoning i s plausible i f one assumes that the a c q u i s i t i o n of a DL greater than zero requires "unlearning" of previously formed associations. Performance would then be expected to be influenced to some extent by the inherent i n t e r l l s t Interference i n the DL. Thus f a i l u r e to obtain p o s i t i v e transfer f o r low-order DLs does not, i n i t s e l f , dlsconfirm the remote associations theory. Since the appearance of the above a r t i c l e s , the concept of remote associations has v i r t u a l l y disappeared from contemporary v e r a l learning l i t e r a t u r e . Further, not only the remote associations doctrine i t s e l f has been challenged, but also the chaining concept of s e r i a l learning which implies that the preceding item i s the f u n c t i o n a l stimulus i n s e r i a l learning, has been brought into question. Several studies which have provided a basis f o r attack on the chaining conception of s e r i a l learning are those which have Investigated transfer from s e r i a l to paired-associate (PA) learning. It has been reasoned by Young (1962) that i f s e r i a l learning c o n s i s t s of the formation of associations between adjacent items i n a s e r i a l 17 l i s t , then p o s i t i v e transfer should be obtained In a s e r i a l / p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e transfer design i n which pairs i n the second l i s t are formed from adjacent items In the s e r i a l l i s t . That i s , i f adjacent items of a s e r i a l l i s t (A-B-C-D...etc») are used to construct i n d i v i d u a l p a i r s (A-B, B-C, C-D,...etc.) i n a double function paired-associate task - where each item In the o r i g i n a l l i s t serves as both a stimulus and a response - performance on the transfer task should be better f o r experimental Ss than f o r control Ss who learn a s e r i a l l i s t of items un-r e l a t e d to the paired-associate task. This r e s u l t , however, has not generally been the case. Young (1962) investigated transfer i n a serial/paired-associate paradigm using single function l i s t s i n which items from the f i r s t l i s t serve as either a stimulus or as a response Item i n the transfer task. In t h i s experiment the subject learned a s e r i a l l i s t of adjectives and then learned a paired-associate l i s t composed of hal f experimental pairs constructed from contiguous items i n the o r i g i n a l l i s t and half c o n t r o l pairs c o n s i s t i n g of unfamiliar items. No p o s i t i v e transfer f o r the experimental pairs was observed. The question of what i s the f u n c t i o n a l or e f f e c t i v e stimulus i n s e r i a l learning has generated a great deal of 18 i n t e r e s t and i n v e s t i g a t i o n . As early as 1920, Woodworth and Poffenberger suggested that Ss may use p o s i t i o n cues i n s e r i a l l earning. Others, (e.g. Melton, 19^0), recognized the r o l e of p o s i t i o n . i d e n t i t y as a mediator of l n t e r l i s t i n t r u s i o n s . However, It was not u n t i l the 1960's that the r o l e of p o s i t i o n a l cues In s e r i a l learning was a c t i v e l y investigated. The r e s u l t s of a s e r i a l / s e r i a l t ransfer study (Young, 19&2) suggested that the f u n c t i o n a l stimulus i n s e r i a l learning i s the p o s i t i o n which the item holds i n the s e r i a l l i s t . In t h i s study the experimental group learned two s e r i a l l i s t s i n which alternate items held the same o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n i n both the o r i g i n a l and second l i s t s . The remaining items were randomly arranged i n the second l i s t . Thus h a l f of the items held the same p o s i t i o n i n both l i s t s and h a l f the Items were randomly r e d i s t r i b u t e d into new p o s i t i o n s , A co n t r o l condition c o n s i s t i n g of items unrelated to those of the f i r s t l i s t was also Included. On the basis of the o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n hypothesis i t would be predicted that the learning of the items which d i d not change positions across l i s t s would be f a c i l i t a t e d . That i s , Young's arrangement conforms to an A-B, A-B paradigm of p o s i t i v e transfer with A r e f e r r i n g to the same s e r i a l positions i n both l i s t s and B r e f e r r i n g to the same item i n the two s e r i a l l i s t s . Performance on those items which 19 changed positions across l i s t s would be expected to show interference and hence negative transfer, because d i f f e r e n t f i r s t - l i s t responses are paired with the same p o s i t i o n s t i m u l i i n the second l i s t , thus creating an A-B, A-Br paradigm of negative tr a n s f e r . If the chaining hypothesis i s considered, a l l of the second-list items correspond to an A-B, A-Br paradigm which i s one of negative t r a n s f e r . In t h i s paradigm no difference between performance on the s u b l i s t s would be expected. If the o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n hypothesis i s considered, p o s i t i v e transfer i s expected for those items which did not change p o s i t i o n across l i s t s and negative transfer f o r those items which did assume new positions i n the second l i s t . Young's data show more correct responses f o r the unchanged items than for the items at re-arranged pos i t i o n s . The control l i s t , In which a l l items were new items, was learned i n fewer t r i a l s than the experimental l i s t . Young suggested that these r e s u l t s support the o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n hypothesis. Ebenholtz (1963b) conducted a study which was si m i l a r i n design to the one conducted by Young ( 1962) . The transfer l i s t f o r one group of Ss contained items half of which were items from the o r i g i n a l l i s t and which maintained t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n s . New Items were 20 substituted for the remaining half of the transfer l i s t . The following symbols represent the arrangement of the Items In the two l i s t s f o r one of the two experimental tt_>oups: L i s t 1: A, B, C, D, E, F etc. L i s t 2: K l , B, K2, D, K3..F etc. A second experimental group was designated a mediation-con t r o l group. In the mediation condition, alternate items on the f i r s t l i s t were repeated on the transfer l i s t but were displaced at l e a s t four positions from t h e i r o r i g i n a l l i s t l o c a t i o n s . This arrangement can be represented as follows: L i s t 1: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H...etc. L i s t 2: F, K4, H, K5, J , K l , B, K2..etc. Both arrangements represent conditions In which alternate items represent experimental Items. There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that S might mediate transfer performance by i m p l i c i t l y ' r e c i t i n g the o r i g i n a l l i s t and c a l l i n g out every other item. In t h i s way the subject could use his knowledge of the sequence of f i r s t l i s t items to r e c a l l the experimental items i n the second l i s t . If t h i s mediation were In f a c t responsible f o r f a c i l i t a t i o n of learning of repeated items, one would expect both groups to learn the repeated items at equivalent r a t e s . Ebenholtz used a co n t r o l group, f o r 21 which a l l second-list items were completely new, to permit an estimate of the p o s i t i v e or negative d i r e c t i o n s of tra n s f e r . The r e s u l t s Indicated that only those repeated items which maintained the same p o s i t i o n i n both l i s t s were learned at a rate equivalent to non-repeated items. Ebenholtz