The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Satiation of mediator in the A-B, B-C, A-C, mediation paradigm Jamieson, John Leslie 1967

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_1967_A8 J36.pdf [ 2.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104819.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104819-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104819-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104819-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104819-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104819-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104819-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104819-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104819.ris

Full Text

SATIATION OF A MEDIATOR IN THE A-B, B-C, A-C, MEDIATION PARADIGM by JOHN LESLIE JAMIESON B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the re q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1967 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h . Columbia,, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study, I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission., f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8 , Canada Date_ - Fi=fh. ^ T%Z. i ABSTRACT The e f f e c t of semantic s a t i a t i o n of the mediator on A-C l e a r n i n g was i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the 'A-B, B-C, A-C mediation paradigm. The p o s s i b i l i t y of e v a l u a t i n g the "pseudomediation" proposal i s di s c u s s e d . Two experiments were conducted, both y i e l d i n g the same r e s u l t s : mediated p a i r s were learned more e a s i l y than non-mediated p a i r s , and s a t i a t i o n d i d not appear to have any e f f e c t . The "pseudomediation" hypothesis was not t e s t e d , and s e v e r a l explanations are o f f e r e d f o r the apparent f a i l u r e of s a t i a t i o n . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS D Page ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i LIST OF TABLES i i i ACKNOWLEDGMENT i v CHAPTER I Int r o d u c t i o n and Statement of the Problem 1 CHAPTER II METHOD 16 Experiment 1 16 Design 16 M a t e r i a l s 16 Procedure 18 Subjects 20 Results 20 Experiment II 25 Design 25 M a t e r i a l s 28 Procedure 28 Subjects 28 Result s 30 CHAPTER III DISCUSSION 38 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS 47 BIBLIOGRAPHY 48 i i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 The Treatment Conditions of Experiment I 17 TABLE 2 The Mean Number of E r r o r s f o r Each Condition on Each L i s t i n Experiment I 21 TABLE 3 A n a l y s i s of Variance of the Second L i s t Values i n Experiment I 23 TABLE 4 A n a l y s i s of Variance of the T h i r d L i s t Values i n Experiment I 24 TABLE 5 The Mean Number of E r r o r s i n Each Condition of the T h i r d L i s t i n Experiment I f o r Each Awareness Le v e l 26 TABLE 6 A n a l y s i s of Variance of the T h i r d L i s t Data i n E x p e r i -ment I Showing the E f f e c t of Awareness 27 TABLE 7 The Four Groups i n E x p e r i -ment II 29 TABLE 8 Means f o r the Four Groups i n Experiment II 31 TABLE 9 A n a l y s i s of the Second L i s t Data f o r Experiment II 32 TABLE 10 Comparisons of T h i r d L i s t Means i n Experiment II 34 TABLE 11 T h i r d L i s t Means and Group Sizes f o r Each of the Aware-ness Levels i n Experiment II 35 TABLE 12 T h i r d L i s t Means with the S a t i a t e d Groups Combined .36 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENT I am g r a t e f u l f o r the suggestions and c r i t i c i s m s P r o f e s s o r s R.D. Hare and W.M. P e t r u s i c . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The l e a r n i n g of a p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l i s t i s f a c i l i t a t e d when the s t i m u l i e l i c i t a s s o c i a t i o n s which may a i d i n "hooking up" the stimulus and response items (Underwood and Schulz, I960) For example, when l e a r n i n g the p a i r KAG - DRINK, the s y l l a b l e KAG could e l i c i t the word "KEG" as an a s s o c i a t e , and t h i s a s s o c i a t e might f a c i l i t a t e the l e a r n i n g of the o r i g i n a l p a i r (Kausler, 1966). In t h i s example the word "keg" i s c a l l e d a "mediating a s s o c i a t i o n " or "mediator". The extent to which the mediator f a c i l i t a t e s l e a r n i n g can be i n v e s t i g a t e d by manipulatin the s t r e n g t h of the a s s o c i a t i o n s of the mediator to both the stimulus and response terms. This can be done i n e i t h e r of two ways. The f i r s t method of c o n t r o l l i n g the st r e n g t h of a s s o c i a t i o n s i s to s e l e c t items from word norms where the r e l a -t i v e strengths of the a s s o c i a t i o n s have been predetermined. The other method i s to have the subjects l e a r n the items as a p a i r beforehand. This l a t t e r method allows use of a wider range of m a t e r i a l s (even items which were p r e v i o u s l y unrelated) and over-comes the discomfort some authors (e.g. Mandler, 1963) f e e l about i n f e r r i n g the language habits of i n d i v i d u a l s from popula-t i o n norms. In c o n v e n t i o n a l n o t a t i o n , the stimulus and response terms (e.g. KAG and DRINK) are c a l l e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y , A and