concluded that the r e s u l t s provided no evidence f o r mediation but that they support the hypothesis that p o s i t i o n cues are an important aspect of s e r i a l - l e a r n i n g . He suggested that the p o s i t i o n an item holds i n a s e r i a l l i s t operates as the fu n c t i o n a l stimulus i n s e r i a l learning. B a t t l g , Brown and S c h i l d (1964) pointed out that the evidence f o r p o s i t i o n a l associations has been obtained predominantly with high-meaningful items (Young, 1959, 1961, 1962), or with shorter l i s t s and slower presentation r a t e s . (Ebenholtz, I963). They attempted to evaluate the r e l a t i v e importance i n s e r i a l learning of associations between adjacent items, associations with s e r i a l p o s itions, and of more complex higher-order learning processes. B a t t i g , Brown and Sch i l d conducted a s e r i a l / s e r i a l transfer study In which the second s e r i a l l i s t included three items from the f i r s t l i s t placed i n (a) same-adjacent, (b) changed-adjacent, or (c) same-non-adjacent s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s . In order to assess any d i f f e r e n t i a l involvement of the three 22 processes i n d i f f e r e n t parts of the l i s t , the positions of the c r i t i c a l second-list items i n the o r i g i n a l l i s t were varied systematically in the second l i s t . The authors suggested that there are complex multiple-item a s s o c i a t i v e u n i t s which develop gradually, with pr a c t i c e , i n the middle positions of a l i s t , whereas I n i t i a l items are learned by p o s i t i o n a l and sequential cues. Postman and Stark (19&7) used a s e r i a l / p a i r e d -associate task to re-examine the conclusions concerning the f u n c t i o n a l stimulus i n s e r i a l learning. They analyzed transfer e f f e c t s i n order to determine the extent to which learning the transfer task i s a function of p r a c t i c e . Postman and Stark assumed that i f s e r i a l learning r e s u l t s i n the establishment of associative l i n k s between successive items, there should be substantial p o s i t i v e t r a n s f e r i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of paired-associates which are composed of adjacent items from the s e r i a l l i s t . P o s i t i v e transfer has not been found i n several studies (e.g. Young, 196l: Jensen and Rohwer, I965). Postman and Stark suggested that low degrees of transfer r e f l e c t f a i l u r e s of performance under conditions of massive interference inherent i n the double-function paired-associate l i s t due to backward associations i n the PA l i s t , rather than the absence of relevant associations. Their experimental design was formulated to evaluate transfer e f f e c t s over a f i x e d number of t r i a l s and to determine the e f f e c t of information given to Ss as to the nature of the transfer task. A l l Ss learned an eight-item s e r i a l l i s t to a c r i t e r i o n of one perfect r e c i t a t i o n . Then they were given ten transfer t r i a l s on a double-function paired-associate l i s t . There were three conditions of t r a n s f e r . One group of Ss learned a paired-associate l i s t composed of pairs of adjacent Items from the s e r i a l l i s t . For another group, there was no overlap between items i n the s e r i a l and paired-associate l i s t s . In the t h i r d condition, the paired-associate items were formed from non-adjacent items of the s e r i a l l i s t . Under each condition Of transfer there was an instructed and a non-instructed group. Subjects i n a l l groups learned three sets of two l i s t s . For a given subject, the paradigm of transfer remained constant from one cycle to another. S i g n i f i c a n t amounts of p o s i t i v e transfer were found f o r the Ss i n the adjacent-pairing condition. Negative transfer resulted f o r the condition i n which the paired-associate items were composed of non-adjacent items from the s e r i a l l i s t . Instructions Increased p o s i t i v e transfer but had no influence on negative t r a n s f e r . The p o s i t i v e transfer increased and negative transfer decreased 2k as a function of c y c l e s . Postman and Stark interpreted the r e s u l t s as supportive of the hypothesis that s e r i a l learning involves the development of sequential associations. Shuell and Keppel ( 1967) r e p l i c a t e d a portion of the Postman and Stark study using d i f f e r e n t procedures and materials. A l l Ss learned a 12-item s e r i a l l i s t to a c r i t e r i o n of one perfect r e c i t a t i o n . Experimental Ss were then given ten t r i a l s on a double-function paired-associate task i n which the successive elements of the s e r i a l l i s t were preserved. Control Ss were given ten t r i a l s at the same task, but the s e r i a l and paired-associate l i s t s were composed from unrelated sets of adjectives f o r t h i s group. The method of item presentation f o r s e r i a l learning was v a r i e d . Within each condition, the s t a r t i n g point of the s e r i a l l i s t remained the same for h a l f of the Ss on a l l t r i a l s . The s t a r t i n g point was varie d on each t r i a l f o r the remaining Ss. After having learned the s e r i a l l i s t , a l l Ss were informed of the nature of the construction of the double-function l i s t and of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s e r i a l and paired-associate l i s t s . The use of the constant s t a r t i n g point for one condition represented a r e p l i c a t i o n of part of the Postman and Stark experiment. By varying s e r i a l - p o s i t i o n cues f o r the second group, the authors expected to maximize S's use 25 o f s e r i a l c h a i n s , as t h i s procedure was supposed to e l i m i n a t e the u t i l i z a t i o n o f c o n s i s t e n t s e r i a l - p o s i t i o n cues d u r i n g l e a r n i n g . The r e s u l t s showed t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l groups produced p o s i t i v e t r a n s f e r . F i r s t - t r i a l a n a l y s i s I n d i c a t e d t h a t p o s i t i v e t r a n s f e r f o r the v a r i e d - s t a r t i n g - p o i n t group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r the c o n s t a n t - s t a r t i n g -p o i n t group. The r e s u l t s support the assumption t h a t the a s s o c i a t i v e s t r e n g t h formed between contiguous items In the s e r i a l l i s t i s the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r p r o d u c i n g the p o s i t i v e t r a n s f e r observed on the p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l i s t . Thus S h u e l l and Keppel conclude t h a t i n t e r i t e m a s s o c i a t i v e c h a i n s are developed d u r i n g s e r i a l l e a r n i n g . Jensen and Rohwer (1965) used a s e r i a l / p a i r e d -a s s o c i a t e paradigm to o b t a i n evidence c o n c e r n i n g the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h of s e q u e n t i a l and p o s i t i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s i n s e r i a l l e a r n i n g . The amount of t r a n s f e r from a s e r i a l l i s t to two d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s o f p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g was measured. In one d e s i g n , s u b j e c t s l e a r n e d a s e r i a l l i s t , A, B, C , D, e t c . , f o l l o w e d by a d o u b l e - f u n c t i o n p a i r e d -a s s o c i a t e l i s t c o n s t r u c t e d of a d j a c e n t items of the s e r i a l l i s t (A-B, B-C, C-D, e t c . ) . C o n t r o l Ss l e a r n e d a s e r i a l l i s t which c o n s i s t e d of items u n r e l a t e d to those of the p a i r e d -a s s o c i a t e t a s k . T h i s c o n d i t i o n was intended to be a t e s t o f 26 of the sequential hypothesis. In the second experimental design, subjects learned a s e r i a l l i s t , A, B, C, D, etc., followed by a paired-associate task which required them to associate items from the s e r i a l l i s t with s p a t i a l positions i n a horizontal rectangle (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, etc.) where each l e t t e r represents the s e r i a l - l i s t items and each number represents a s p a t i a l p o s i t i o n . When a red dot appeared i n a horizontal rectangle, the subject was required to respond with the item which had occupied the corresponding o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n i n the o r i g i n a l l i s t . A c o n t r o l group performed the same transfer task but learned a s e r i a l l i s t of items unrelated to the paired-associate task. Jensen and Rohwer conceived t h i s design as a t e s t of the o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n hypothesis. The r e s u l t s of the study indicated that although there was p o s i t i v e transfer In the f i r s t f e w , t r i a l s f o r both designs, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l t ransfer from s e r i a l to paired-associate learning f o r either the p o s i t i o n a l or the sequential task. Further analysis ©f the data showed that the percentage of transfer was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to s e r i a l p o s i t i o n ; items at the beginning and end of the s e r i a l l i s t showed p o s i t i v e transfer, while items i n the middle of the o r i g i n a l l i s t showed zero or negative t r a n s f e r . Johnson (1972) suggested that any diffe r e n c e i n the 27 r e l a t i v e transfer e f f e c t s yielded by the two types of design in the Jensen and Rohwer study may have been obscured by the low degree of absolute transfer that was imposed by the rapid presentation ( 2 : 2 sec. rate) of the transfer l i s t s . Johnson r e p l i c a t e d part of the Jensen and Rohwer study using a 4 : 4 sec. presentation r a t e . He extended the design by including negative transfer conditions f o r both the sequential task and the p o s i t i o n a l task. A t h i r d design, one of a sequential/positional type of transfer, was also included In the study. This transfer task combined the sequential and p o s i t i o n a l tasks In order to investigate the p o s s i b i l i t y that a c q u i s i t i o n of a s e r i a l l i s t involves a type of learning f o r which the e f f e c t i v e stimulus consists of a combination of p o s i t i o n a l and sequential cues. If multiple • cues are the e f f e c t i v e stimulus, one would expect maximum transfer f o r the sequential/positional group r e l a t i v e to the other two experimental conditions. The r e s u l t s of the study indicated that r e l a t i v e p o s i t i v e transfer was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater i n the p o s i t i o n a l group than i n the sequential group. Performance of Ss i n the seque n t i a l / p o s i t i o n a l group was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than that of the Ss i n the p o s i t i o n a l group except on paired-associate items from the middle of the s e r i a l l i s t . Johnson 28 interpreted the r e s u l t s as evidence that p o s i t i o n a l associations are a more es s e n t i a l factor i n s e r i a l learning than are sequential associations, but that interitem associations may be Included i n the f u n c t i o n a l stimulus complex fo r some of the items In the middle of the s e r i a l l i s t . Although It i s possible to obtain p o s i t i v e transfer with instructed subjects i n a serial/double-function paired-associate task, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s f i n d i n g Is not c l e a r . Young ( 1 9 6 8 ) , among others, has suggested that such transfer r e f l e c t s the subject's knowledge of p o s i t i o n a l aspects of the s e r i a l l i s t , rather than, or as well as, any sequential associations that may have been established. Thus, while p o s i t i v e transfer i n the s e r i a l / p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e paradigm i s i n agreement with the sequential-associations hypothesis, an unambiguous conclusion as to what constitutes the e f f e c t i v e stimulus i n s e r i a l learning cannot be made on the basis of these studies. In a recent s e r i a l / s e r i a l transfer study, Dey ( 1969) had subjects practice two s e r i a l l i s t s of i d e n t i c a l length i n random a l t e r n a t i o n i n order to determine the e f f e c t s of l n t e r l i s t s e r i a l - p o s i t i o n g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . P o s i t i o n a l generalization was measured In terms of l n t r a l i s t and i n t e r -l i s t i n t r u s i o n e r r o r s . A comparison was made of mean 2 9 frequencies of i n t e r l i s t intrusions between disparate s e r i a l positions and of l n t r a l i s t i n t r u s i o n s . The r e s u l t s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two types of e r r o r s . I n t e r l i s t errors were analyzed i n terms of i d e n t i c a l (or co-ordinate) s e r i a l positions and non-identical (or disparate) s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s . It was found that the maximum number of Intruding responses originated from the corresponding s e r i a l p o s i t i o n i n the other l i s t . Further, the frequency of intrusions from a non-identical s e r i a l p o s i t i o n i n the other l i s t declined systematically as p o s i t i o n a l d i s p a r i t y increased In either a forward or backward d i r e c t i o n , bey interpreted his findings as evidence i n support of the hypothesis that associations develop not only between the items of a rote series and t h e i r s e r i a l positions, but also generalize between positions i n inverse proportion to the intervening distance. The r e s u l t s of Dey's study are strongly i n favor of the o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n hypothesis. It i s evident that there has been a great deal of in t e r e s t centred on the question of the fu n c t i o n a l stimulus i n s e r i a l learning. It i s also obvious that the p a r t i c u l a r mechanisms which underlie s e r i a l learning phenomena i n general, and i n t e r l i s t transfer i n p a r t i c u l a r , have not been determined. The usefulness of both the chaining concept 30 and the o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n hypothesis remains i n doubt. The v i a b i l i t y of the remote associations concept has been questioned as the bulk of evidence suggests that the concept i s i n need of r e v i s i o n i f i t i s to be a usable e n t i t y . In the past, the remote association investigations have been formulated within the framework of a sequential associations conceptualization. Research has f a i l e d to confirm a number of predictions concerning the operation of remote associations. Johnson^ has suggested that t h i s f a i l u r e may possibly r e f l e c t inadequacies of the chaining hypothesis as to the nature of the f u n c t i o n a l stimulus i n s e r i a l learning. It may be possible to revise the remote associations concept i n terms of the evidence which emphasizes the importance of p o s i t i o n a l cues i n s e r i a l l earning. If the degree of remoteness of a p a r t i c u l a r Item In a derived l i s t is.defined i n terms of i t s o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n in the l i s t r e l a t i v e to f i r s t - l i s t learning, rather than In terms of the number of items separating i t from the item which Immediately preceded i t i n the o r i g i n a l l i s t , then the previous d e r i v e d - l i s t studies may be considered to be ir r e l e v a n t to the remote associations issue. By re- d e f i n i n g 2. Johnson, i b i d . 