C, while the mediator i s c a l l e d B. The l e a r n i n g of A and C i s thus seen to take place through the chain A — B — C . In t h i s example both a s s o c i a t i o n s to the mediator (A-B and B-C) would have to be i n f e r r e d . Mediation i s u s u a l l y i n v e s t i g a t e d by means of m o d i f i c a t i o n s of t h i s simple paradigm which i n v o l v e b u i l d i n g i n some of the a s s o c i a t i o n s by l e a r n i n g other l i s t s beforehand and/or i n c r e a s i n g the number of mediating a s s o c i a t i o n s . The f i r s t major v a r i a t i o n , where one of the a s s o c i a t i o n s i s b u i l t i n beforehand, i s r e f e r r e d to as a p o s i t i v e transfer, paradigm. In an e a r l y study using t h i s paradigm, Sacks and R u s s e l l (1953) had the su b j e c t s l e a r n A-B (e.g. ZUG-TABLE). They i n f e r r e d the B-C a s s o c i a t i o n from norms (TABLE-CHAIR) and then had the su b j e c t s l e a r n A-C (ZUG-CHAIR). The group which learned both the A-B and the A-C l i s t s l earned the A-C l i s t much f a s t e r than a group which learned only the A-C l i s t , pre-sumably because they were able to make use of the mediators (e.g. TABLE). Another important paradigm i s the four-stage mediation one where both of the a s s o c i a t i o n s to one of the mediators are i n f e r r e d from norms. The chairr.is A—Bj—B2-C where A-Bi i s lea r n e d beforehand, Bj_ - B2 and B2 - C are i n f e r r e d from norms and A-C i s the t e s t l i s t . This paradigm was f i r s t used by R u s s e l l and 5torms (1955) and they found strong f a c i l i t a t i o n f o r the mediated p a i r s . An example of one of t h e i r items i s : given from norms: SOLDIER-SAILOR: SAILOR-NAVY l e a r n : ZUG-SOLDIER t e s t : ZUG-NAVY - 3 -This y i e l d s the chain ZUG-SQLDIER-SAILOR-NAVY, or A - B 1 - B 2 - C ; where i s completely i n f e r r e d . The t h i r d and probably most important mediation paradigm i s r e f e r r e d to as the A-B, B-C, A-C paradigm. The s u b j e c t s l e a r n three l i s t s : the f i r s t A-B, the second B-C, and then the t e s t l i s t A-C. None of the a s s o c i a t i o n s i s i n f e r r e d from norms; they are a l l b u i l t i n — the A, B and C terms were pre-v i o u s l y u n r e l a t e d . The f i r s t study using t h i s paradigm was by B u g e l s k i and Scharlock (1952). They used nonsense s y l l a b l e s (e.g. FUJ-MUP-QEH) and found s i g n i f i c a n t f a c i l i t a t i o n f o r mediated p a i r s . The A-C l i s t i s u s u a l l y found to be learned more r e a d i l y by the mediated group (which learned A-B, B-C, A-C) than by a non-mediated c o n t r o l group (which learned A-B, D-C, A-C where B and D are u n r e l a t e d ) . However a great deal of controversy has a r i s e n concerning the mechanism underlying t h i s f a c i l i t a t i o n , and i t i s with t h i s controversy that t h i s paper i s p r i m a r i l y concerned. A conventional mediation model exp l a i n s t h i s f a c i l i t a t i o n i n the same manner as i t explains the f a c i l i t a t i o n i n the previous paradigms: when l e a r n i n g A-C, A e l i c i t s B which e l i c i t s C and t h e r e f o r e A-C i s l e a r n e d e a s i e r than by a c o n t r o l group which doesn't have the mediator B (e.g. Horton and Kjeldergaard, 1961). Mandler and Earhard (1964) proposed the f o l l o w i n g a l t e r -n a t i v e explanation f o r the s u p e r i o r performance of the - A -experimental group i n t h i s l a t t e r paradigm. Studies of negative t r a n s f e r have shown that when the same item i s p a i r e d with two d i f f e r e n t (unrelated) items on two l i s t s the l e a r n i n g of the second p a i r i s hindered as a r e s u l t of l e a r n i n g the f i r s t p a i r , (e.g. Osgood, 1953). Other s t u d i e s have shown that t h i s im-pairment i s accompanied by e x t i n c t i o n of the previous a s s o c i a -t i o n s ( i . e . the connection between the f i r s t p a i r i s broken down) (e.g. Barnes and Underwood, 1959). The o r i g i n a l a s s o c i a -t i o n i n t e r f e r e s with the l e a r n i n g of the new a s s o c i a t i o n and the f i r s t item i s f o r g o t t e n as the new l e a r n i n g progresses. Because of these f i n d i n g s the l e a r n i n g of the second l i s t f o r the e x p e r i -mental c o n d i t i o n (B-C) should take longer, and the A-B a s s o c i a -t i o n s should be weakened more than i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n (D-C). Both these p r e d i c t i o n s have been confirmed (Earhard and Handler, 1965,a). Continuing t h i s a n a l y s i s to the t h i r d l i s t and assuming that mediation doesn't occur, the A-B a s s o c i a t i o n s of the experimental group, having been weakened as a r e s u l t of second l i s t l e a r n i n g , w i l l provide l e s s i n t e r f e r e n c e i n l e a r n i n g A-C than the A-B a s s o c i a t i o n s of the c o n t r o l group, and the t e s t l i s t should t h e r e f o r e be learned more r a p i d l y by the experimental group than by the c o n t r o l group. Moreover the c o n t r o l group has two i n t e r f e r i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s (B and D) while the experimental group only has one (B). There i s evidence (Beecroft, 1956; McCullers, 1963) that the ease with