31 remote associations in t h i s manner i t can be hypothesized that the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y of a p a r t i c u l a r d e r i v e d - l i s t item i s a d i r e c t function of the degree of remoteness of i t s p o s i t i o n In the derived l i s t r e l a t i v e to the p o s i t i o n i t held i n the o r i g i n a l l i s t . Performance on the derived l i s t might, then, be determined by the average degree of p o s i t i o n a l remoteness of Individual items i n the l i s t . Conventional arrangements f o r derived l i s t s of f i r s t , second and t h i r d orders of remoteness and the degree of remoteness f o r each item i n terms of I n t e r l i s t p o s i t i o n a l  r e l a t i o n s are shown i n Table 3» The average degree of remoteness with regard to p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s si m i l a r f o r the three l i s t s . Therefore, large differences in amount of transfer for these l i s t s would not be expected. Further, these values do not increase as a l i n e a r function of degree of remoteness as i t has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y defined. It can be shown that f o r a l i s t of any given length, the degree of remoteness i n terms of sequential r e l a t i o n s does not correspond to the average degree of remoteness i n terms of p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . Previous studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of remote associations on s e r i a l / s e r i a l transfer have been c a r r i e d out from the point of view which assumes sequential chaining i n s e r i a l learning. The t r a d i t i o n a l 32 T a b l e 3 Conventional Arrangements Representing Derived L i s t s of F i r s t , Second and Third Orders of Remoteness and Degree of Remoteness f o r each Item i n terms of I n t e r l i s t P o s i t i o n a l Relations DLj_ TL R° DL 2 TL R G D L 3 TL R° 1-A 1-A 0 1-A 1-A 0 1-A 1-A 0 2-G 2-B 1 2 -E 2-B 2 2-D 2-B 3 3-B 3-C 2 3-1 3-c 4 3-G 3-c 6 4-H 4-D 3 4-B 4-D 6 4 - J 4-D 2 5-c 5-E 4 5-F 5-E 3 5-B 5-E 1 6-1 6-F 5 6 - J 6-F 1 6-E 6-F 4 7-D 7-G 5 7-C 7-G 1 7-H 7-G 4 8 - J 8-H 4 8-G 8-H 3 8-K 8-H 1 9-E 9-1 3 9-K 9-1 6 9-C 9-1 2 10-K 10-J 2 10-D 10-J 4 10-F 10-J 6 11-F 11-K 1 11-H 11-K 2 11-1 11-K 3 12-L 12-L 0 12-L 12-L 0 12-L 12-L 0 Mean degree of remoteness 2.50 2.67 2.67 33 method fo r deriving l i s t s of varying degrees of remoteness with respect to I n t e r l i s t sequential r e l a t i o n s does not y i e l d systematic differences i n degree of remoteness as defined i n terms of i n t e r l i s t p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . Thus i t may be argued that the appropriate tests of the e f f e c t s of remote associations on s e r i a l / s e r i a l transfer have not yet been conducted. If one i s to reconceptualize s e r i a l / s e r i a l transfer from an I n t e r l i s t p o s i t i o n a l point of view, a novel method of d e r i v i n g l i s t s i s necessary. Arrangements conforming to D L T _ , D L £ and DL4 , where degree of remoteness i s defined as the amount of change i n o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n across l i s t s , are presented i n Table 4. It can be seen that the differences among derived l i s t s i n terms of average degree of remoteness are more pronounced than In l i s t s derived using the t r a d i t i o n a l method. Johnson^ reports a study designed to Investigate the p o s s i b i l i t y of re-opening the remote associations issue by comparing performance on transfer tasks where transfer l i s t s are derived to represent various degrees of remoteness with respect to i n t e r l i s t p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . In order to 3 . Johnson, i b i d . 3k Table k Arrangements Conforming to DL^, D L 2 , and D I 4 . Degree of Remoteness i s Defined as the Amount of Change i n Ordinal Position Across L i s t s DL X DL 2 DL4 TL 1-B 1-C 1-E 1-A 2-A 2-D 2 - F 2-B 3 -D 3-A 3-G 3 - c 4-C 4-3 4-H 4-D 5 - F 5-G 5-A 5-E 6-E 6-H 6-B 6 - F 7-H 7 - F 7-c 7-G 8-G 8-E 8-D 8-H 9-J 9-K 9-M 9 - 1 1 0 - 1 10-L 10-N 1 0-J 11-L 11-1 1 1 - 0 11-K 12-K 12-J 12-P 12-L 13-N 1 3 - 0 1 3 - 1 13-M 14-M 14-P 14-J 14-N 15-P 15-M 15-K 1 5 - 0 1 6 - 0 16-N 16-L 16-P 35 reduce any possible e f f e c t s of pattern recognition on second l i s t performance, a s e r i a l / s p a t i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n design rather than a s e r i a l / s e r i a l t r ansfer design was used. For d i f f e r e n t groups of f i f t h - g r a d e Ss, the order of arrangements of the items i n the transfer task corresponded to a DL 0, DL^, DL^ or c o n t r o l paradigm with respect to t h e i r arrangement on the s e r i a l task. L i s t s were derived by the method shown i n Table 4. For the s e r i a l task, a l l Ss were required to reconstruct the order i n which a ho r i z o n t a l array of 12 p l a s t i c animals was presented. The entire stimulus array was exposed f o r 20 seconds on each t r i a l and then items were scrambled and r e -presented to S with i n s t r u c t i o n s to duplicate the o r i g i n a l order. This procedure was repeated u n t i l the subject was able to achieve two successive e r r o r l e s s reproductions of the sequence. Upon reaching c r i t e r i o n , Ss were administered one of three s p a t i a l tasks. For t h i s task, 12 cardboard cups, each of which covered one of the items used i n the s e r i a l task, were presented i n a row before each S i n each of the DL conditions. Subjects were asked to learn which cup contained each of the 12 animals. They were given f i v e seconds i n which to give a response f o r each cup before i t was ra i s e d to expose the appropriate item f o r one second. 36 Each S was given f i v e t r i a l s at the task. For c o n t r o l Ss, the method of presentation was the same, but the items i n the s p a t i a l task were d i f f e r e n t from those used i n the s e r i a l task. For the DLQ condition, the objects were placed i n the same p o s i t i o n as they held i n the s e r i a l task. The DL-^  and DLj Items were displaced from the positions held i n the s e r i a l task by one and three positions r e s p e c t i v e l y . Data were scored i n terms of the t o t a l number of errors on the transfer task. S i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e transfer was found f o r the DLQ condition and s i g n i f i c a n t negative transfer was indicated f o r the D L ^ condition. The performances of the con t r o l group and the DL^ group were approximately equal. A l l comparisons among the three d e r i v e d - l i s t conditions were s i g n i f i c a n t . Johnson interpreted the r e s u l t s as support f o r the hypothesis that DL performance i s a decreasing function of degree of remoteness as defined by intertask o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n r e l a t i o n s . k Another study reported by Johnson used a s e r i a l / s e r i a l transfer paradigm. Adult Ss learned a 16-item s e r i a l l i s t (composed of common adjectives) under a standard s e r i a l a n t i c i p a t i o n procedure. From a l6-item transfer l i s t , f i r s t - l i s t arrangements were derived i n terms 4. Johnson, i b i d . 37 in terms of i n t e r l i s t p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . These arrangements represented DLs of 1, 4, or 8 degrees of remoteness. Half of the words on the transfer task -those designated as experimental items - were c a r r i e d over from the f i r s t l i s t and were.placed i n positions appropriate to each d e r i v e d - l i s t condition. The remaining adjectives -the c o n t r o l items - were new to the subject; that i s , they had not appeared i n the f i r s t l i s t . For each d e r i v e d - l i s t condition there were two groups of subjects. For one group, experimental items occupied even positions i n the l i s t , and cont r o l items occupied odd pos i t i o n s , f o r the second group, t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was reversed. A c o n t r o l group learned a f i r s t l i s t i n which a l l items were unrelated to those used in the transfer task. Data were scored i n terms of the number of errors over ten t r i a l s . I n t r a l i s t comparisons of experimental and control items showed p o s i t i v e transfer for items representing a DL]_ paradigm and negative transfer for items representing DLk and DLs paradigms. Performance on c o n t r o l items did not d i f f e r across d e r i v e d - l i s t conditions. Performance i n the DL^ was s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than performance i n DLk or DLg f o r the experimental items. Performance on experimental items i n the DLk was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from that on experimental items in DLg. Compared to the performance of the c o n t r o l Ss, 38 a l l three DL groups showed s i g n i f i c a n t negative transfer on both experimental and control items. With the exception of the lack of differences between performance on the experimental items i n DL4 vs DLg, the r e s u l t s are i n agreement with a modified remote associations analysis of s e r i a l / s e r i a l transfer e f f e c t s . The heretofore rather puzzling f i n d i n g of Young, Hakes and Hicks ( 1965) may be explained by using the suggested modification of the remote associations concept. Posi t i v e transfer was found f o r an eight-item DL^ l i s t derived i n the conventional manner. However, performance on either a 12-item or 16-item DL^ l i s t r e f l e c t e d negative tr a n s f e r . C a l c u l a t i o n of the average degree of remoteness in terms of I n t e r l i s t p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s f o r a t r a d i t i o n a l l y derived 8 -item DL-j^  i s 1 . 5 0 . For a 12-item l i s t , the average degree of remoteness i s 2 . 5 0 . For a DL^ of 16-items, t r a d i t i o n a l l y derived, the average degree of p o s i t i o n a l remoteness i s 5 • 0 0 . It can therefore be seen that as the l i s t length increases, the average degree of p o s i t i o n a l remoteness increases and thus an increase i n the amount of negative transfer would be expected. Slamecka*s f a i l u r e to f i n d d i f f e r e n t i a l t ransfer e f f e c t s i n the t r a d i t i o n a l l y derived DL-» and h i s modified 39 DL]_ are to ; be expected in view of the present considerations. The average degree of p o s i t i o n a l change i n his DL]_ and modified DL^ conditions Is i d e n t i c a l , therefore no difference i n transfer would be predicted. If l i s t s are derived so that f o r a DL^ condition, the degree of p o s i t i o n a l remoteness of each item Is one, that f o r each item i n a DL 2 i s two, and that f o r each item i n a DL^ i S four, and i f transfer i s a function of p o s i t i o n a l change, a difference i n amount of transfer across conditions should be observed. The present experiment was designed to t e s t the above predictions using a s e r i a l / s e r i a l transfer design. L i s t s were derived so as to equalize the degree of I n t e r l i s t p o s i t i o n a l remoteness f o r each item In a given l i s t . That i s , a l l items i n the DL]_ condition were of one degree of remoteness; items i n the DL 2 group were of two degrees' of remoteness; while items i n the DLij. condition maintained four degrees of remoteness. The method of construction of these l i s t s i s shown In Table 4. An i n s t r u c t i o n v a r i a b l e was included i n the study. That i s , some Ss were Informed as to the manner i n which the items were arranged i n the second l i s t r e l a t i v e to f i r s t - l i s t p o s i t i o n s . Subjects informed as to the i n t e r l i s t p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s were ko expected to show greater amounts of po s i t i v e transfer than those Ss who were not instructed as to the p o s i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of the items across l i s t s . Method Subjects. Sixteen volunteer Ss served i n each of eight groups. Ss were male and female graduate students and senior undergraduate students at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. A l l Ss were naive to the task. The assignment of Ss was c a r r i e d out i n blocks of eight with one subject per block being randomly assigned to a given group. Within each of the blocks, assignment followed a d i f f e r e n t predetermined random ordering of the eight conditions. A l l Ss served i n d i v i d u a l l y . Materials and Design. A d i f f e r e n t set of materials was used f o r each of two r e p l i c a t i o n s . From each set of material four s e r i a l l i s t s were constructed - a transfer l i s t and three d i f f e r e n t f i r s t l i s t s . These l i s t s were composed of 16 two-syllable adjectives. For a given r e p l i c a t i o n , the transfer l i s t was the same f o r a l l Ss, with f i r s t - l i s t items being arranged so as to provide for four experimental conditions. There were four conditions of transfer defined by the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the f i r s t s e r i a l l i s t and the transfer l i s t . In condition DL^, the 41 transfer l i s t consisted of the 16 Items from the f i r s t l i s t placed either one p o s i t i o n before or one p o s i t i o n a f t e r the one held by the Item i n the f i r s t l i s t . That i s , i f items of the s e r i a l l i s t were represented by B, A, D, C,...etc., then the transfer l i s t would be constructed of items i n the order of A, B, C, D,...etc. In condition DL2, the transfer l i s t consisted of the appropriate 16 items from the f i r s t l i s t arranged so that each item was displaced two p o s i t i o n s . Thus, i f the f i r s t s e r i a l l i s t i s represented C, D, A, B, G, H, E, F,...etc., the t r a n s f e r order becomes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,...etc. S i m i l a r l y , DL^ items were arranged so that the t r a n s f e r items appeared eith e r four positions e a r l i e r or four positions l a t e r than they did i n the f i r s t l i s t . That i s , i f the f i r s t l i s t i s represented E, F, G, H, A, B, C, D,... etc., the transfer l i s t f o r the. DL^ i s A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H t • • • etc • Half of the experimental subjects were Instructed as to the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s e r i a l l i s t and the transfer task. The remaining Ss were not given information pertinent to the construction of the transfer l i s t . Subjects i n the control condition learned both transfer l i s t s - one as f i r s t - l i s t learning and the 42 o t h e r as the t r a n s f e r t a s k . H a l f of the c o n t r o l Ss l e a r n e d T r a n s f e r L i s t A f o l l o w e d by T r a n s f e r L i s t B, w h i l e the o t h e r h a l f r e v e r s e d the procedure. The desisr. ^ the s e r i a l l i s t s Is shown i n T a b l e 5. The a d j e c t i v e s used i n c o n s t r u c t i n g the l i s t s