which a s s o c i a t i o n s are ac-quired i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to the number of i n t e r f e r i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s , and s u p e r i o r performance by the experimental group should be expected f o r t h i s reason a l s o . The above i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f e r s two reasons why the experimental group should show s u p e r i o r performance to the c o n t r o l group even i f mediation doesn't occur. Moreover the mediation i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r e s t s on the assumption that a s s o c i a -t i o n s acquired on the f i r s t two l i s t s are r e t a i n e d and f a c i l i -t a t e the l e a r n i n g of the l a s t l i s t , yet the evidence from negative t r a n s f e r s t u d i e s suggests that t h i s assumption may not be reasonable. Earhard and Mandler (1965,b) extend t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to cover a l l eight v a r i a t i o n s of t h i s paradigm (Horton and Kjel d e r g a a r d , 1961). However, they allow that mediation does occur i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s ; these are: when the acquired a s s o c i a t i o n s are overlearned, when the a s s o c i a t i o n s are pre-e s t a b l i s h e d ( i . e . I n f e r r e d from word norms), or when task com-p l e x i t y and memory loa d are s m a l l . In these s i t u a t i o n s i n t e r -l i s t i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s and f o r g e t t i n g are reduced to a l e v e l that w i l l permit med i a t i o n a l processes to occur. However, they argue that these mediational processes can best be viewed as conceptual s t r a t e g i e s . In t h i s conceptual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n they propose t h a t : "there i s not a s i n g l e underlying mediating , mechanism, but r a t h e r , f o r an adult subject, many d i f f e r e n t mechanisms. A response can be mediated by any l o g i c a l or q u a s i - l o g i c a l conceptual s t r u c t u r e the subject chooses to use....These c o g n i t i v e or conceptual s t r u c -tures i n c l u d e at one extreme f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e language habits such as having a s s o c i a t e d words immediately a v a i l a b l e when a stimulus i s presented, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of " c h a i r " , "wood", "noun", upon the pr e s e n t a t i o n of - 6 -" t a b l e " f o r example, and ap p r o p r i a t e i n -s t r u c t i o n s . At a more complex l e v e l they i n c l u d e such conceptual r u l e s as the l o -g i c a l t r a n s i t i v i t y p r i n c i p l e : I f ( I f A then B) and ( I f B then C) then ( I f A then B).» (p. 371). In o p p o s i t i o n to the mediation model i n which i t i s assumed that an a s s o c i a t i o n can be e s t a b l i s h e d i n d i r e c t l y be-tween two v e r b a l u n i t s by a s s o c i a t i n g each unit independently with a t h i r d v e r b a l u n i t , Earhard and Handler (1965,b) propose that "mediated f a c i l i t a t i o n " r e s u l t s from e i t h e r conceptual s t r a t e g y or i n t e r l i s t i n t e r f e r e n c e (which they term pseudo-mediation). The evidence f o r and against t h i s pseudomediation i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and a p o s s i b l e t e s t of i t are presented below. The pseudomediation proposal and the f i r s t evidence f o r i t appeared i n an a r t i c l e by Handler and Earhard (1964). They compared the performance of an experimental group (A-B, B-C, A-E) with that of a c o n t r o l group (A-B, D-C, A-E). I f f a c i l i -t a t i o n could be demonstrated i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i t could only be due to i n t e r l i s t i n t e r f e r e n c e s i n c e "mediation as convention-a l l y conceived cannot a f f e c t the a c q u i s i t i o n , o f the t e s t l i s t s i n c e a new response item i s used." (P. 247). The experimental group showed s u p e r i o r performance on the A-E l i s t as Mandler and Earhard had p r e d i c t e d ; t h i s s u p e r i o r performance i s r e f e r r e d to as the "pseudomediation e f f e c t " . In another study (Earhard and Mandler, 1965,a), the pseudomediation e f f e c t was r e p l i c a t e d along with the demonstra-t i o n (by means of a matching task) that the A-B a s s o c i a t i o n s - 7 -were weakened i n the experimental group a f t e r the l e a r n i n g of the B-C l i s t . Three other s t u d i e s (Jenkins and Foss, 1965; Schulz, Weaver and Ginsberg, 1965; and Goulet and Postman, 1966) f a i l e d to r e p l i c a t e the pseudomediation e f f e c t and two of them showed strong mediational e f f e c t s i n the absence of f a c i l i t a t i o n due to pseudomediation. The d i s c r e -pancy between these two sets of r e s u l t s was a t t r i b u t e d to " s u b t l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n technique" (Goulet and Postman, 1966). Whether or not pseudomediation occurs, and the extent to which i t accounts f o r conventional "mediational" f i n d i n g s was not determined by t h i s s e r i e s of s t u d i e s . A d i f f e r e n t method f o r e v a l u a t i n g pseudomediation i s needed, one which w i l l remain w i t h i n the conventional mediation paradigm. A more d i