were taken from Hagen (1949) and from Melton (19 k0). A l l Items were s e l e c t e d and arranged so as to minimize meaningful and f o r m a l s i m i l a r i t y both w i t h i n and a c r o s s the two l i s t s . Items were presented on a L a f a y e t t e memory drum. Procedure. The s e r i a l l i s t s were pr e s e n t e d a t a 3-sec. r a t e w i t h a 6-sec. i n t e r t r i a l i n t e r v a l . L e a r n i n g o f a l l l i s t s was by the a n t i c i p a t i o n method. In a l l c o n d i t i o n s , Ss were r e q u i r e d to a t t a i n a c r i t e r i o n of two c o n s e c u t i v e p e r f e c t r e c i t a t i o n s on the f i r s t s e r i a l l i s t . F o l l o w i n g f i r s t - l i s t l e a r n i n g , a l l Ss were immediately a d m i n i s t e r e d the t r a n s f e r t a s k . Those Ss In the " i n s t r u c t e d " e x p e r i m e n t a l groups were Informed t h a t the words would be the same as those i n the l i s t they had j u s t l e a r n e d . The I n s t r u c t e d Ss were a l s o g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n as to the number of p o s i t i o n s each word would be changed i n the second l i s t r e l a t i v e to i t s p o s i t i o n In the f i r s t l i s t . C o n t r o l Ss and n o n - i n s t r u c t e d Ss were t o l d o n l y t h a t they would now l e a r n a second l i s t o f words. E l e v e n t r i a l s a t Table 5 S e r i a l L i s t s f o r DLj_, DL 2, DL£|,t and Control Conditions D L - L DL 2 • DL4 TRANSFER LIST A B A B A B A B Handy Upper Joyous Legal • Sudden Woven Exact Secret Exact Secret Timid Giant Yellow Overt Handy Upper Timid Giant Exact Secret Quiet Pious Joyous Legal Joyous Legal Handy Upper L i t t l e Basic Timid Giant Yellow Overt Quiet Pious Exact Secret Sudden Woven Sudden Woven L i t t l e Basic Handy Upper Yellow Overt L i t t l e Basic Sudden Woven Joyous Legal Quiet Pious Quiet Pious Yellow Overt Timid Giant L i t t l e Basic Vocal Daring Ready Inner Adept Major Yearly Funny Yearly Funny Outer Tired Frozen Erect Vocal Daring Outer Ti r e d Yearly Funny Kindly Naive Ready Inner Ready Inner Vocal Daring Bored Aware Outer Tired Frozen Erect Kindly Naive Yearly Funny Adept Major Adept Major Bored Aware Vocal Daring Frozen Erect Bored Aware Adept Major Ready Inner Kindly Naive Kindly Naive Frozen Erect Outer Tired Bored Aware kk the transfer task were given to each S with no response being required f o r the f i r s t presentation of the l i s t . Data were compiled over ten transfer t r i a l s . Upon completion of the transfer task, a l l experimental Ss were given a mimeographed sheet which showed the f i r s t l i s t appropriate to the condition represented by a column of l e t t e r s , A, B, C, D,... M, N, 0, P. Subjects were asked to reproduce the new order of the items as they appeared i n the transfer task. Subjects were given two minutes to complete t h i s task. The t o t a l number of errors was calculated f o r each subject. Results Comparison of the four groups (collapsed across r e p l i c a t i o n s ) i n terms of t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n on the f i r s t l i s t was used as a means of assessing possible differences i n i n i t i a l a b i l i t y . The o v e r a l l mean number of t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n was 10.82. The range was 10.17 to 11. k7. Analysis of variance indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among conditions, F(3, 124)<1. Early transfer e f f e c t s . Performance on the transfer task was examined i n terms of the number of errors on the f i r s t transfer t r i a l . The mean numbers of errors during the f i r s t transfer t r i a l f o r the Instructed 45 subjects i n the f i r s t - , second- and fourth-order derived l i s t s were, respectively, 7.51, 9.75 and 5.^3. The mean numbers of errors f o r the non-instructed Ss f o r the f i r s t t ransfer t r i a l i n the DL^, DL 2 and DL4 groups were, resp e c t i v e l y , 10.48, 11.03 and 8.43, The mean number of f i r s t - t r i a l errors f o r the control Ss was 12,26, The mean numbers of f i r s t - t r i a l errors f o r the instructed Ss and the non-instructed Ss, collapsed over a l l DLs, were, res p e c t i v e l y , 7.56 and 9.98. Analysis of variance indicated that the e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t (F=20.07, df=l, 121; p<.01). The mean numbers of f i r s t t r i a l errors f o r Ss i n the DL-j_, DL 2 and D L 4 and con t r o l groups were, res p e c t i v e l y , 8.99, 10.39, 6.93 and 12.25. Analysis of variance indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference among groups (F=21.29, df=3, 121; p<.01). The i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s of the Instructions and Conditions f a c t o r s were not s i g n i f i c a n t , ( F = l , l 6 , df=2, 1 2 1 ) , Palrwise comparisons among the four conditions based on Newman-Keuls' procedure indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p<.01) between the DLi and DL 2 tasks and between the DLi). and DL 2 tasks. Both the DLi and DL^ conditions were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the con t r o l condition (p<.01). The DL-^  vs DL^ comparison did not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e . 46 Overall transfer e f f e c t s . Performance on the transfer task was examined In term3 of number of errors over ten transfer t r i a l s . The mean numbers of errors over ten t r i a l s f o r the instructed Ss In the f i r s t - , second-and fourth-order derived l i s t s were, res p e c t i v e l y , 2 3 . 6 9 , 33*50 and 18 . 2 0 . The mean numbers of errors over ten t r i a l s f o r the non-Instructed Ss were, respectively, 38.44, 48 .00 and 41 . 5 6 . The mean number of errors f o r the co n t r o l group was 50.41. The mean numbers of errors f o r the ten transfer t r i a l s (collapsed over DL conditions) were 2 5 . 1 3 f o r the Instructed Ss and 42 .66 f o r the non-instructed Ss. Analysis of variance indicated that t h i s difference was s i g n i f i c a n t (F=18.46, df=l, 1 2 1 ; p< , 0 1 ) . The mean numbers of errors f o r Ss i n the DL l f DL2 and DL^ and cont r o l groups were, respectively, 3 1 . 0 7 , 40 . 7 5 . 2 9 . 8 8 and 5 0 . 3 9 . Analysis of variance indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences among conditions (F - 1 5 . 2 7 , df= 3 , 1 2 1 , p< . 0 1 ) . The Interactive e f f e c t s of the Instructions and Conditions factors were not s i g n i f i c a n t (F= . 0 2 , df= 3 , 1 2 1 ) . Multiple comparisons among the four conditions according to Newman-Keuls' procedure indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p .<01) between the DL-j_ and DI>2 conditions and between the DL^ and DL 2 conditions. Both 47 the DLi and DL^ conditions d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the cont r o l group. (p<.01). The DL^ vs DL^ comparison did not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e . Performance curves f o r the three DL conditions (collapsed over l e v e l s of the in s t r u c t i o n s variable) and the control group are presented i n Figure 1 in terms of number of errors at each p o s i t i o n over ten transfer t r i a l s . The pattern recognition task responses were scored i n terms of the number of errors at each po s i t i o n f o r each subject. The mean numbers of errors for the Instructed Ss in the f i r s t - , second- and fourth-order derived l i s t s were, resp e c t i v e l y , I . 6 3 , 4 . 2 5 and 2 . 8 9 . The mean numbers of errors f o r the non-instructed Ss i n the DL^, DL 2 and DLZf groups were, res p e c t i v e l y , 8 . 7 5 , 14.81 and 9 . 9 4 . The mean numbers of errors f o r the instructed and non-instructed Ss, collapsed over the three experimental conditions, were 2.92 and 11 .16 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Analysis of variance indicated that t h i s difference was s i g n i f i c a n t (F= 7 1 . 6 l , df=l, 90; p<.01). The mean numbers of errors f o r Ss i n the DL-^ , DL 2 and DL^ groups were, respectively, 5«19» 9 . 5 4 and 6.44. Analysis of variance indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference among conditions (F=7.04, df=2, 9 0 ; pc.Ol). The Conditions by Instructions i n t e r a c t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=1.4l, df=2, 90). Pairwise 48 co cC o £. cC Ui o CC Ui 3 _ _ UJ 5 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 2.00 1 . 0 0 ,00 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 f " 5 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 S e r i a l Position F i g . 1. Mean number of errors at each p o s i t i o n over ten transfer t r i a l s 49 comparisons with the Newman-Keuls test indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p<.01) between the DL^ and DL 2 conditions and between the DL^ and DL 2 conditions. The difference between the DL-^  and DL^ tasks did not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e . Discussion The r e s u l t s of the present study indicate that p o s i t i v e transfer i n the DL-^  and DL^ groups, when compared to the c o n t r o l group, i s obtained i n the s e r i a l / s e r i a l paradigm. The DI^ performance was s l i g h t l y superior to performance by c o n t r o l Ss, but t h i s difference does not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e . There i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n the data of negative transfer i n either the instructed or the non-instructed condition. The r e s u l t s of the present study cannot be adequately interpreted from either a sequential association or o r d i n a l position point of view. The chaining hypothesis cannot be used to account for the difference between the DL^ and the DL 2 conditions. The f i n d i n g that performance on the DL^ l i s t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than that on the DL 2 l i s t i s i n accordance with a sequential association i n t e r p r e t a t i o n since, i n the DL^ condition, there are twice as many sequential associations c a r r i e d over from f i r s t -l i s t learning to the transfer task, as there are i n the DL 0 50 condition. However, i f the preceding item i s the e f f e c t i v e stimulus i n s e r i a l learning, then DL^ performance should he greatly superior to DL^ performance, as there are four times as many sequential associations maintained across tasks f o r DL^ than fo r DL-^ . The data, however, indicate no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the DL^ and DL^ conditions. Neither can the r e s u l t s be considered as strong support f o r the o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n hypothesis. The superior performance of the DL-^  subjects, compared with the performance of the DL^ subjects, i s i n agreement with t h i s view. That Is, the DL^ items were displaced one po s i t i o n i n the transfer task r e l a t i v e to f i r s t - l i s t learning, while items i n the DL 2 condition were removed two positions r e l a t i v e to the f i r s t - l i s t learning. However, the superior performance of Ss i n the DL^ condition (for which items were displaced four positions i n the transfer task r e l a t i v e to f i r s t - l i s t learning) over the performance of Ss i n the DL 2 condition (for which items were displaced two positions i n the transfer task r e l a t i v e to f i r s t - l i s t learning), cannot be adequately interpreted from an o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n standpoint. In an unpublished d i s s e r t a t i o n , Shiryon ( 1965) reported a study i n which second-grade Ss learned three s e r i a l l i s t s of common pic t u r e s . One group, E^, learned a 51 l i s t symbolized A-B-C--D-1-2-3-4, and then a l i s t symbolized 5-6-7-8-E-F-G-H. A second group, E 2 , l e a r n e d a l i s t symbolized 1-2-3-4-A-B-C-D f o l l o w e d by a . l i s t E-F-G-H - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8. Both groups then l e a r n e d a t h i r d l i s t , A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H. A c o n t r o l group l e a r n e d two u n r e l a t e d s e r i a l l i s t s and then l e a r n e d the A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H l i s t common to the o t h e r two groups. The p o s i t i o n s of Items i n the f i r s t two l i s t s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r p o s i t i o n s i n the subsequent t e s t l i s t f o r group E l , but were not c o n s i s t e n t f o r group E 2 . The o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n h y p o t h e s i s would l e a d to the p r e d i c t i o n t h a t , s i n c e E]_ items r e t a i n the same s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s , p o s i t i v e t r a n s f e r should o c c u r f o r t h i s group. As the E 2 items change s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s , n e g a t i v e t r a n s f e r should r e s u l t . The c h a i n i n g h y p o t h e s i s i m p l i e s no d i f f e r e n c e between groups, s i n c e the same number of a p p r o p r i a t e a s s o c i a t i o n s may be assumed to be formed between items i n each c o n d i t i o n . On the b a s i s o f the c h a i n i n g h y p o t h e s i s , s u p e r i o r performance o f both E l and E 2 , as compared to the c o n t r o l group, would be p r e d i c t e d . S h l r y o n ' s r e s u l t s were i n agreement w i t h the c h a i n i n g h y p o t h e s i s . However, Young (1968) p o i n t s out t h a t there may be another, e q u a l l y p l a u s i b l e , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s . Jensen (1962) suggested t h a t s e r i a l l e a r n i n g i n v o l v e s a process o f response I n t e g r a t i o n . That i s , the 52 items i n a l i s t are given some p a r t i c u l a r sequence by the subject without each item's being e x c l u s i v e l y dependent upon a s p e c i f i c e l i c i t i n g stimulus or cue. Slamecka (196k) suggested that s e r i a l Items are f i x e d i n t h e i r r e l a t i v e positions i n the l i s t by means of being associated with a subject-generated sequential or s p a t i a l symbol (such as f i r s t , second, etc.) rather than through being associated with each other. Young states that both the Jensen and Slamecka hypotheses may be distinguished from the o r d i n a l -p o s i t i o n hypothesis by noting that i t i s the r e l a t i v e o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n which i s stressed i n t h e i r analyses. Young suggests that the po s i t i o n hypothesis could be used to i n t e r p r e t Shlryon's data i f i t i s assumed that the r e l a t i v e , rather than the absolute, p o s i t i o n of the item i n the s e r i a l l i s t Is the func t i o n a l stimulus. P o s i t i o n a l associations may be assumed to be the basis of the transfer e f f e c t s observed i n the present study i f one assumes that S's knowledge of absolute positions of the items during f i r s t - l i s t learning may be used during the transfer task when r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n Is the appropriate cue. The f a c t that subjects may have learned the appropriate o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n of the items i n the f i r s t l i s t and transferred t h i s knowledge to the second 53 task i s most evident i n the data f o r the DL^ _ condition. The data f o r t h i s condition (see Pig. 1) show more errors at positions 5» 9 and 1 