r e c t t e s t of the pseudomediation hypothesis could be made by decreasing the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the mediator ( i . e . weakening the a s s o c i a t i o n s of B to A and C). I f t h i s f a c i l i -t a t e d l e a r n i n g of the A-C l i s t then the pseudomediation hypo-t h e s i s would be supported; i f i t hindered t e s t l i s t performance then the mediation model would be supported. A p o s s i b l e means of decreasing the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the mediator i s suggested by the research on semantic s a t i a t i o n . "Semantic s a t i a t i o n i s the l o s s of a word's meaning which comes about through i t s continued r e p e t i t i o n or prolonged i n s p e c t i o n " (Amster, 1964, P. 273). One of the f i r s t measures of t h i s l o s s of meaning was the change i n the type of a s s o c i a -t i o n s given to the s a t i a t e d word. Smith and Raygor (1956) - 8 -found that the a s s o c i a t i o n s given to a word f o l l o w i n g prolonged v i s u a l exposure were not the common a s s o c i a t i o n s to the word. This r e s u l t was also found f o r the v e r b a l r e p e t i t i o n of the word (Wertheimer and G i l l i s , 1958; Kanungo and Lambert, 1963,a). Fillenbaum (1963) found that r e p e t i t i o n of a synonym of the t e s t word a l s o r e s u l t e d i n unusual word a s s o c i a t i o n s to the t e s t word. Moreover he found that r e p e t i t i o n of a synonym gave more unusual a s s o c i a t i o n s than di d r e p e t i t i o n of the t e s t word i t s e l f . This f i n d i n g suggested that the e f f e c t of s a t i a -t i o n i n c r e a s e s as the meaning of the repeated word becomes l e s s s i m i l a r to the t e s t word and i s contrary to the usual concept of a gradient of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n where the e f f e c t of any t r e a t -ment decreases as the s i m i l a r i t y of the item decreases. This study was repeated by Gumenik and Spencer (1965) who found that l o w - r e l a t e d synonyms gave even r a r e r a s s o c i a t i o n s than h i g h - r e l a t e d synonyms. They concluded that "changes i n the meaning of words f o l l o w i n g continued r e p e t i t i o n of t h e i r syno-nyms are due to set and not g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of v e r b a l s a t i a t i o n . . . . R e p e t i t i o n of a synonym to the t e s t word sets S_ to r e -spond to the t e s t word i n terms of the meaning which the synonym shares with the t e s t word" (P. 289-290). It seems reasonable to conclude that g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of s a t i a t i o n can not be r e l i a b l y demonstrated by the word a s s o c i a t i o n technique. Nevertheless, the change i n the type of a s s o c i a t i o n s given to the repeated word i t s e l f seems to be a f a i r l y r e l i a b l e index of s a t i a t i o n ; the only reported f a i l u r e to obtain s a t i a t i o n - 9 -e f f e c t s using t h i s procedure i s by Wolfensberger (1963). Another measure of s a t i a t i o n using the word a s s o c i a -t i o n technique i s the l a t e n c y of the a s s o c i a t i o n . Das and Cook (1964) found that the l a t e n c y of the a s s o c i a t i o n was longer f o r s a t i a t e d words, while Wolfensberger (1963) found that s a t i a t i o n had no e f f e c t on l a t e n c y . The other major method of measuring the e f f e c t s of s a t i a t i o n i s by the use of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l (Osgood, S u c i and Tannenbaum, 1957). The f i r s t study using semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t i n g s to measure s a t i a t i o n e f f e c t s was by Lambert and Jakobovits (I960). They found that the r a t i n g s f o l l o w i n g r e p e t i t i o n were l e s s extreme than the p r e - e x p e r i -mental r a t i n g s . This decrease i n p o l a r i t y was taken as e v i -dence that the i n t e n s i t y of meaning had decreased as a r e s u l t of r e p e t i t i o n . A s i m i l a r l o s s of meaning f o l l o w i n g r e p e t i t i o n has been reported i n s e v e r a l other s t u d i e s (Jakobovits and Lambert, 1961; Kanungo, Lambert and Mauer, 1962; Jakobovits and Lambert, 1962,a; Jakobovits and Lambert, 1962,b; Kanungo and Lambert, 1963,a; Kanungo and Lambert, 1963,b; Messer, Jakobovits, Kanungo and Lambert, 1964; and Kanungo and Lambert, 1964). Other i n v e s t i g a t o r s have not obtained the c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s r eported i n the above s t u d i e s . Floyd (1962) found only a s l i g h t decrease i n meaning, while Reynierse and Barch (1963) f a i l e d to f i n d any change i n the semantic r a t i n g s . Two other s t u d i e s (Das, 1964; Yelen and Schulz, 1963) found both s a t i a t i o n and generation (an i n c r e a s e i n meaning; i . e . r a t i n g s i n c r e a s e d i n p o l a r i t y a f t e r r e p e t i t i o n ) . In the - 10 -study by Das (1964), the r e p e t i t i o n had an o v e r a l l s a t i a t i o n e f f e c t f o r some s u b j e c t s , while f o r other s u b j e c t s i t had a generation e f f e c t . Contrary to t h i s , Yelen and Schulz (1963) found that c e r t a i n semantic s c a l e s y i e l d e d generation while other s c a l e s y i e l d e d s a t i a t i o