3 , p*d. fewer errors at the remaining positions than would be expected i f the items were not i n contiguous c l u s t e r s . Although DL^ items were displaced four positions r e l a t i v e to the f i r s t l i s t i n terms of absolute position, items were transferred i n blocks of four with only four of the 16 items occupying a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n on the transfer task. It may be that the Items at positions 5 , 9 and 13 are the only Items which the subject has to "re-learn" i n the D L 4 transfer condition. Once he has learned the new positions of these four items, the remaining items In each s u b l i s t follow In the same r e l a t i v e positions as they held i n the f i r s t l i s t . Thus the subject might somehow view the transfer task as c o n s i s t i n g of four, more or l e s s d i s t i n c t , blocks, or four small s e r i a l l i s t s , where the r e l a t i v e o r d i n a l positions f o r items within each block are maintained across l i s t s . One i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s of the pattern recognition task i s that the t r a n s f e r - l i s t pattern Is more e a s i l y recognized when successive pairs of items change positions (DL-^) or when blocks of four items change 54 positions (DLk). The s u p e r i o r i t y of DLk performance over the DL 2 performance might also r e f l e c t S*s knowledge of the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n as well as the absolute p o s i t i o n of items. It seems to be easier f o r the subject to r e p l i c a t e the pattern i f every p a i r of items i s reversed (DL-^J or i f the items are rearranged i n f a i r l y large c l u s t e r s (DLk). The e f f e c t s of the Instructions v a r i a b l e were not found to be d i f f e r e n t i a l among conditions. However, on the basis of the present study, i t can be concluded that i n s t r u c t i o n s Is an important v a r i a b l e which can increase the amount of p o s i t i v e transfer i n s e r i a l learning regardless of l i s t d i f f i c u l t y . This f i n d i n g may also be i n agreement with the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n hypothesis i f one assumes that the i n s t r u c t i o n s might have helped S to a r t i c u l a t e the absolute p o s i t i o n cues i n f i r s t - l i s t learning and thus f a c i l i t a t e the use of his knowledge of the r e l a t i v e positions of the items i n the transfer task. It may therefore be concluded that the r e s u l t s of the present study are not compatible with either the sequential or the o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n hypothesis of s e r i a l learning, but may be interpreted as providing evidence supporting a r e l a t i v e o r d i n a l - p o s i t i o n hypothesis. However, i t would appear that the s e r i a l / s e r i a l t r a n s f e r paradigm 55 i s not an adequate one to t e s t implications of the o r d i n a l -p o s i t i o n hypothesis. One possible suggestion might be to re-design the study using a s e r i a l / s p a t i a l transfer task so that the temporal order of second-list items i s varied from t r i a l to t r i a l , thus reducing the p o s s i b i l i t y that the subject recognizes entire blocks of items c a r r i e d over from f i r s t - l i s t learning to the t r a n s f e r task. 56 References B a t t i g , W.F., Brown, S.C. and S c h i l d , M.E., " S e r i a l p o s i t i o n and sequential associations i n s e r i a l learning". Journal of  Experimental Psychology. 1 9 6 4 , 6_2, No. 5 , 4 4 9 - 4 5 7 . Bugelski, B.R., "A remote association explanation of the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of learning nonsense s y l l a b l e s i n a s e r i a l l i s t " , Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1 9 5 0 , 4 0 , 3 3 6 - 3 4 8 . Bugelski, B.R., "In defense of remote associations", Psychological Review. 1 9 6 5 , 2_» 1 6 9 - 1 7 4 . Dey, M.K., "Generalization of p o s i t i o n association In rote s e r i a l learning", American Journal of Psychology, 1 9 7 0 , 8_3_, 2 4 8 - 2 5 5 . Ebbinghaus, H., "Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology','. Trans, by H.A. Ruger and C E . Bussenius, New York, Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1 9 1 3 . Ebenholtz, S.M., " P o s i t i o n a l cues as mediators i n discrim-i n a t i o n learning", Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1 9 6 5 , 20, 1 7 6 - 1 8 1 . 57 Haagan, C H . "Synonymity, vividness, f a m i l i a r i t y and association value r a t i n g of 400 pairs of common adjectives", Journal of Psychology, 1 9 4 9 , 2J_, 4 5 3 - 4 6 3 . Hakes, D.T., James, C.T. and Young, R.K., "A re-examination of the Ebbinghaus d e r i v e d - l i s t paradigm'; Journal of  Experimental Psychology, 1964, 6 8 , 5 0 8 - 5 1 4 . Hakes, D.T., and Young, R.K., "Theoretical note: on remote associations and the Interpretation of d e r i v e d - l i s t experiments" Psychological Review, 1 9 6 6 , £3_» 248 - 2 5 1 . H u l l , C.L. et a l "Mathematlco-Deductlve Theory of Rote  Learning - A Study In S c i e n t i f i c Methodology", New Haven, Conns Yale Uni v e r s i t y Press, 1940. Jensen, A.R., "Temporal and s p a t i a l e f f e c t s of s e r i a l position", American Journal of Psychology, 1 9 6 2 , 2Ji* 390-400. Jensen, A.R., and Rohwer, W.D., "What i s learned i n s e r i a l learning", Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1 9 6 5 , 4 , 6 2 - 7 2 . Johnson, G.J., "Sequential and p o s i t i o n a l cues i n s e r i a l to paired associate transfer", American Journal of Psychology, 1 9 7 2 , 8£, 3 2 5 - 3 3 7 . 5 8 Lepley, W.M., " S e r i a l reactions considered as conditioned reactions", Psychological Monographs, 1 9 3 4 , 4 6 , 1 . McGeoch, J.A., "The duration and extent of i n t r a - s e r l a l associations and r e c a l l " , American Journal of Psychology, 1 9 3 6 , 4 8 , 2 2 1 - 2 4 5 , Melton, A.W,, "Materials f o r use i n experimental studies of learning and rete n t i o n of verbal habits". Mimeographed manuscript, University of Missouri, 1 9 4 0 , Postman, L,, and Stark, K., "Studies of learning to learn, I.V. Transfer from s e r i a l to paired-associate learning", Journal  of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1 9 6 7 , 6 , 3 3 9 - 3 5 3 . Shiryon, M., "A test of the s e r i a l - p o s i t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of verbal s e r i a l rote learning", Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 6 5 * Shuell, T.J,, and Keppel, G., "A further test of the chaining hypothesis of s e r i a l learning", Journal of Verbal Learning  and Verbal Behavior. 1 9 6 7 , 6 , 4 3 9 - 4 4 5 . Slamecka, N.J,, "In inquiry into the doctrine of remote associations", Psychological Review, 1 9 6 4 , 7_1» 6 1 - 7 6 . 59 Woodworth, R.S., and Poffenberger, A.T. Textbook of  Experimental Psychology, Columbia University L i b r a r y , 1 9 2 0 , as c i t e d in Ebenholtz, 1 9 6 5 . Young, R.K., "Tests of three hypotheses about the e f f e c t i v e stimulus i n s e r i a l learning", Journal of Experimental  Psychology. 1 9 6 2 , 6 3 . , 3 0 7 - 3 1 3 . Young, R.K., "The stimulus i n s e r i a l verbal learning", American Journal of Psychology. 1 9 6 1 , 5 1 7 - 5 2 8 . Young, R.K., " S e r i a l learning", i n T.R. Dixon and D.L. Horton (eds) "Verbal Behavior and General Behavior Theory',' Englewood C l i f f s , N.J., Prentice H a l l , 1968, 122-148. Young, R.K., Hakes, D.T., and Hicks, R.Y., " e f f e c t s of l i s t length in the Ebbinghaus d e r i v e d - l i s t paradigm", Journal of  Experimental Psychology. 1 9 6 5 , Z9_» 338-341. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101786/manifest

Comment

Related Items