n f o r the same s u b j e c t s . They found that i f the i n i t i a l i n t e n s i t y of meaning was high, s a t i a t i o n was l i k e l y to occur; i f the i n i t i a l i n t e n s i t y was low, generation was more l i k e l y . They explained t h i s f i n d -ing "as a r e g r e s s i o n - l i k e phenomenon w h e r e b y ; r e p e t i t i o n i n some way i n t e r f e r e s with 5_'s r e c a l l of h i s i n i t i a l r a t i n g s or disposes 5_ to b e l i e v e that he i s to change h i s i n i t i a l r a t i n g s f o l l o w i n g r e p e t i t i o n . " (P. 377). Moreover they r e -port that 16 of the 30 s u b j e c t s "when asked what they thought the purpose of the experiment was, i n d i c a t e d i n one way or another that changes i n r a t i n g s as a r e s u l t of r e p e t i t i o n was the purpose." This r e s u l t can be c o n t r a s t e d to the r e -port by Lambert and Jakobovits (I960) that the changes i n r a t i n g s occurred without awareness. In order to c o n t r o l f o r any p o s s i b l e r e g r e s s i o n e f f e c t , Schulz, Weaver and Radtke (1965) used a "post t e s t only" design, randomly a s s i g n i n g s u b j e c t s to r e p e t i t i o n and c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s . They found no d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e p e t i t i o n and c o n t r o l groups on e i t h e r s a t i a t i o n or generation s c a l e s . This f i n d i n g supports the hypothesis that changes i n semantic r a t i n g s f o l l o w i n g r e p e t i t i o n are not p r i m a r i l y due to an i n c r e a s e or decrease - 11 - . i n the meaning of the repeated word, but r a t h e r are due to a r e g r e s s i o n - l i k e e f f e c t . Again using a "post t e s t only" design, Shima (1966) found that the r e p e t i t i o n group y i e l d e d higher r a t i n g s than a c o n t r o l group which suggested that a generation of meaning had occurred. Two s t u d i e s (Floyd, 1962; and Reynierse and Barcfo,1963) attempted to demonstrate a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of s a t i a t i o n to synonyms by the use of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l ; both were u n s u c c e s s f u l . Jakobovits and Lambert (1961) showed that f o r b i l i n g u a l s who were assumed to have a u n i t a r y mediational process f o r the two languages, r e p e t i t i o n of words i n one language induced s a t i a t i o n i n the equivalent word i n the a l t e r n a t e language. However among b i l i n g u a l s who were assumed to have separate mediational processes, generation seemed to be induced by the same procedure of cross s a t i a t i o n . In another study, Das and Cook (1964) found that there was no c o r r e l a t i o n between the l a t e n c y of a s s o c i a t i o n and the change i n semantic r a t i n g s . The only c o n c l u s i o n that can be reached concerning the demonstration of s a t i a t i o n by means of the semantic d i f f e r -e n t i a l i s that except f o r the M c G i l l group (Lambert et a l . ) who always obtained s a t i a t i o n and never generation, the f i n d i n g s are i n c o n s i s t e n t and often ambiguous. The mechanism underlying the change i n r a t i n g s i s not c l e a r although i t i s probable that a " r e g r e s s i o n l i k e " phenomenon which may - 12 -i n v o l v e some degree of c o g n i t i v e manipulation plays an important r o l e . Another method of assessing the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n i s to r e q u i r e the subject to perform some task or make some d e c i s i o n r e q u i r i n g knowledge of the word's meaning. Jakobovits and Lambert (1962,a) had s u b j e c t s repeat a d i g i t before adding two s i n g l e - d i g i t numbers presented i n sequence. When the repeated d i g i t was the same as one of those added, s o l u t i o n time was g r e a t e r . They assumed that i n c r e a s e d l a t e n c i e s r e s u l t e d from a r e d u c t i o n i n the meanings of the mathematical symbols. In a s i m i l a r study, Fillenbaum (1964) had s u b j e c t s repeat a word and then decide i f two words have the same meaning. When one of the d e c i s i o n words was the same as the repeated word, the l a t e n c y of d e c i s i o n was s h o r t e r . T h i s i s opposite to the f i n d i n g of Jakobovits and Lambert (1962,a). Gough and Rohrman (1965) repeated Fillenbaum's study with an added c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n i n which the word was repeated f o r only one second. They found that asking the subject to repeat one of the words f o r e i t h e r one or f i f t e e n seconds e q u a l l y f a c i l i t a t e d h i s d e c i s i o n . Gumenik and Perlmutter (1966) obtained the same r e s u l t using two and twenty second r e p e t i t i o n p e r i o d s . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that forewarning and not semantic s a t i a t i o n had reduced d e c i s i o n l a t e n c y i n the Fillenbaum study. The f i n d i n g which i s of d i r e c t i n t e r e s t to the present study i s the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n on p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g . - 13 -Kanungo, Lambert and Mauer (1962) s a t i a t e d subjects on the response members of a p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l i s t immediately before l e a r n i n g the l i s t . These s u b j e c t s took longer to l e a r n the l i s t than a c o n t r o l group s a t i a t e d on d i f f e r e n t words. In another study, Kanungo and Lambert (1963,b) found that "with h i g h l y meaningful S-R p a i r s , p r e - l e a r n i n g s a t i a -t i o n of e i t h e r the stimulus or the response words r e t a r d s subsequent l e a r n i n g , whereas with low meaningful S-R p a i r s only stimulus s a t i a t i o n produces such r e t a r d a t i o n . " (P. 135). Kanungo and Lambert (1964) also found that s a t i a t i o n of r e -sponse members impaired l e a r n i n g ; moreover t h i s e f f e c t was obtained when the r e p e t i t i o n c o n d i t i o n s were e i t h e r 5, 15 or 25 seconds i n d u r a t i o n . Kanungo, Lambert and Mauer (1962) al s o showed that s a t i a t i o n could impair the r e c a l l of r e -c e n t l y acquired a s s o c i a t i o n s . A f t e r l e a r n i n g a p a i r e d asso-c i a t e l i s t , s u bjects were s a t i a t e d on e i t h e r stimulus members, response members or d i f f e r e n t words. S a t i a t i o n of stimulus members impaired the l a t e r r e c a l l of response members, while s a t i a t i o n of response members produced no e f f e c t . Jakobovits and Lambert (1962,a) showed that s a t i a t i o n of a word can reduce i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a mediator. Using the R u s s e l l and Storms (1955) m a t e r i a l s , they s a t i a t e d the i n f e r r e d mediators p r i o r to l e a r n i n g and found that the l e a r n i n g of the p a i r s whose mediator had been s a t i a t e d was impaired. - 14 -Kanungo and Lambert (1963, a and b) propose a two f a c t o r process to account f o r t h e i r findings:' s a t i a t i o n produces a meaning decrement and a l s o develops a word-word h a b i t . The previous a s s o c i a t i o n s to the s a t i a t e d word are broken down and a connection i s b u i l t up between the word and i t s e l f . According to t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , s a t i a t i o n of the mediator (B) i n the A-B, B-C, A-C paradigm a f t e r the l e a r n i n g of the second l i s t should decrease the strength of the a s s o c i a t i o n s of B to both A and C and cause B to become connected to i t s e l f . The e f f e c t which this, should have on the subsequent A-C l e a r n i n g could be the d e s i r e d t e s t of the pseudomediation hypothesis. I f t h i s f a c i l i t a t e d A-C l e a r n i n g , suggesting that the weakened a s s o c i a t i o n s had a c t u a l l y been a hindrance, the pseudomediation hypothesis would be supported. I f A-C l e a r n i n g was impaired, suggesting that these a s s o c i a t i o n s were h e l p f u l f o r A-C l e a r n i n g , the mediation model would be supported. It should be noted that the study by Jakobovits and Lambert (1962,a) does not provide a t e s t of the pseudomediation hypothesis s i n c e Mandler and Earhard allow that mediation does occur i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ; i . e . when the mediator i s i n f e r r e d from word norms. The f o l l o w i n g two experiments were both designed to i n -v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n of the mediator i n the A-B, B-C, A-C paradigm i n the hope of o b t a i n i n g evidence which might allow an e v a l u a t i o n of the pseudomediation hypothesis. - 15 -The second experiment i s e s s e n t i a l l y a r e p l i c a t i o n of the f i r s t with s e v e r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n design and procedure which r e s u l t e d , i n pa r t , from suggestions by R. Kanungo (Personal Communication). CHAPTER II METHOD Experiment I  Design This experiment u t i l i z e d a s p l i t - p l o t design i n which each subject went through a l l c o n d i t i o n s . This i s a design commonly used i n mediation s t u d i e s and has been found to show strong d i f f e r e n c e s (e.g. Horton and Kjeldergaard, 1961; Horton, 1964). In order to evaluate the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n of the mediator, a c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n where the mediator was not s a t i a t e d was i n c l u d e d . To ensure that "mediation" was a c t u a l l y o c c u r r i n g , a non-mediated c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n was a l s o i n c l u d e d . The f o u r t h c o n d i t i o n i n which one of the second l i s t terms of a non-mediated chain was s a t i a t e d i s not e s s e n t i a l , but was i n c l u d e d to make the design orthogonal and to allow a more e f f e c t i v e demonstration of mediation. The four c o n d i t i o n s are summarized i n Table 1. Each subject learned three l i s t s of p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s . The f i r s t l i s t c o n s i s t e d of A-B terms; the second l i s t contained h a l f B-C and h a l f D-C; the t h i r d l i s t contained A-C p a i r s . There were two p a i r s per c o n d i t i o n making a t o t a l of eight p a i r s per l i s t . M a t e r i a l s The A and C terms were CVC's of 20-40% a s s o c i a t i o n value (Archer, I960) s e l e c t e d f o r low s i m i l a r i t y . The B and D - 16 -- 17 -Table 1 The Treatment Conditions of Experiment 1 C o n d i t i o n L i s t 1 L i s t 2 S a t i a t i o n L i s t Mediated S a t i a t e d A-B B-C B A-C Mediated A-B B-C - A-C Non Mediated S a t i a t e d A-B D-C D A-C Non Mediated A-B D-C _ A-C - 18 -terms were high frequency E n g l i s h words s e l e c t e d from the Thorndike and Lorge (1944) word l i s t s f o r low s i m i l a r i t y of both sound and meaning. The reason f o r using the high frequency words f o r the B and D terms i s that a decrease i n meaning i s more common f o l l o w i n g r e p e t i t i o n of high meaning-f u l words than low meaningful words (Amster, 1964). The A and C terms were CVC's s i n c e a chain of h i g h l y meaningful words i s more s u s c e p t i b l e to c o g n i t i v e manipulation and the use of conceptual s t r a t e g i e s (Earhard and Mandler, 1965,b). There were two d i f f e r e n t sets of p a i r i n g to c o n t r o l f o r any s p e c i f i c p a i r i n g e f f e c t s . For each l i s t four d i f f e r -ent orders were employed to prevent s e r i a l l e a r n i n g . The l i s t s were typed i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s and presented on a L a f a y e t t e model 303b memory drum. The words to be s a t i a t e d were typed i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s on 3 by 5 inch index cards. Procedure The sub j e c t s were read the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s : T h i s experiment i s concerned with some of the f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n v e r b a l l e a r n i n g ; s p e c i f i c a l l y we are i n t e r e s t e d i n how c e r t a i n types of m a t e r i a l are l e a r n e d . This i s not a t e s t of p e r s o n a l i t y , i n -t e l l i g e n c e or l e a r n i n g a b i l i t y ; we are j u s t i n t e r -ested i n whether there are d i f f e r e n c e s between d i f f e r e n t types of m a t e r i a l s . You may be asked to l e a r n s e v e r a l l i s t s of word p a i r s ; each l i s t con-s i s t s of eight p a i r s . You w i l l be t o l d l a t e r whe-ther you have to l e a r n more than one l i s t . When the experiment begins, a word w i l l appear i n t h i s window; then t h i s s h u t t e r w i l l f a l l ex-posing a second word which w i l l always be p a i r e d with the f i r s t word. The f i r s t time through the l i s t you are to pronounce each word out loud as i t appears, and the next time through I want you to - 19 -say the l e f t hand word out loud and to t r y to a n t i c i p a t e the r i g h t hand word before the s h u t t e r f a l l s . I f a f t e r saying the word on the l e f t you have no idea what the r i g h t hand word i s , or i f you should guess the word i n c o r r e c t l y , then read aloud the r i g h t hand word when i t appears. The stimulus word was presented alone f o r two seconds, and then both members were presented together f o r two seconds. There was no i n t e r v a l between items, but a f t e r a l l eight p a i r s had been presented there was a four second i n t e r - t r i a l i n t e r v a l before the next order began. . I f the subject responded c o r r e c t l y before the answer appeared, the response was scored as c o r r e c t . The f i r s t two l i s t s were continued u n t i l the subject reached the c r i t e r i o n of three s u c c e s s i v e c o r r e c t t r i a l s . I f the c r i t e r i o n was not reached wi t h i n 35 t r i a l s the subject was dropped from the experiment. The time between l i s t s one and two was long enough to change tapes and i n s t r u c t s u b j e c t s that they were to l e a r n a new l i s t . A f t e r l e a r n i n g the second l i s t , the subjects were read the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s : Now we are going to do something d i f f e r -ent. I am going to show you some words one at a time and I want you to repeat each word out loud as f a s t as you can. F i r s t I w i l l show you the word and then I want you to say i t over and over again out loud u n t i l I t e l l you to stop. Remember i t ' s important f o r you to say the word as f a s t as you can. Each subject was then presented with two B and two D terms, one at a time, and i n random order. The r e p e t i t i o n was continued f o r 15 seconds and a 15 second r e s t p e r i o d was allowed between each r e p e t i t i o n p e r i o d . A f t e r repeating a l l - 20 -four words the subject was i n s t r u c t e d to l e a r n the l a s t l i s t . The t h i r d l i s t was learned to the c r i t e r i o n of two suc c e s s i v e c o r r e c t t r i a l s . A f t e r l e a r n i n g the t h i r d l i s t the subject was interviewed to determine h i s degree of awareness of the mediational paradigm. The f o l l o w i n g questions were asked: 1. What was the purpose of the experiment? 2. Did anything help you to l e a r n the l a s t l i s t ? 3. Did you use any words to help you remember the l a s t l i s t ? What were they? 4. Can you name any p a i r s on the l a s t l i s t i n which both members had been p a i r e d with the same word on the f i r s t two l i s t s ? Sub.j ects Because of the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s design, no attempt was made to obtain subjects of homogeneous a b i l i t y . The sub j e c t s were a l l students at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia but v a r i e d i n age and academic l e v e l . Nine su b j e c t s were ex-cluded from the experiment because they were unable to l e a r n the f i r s t l i s t to c r i t e r i o n w i t h i n 35 t r i a l s . The f i n a l 40 subjects c o n s i s t e d of 24 females and 16 males. Results The dependent v a r i a b l e decided upon was the number of i n c o r r e c t a n t i c i p a t i o n s of each item. (Because the l i s t s were mixed, the number of t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n i s a meaningless measure). Since there were two items per c o n d i t i o n , the two values were averaged to give a more r e a l i s t i c p i c t u r e of the number of t r i a l s r e q u i r e d . The mean number of e r r o r s f o r each c o n d i t i o n on each l i s t are presented i n Table 2. - 21 -Table 2 The Mean Number of E r r o r s f o r Each Con d i t i o n On Each L i s t i n Experiment 1 Condition L i s t 1 L i s t 2 L i s t 3 Mediated S a t i a t e d 5.7 3.7 4.7 Mediated 6.0 3.8 4.5 Non Mediated S a t i a t e d 5.2 2.2 6.9 Non Mediated 5.7 2.6 7.6 - 22 -5ince there i s no reason to expect any d i f f e r e n c e s between the c o n d i t i o n s on the f i r s t l i s t , and s i n c e the means do not d i f f e r g r e a t l y , no a n a l y s i s was performed on the f i r s t l i s t data. Analyses of Variance were, however, performed on both the second and t h i r d l i s t v a l u e s . The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the mediation c o n d i t i o n s on l i s t two i s expected s i n c e the mediated l i s t i s a negative t r a n s f e r paradigm (see i n t r o d u c t i o n ) . The mediation c o n d i t i o n s were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the t h i r d l i s t , t h i s i s the d i f f e r e n c e which i s u s u a l l y considered to be a demonstration of mediation. The s a t i a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s couldn't be expected to d i f f e r on the second l i s t s i n c e the s a t i a t i o n treatment had not been a p p l i e d y e t . However there should have been d i f f e r e n c e s between the s a t i a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s on the t h i r d l i s t . Because there are no d i f f e r e n c e s between the s a t i a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , the pseudo-mediation hypothesis cannot be evaluated from these r e s u l t s , and the p o s s i b i l i t y that the s a t i a t i o n treatment had no e f f e c t on l e a r n i n g must be considered. On the b a s i s of the number of mediated p a i r s the sub-j e c t s were able to report i n response to the l a s t question of the i n t e r v i e w , they were d i v i d e d i n t o three awareness l e v e l s . Aware: N = 23; reported 3 or a l l 4 mediated p a i r s * P a r t i a l l y Aware: N = 8; reported 1 or 2 mediated p a i r s . Unaware: IM = 9; reported no mediated p a i r s . - 23 -Table .3 A n a l y s i s of Variance of the Second L i s t  Values i n Experiment 1 Source df. S a t i a t i o n * 1 Mediation 1 Sa t i a t i o n X M e d i a t i o n 1 E r r o r 156 Mean Square 2.26 71.56 .90 9.10 F <1.0 7.B6* <1.0 *p <.01 - 24 -Table 4 A n a l y s i s of Variance of the T h i r d L i s t  Values i n Experiment 1 Source df. S a t i a t i o n 1 Mediation 1 S a t i a t i o n X M e d i a t i o n 1 E r r o r 156 Mean Square 1.50 284.89 8.32 18.41 F <1.0 15.47* <1.0 *p <.01 - 25 -The mean number of e r r o r s f o r the d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s on the l a s t l i s t separated with respect to awareness l e v e l i s presented i n Table 5. An a n a l y s i s of variance f o r t h i s data i s given i n Table 6. The important f i n d i n g s here were that the i n t e r a c t i o n of awareness and mediation was not s i g n i f i c a n t , and that the three-way i n t e r a c t i o n approached s i g n i f i c a n c e . This l a t t e r f i n d i n g suggests that s a t i a t i o n might have had an e f f e c t , but that i t depends on awareness. Experiment II In experiment 1, s a t i a t i o n was not found to have any r e l i a b l e e f f e c t on l e a r n i n g . Experiment 2 was designed to i n c r e a s e the p r o b a b i l i t y that s a t i a t i o n would have an e f f e c t . The p o s s i b i l i t y that the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n was masked by the other c o n d i t i o n s was e l i m i n a t e d i n the second experiment by using a between groups design. The p o s s i b i l i t y that the s a t i a t i o n treatment i t s e l f was not s u f f i c i e n t was suggested by R. Kanungo (Personal Communication) and h i s f u r t h e r suggestion that stronger s a t i a t i o n e f f e c t s might be obtained by using more r e p e t i t i o n periods was a l s o i n -corporated i n t o t h i s study. Design This experiment used a between groups design, where each subject appeared i n only one c o n d i t i o n . In order to ensure that the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n of the mediator on A-C - 26 -Table 5_ The Mean Number of E r r o r s i n Each Con d i t i o n of the T h i r d  L i s t i n Experiment 1 f o r Each Awareness L e v e l Mediated S a t i a t e d Mediated Non Mediated S a t i a t e d Non Mediated Aware 3.6 4.8 7.0 7.2 P a r t i a l l y Aware Unaware 4.1 8.1 3.4 4.6 6.9 6.9 7.4 8.8 - 27 -Table 6 A n a l y s i s of Variance of the T h i r d L i s t Data  i n Experiment 1 Showing the E f f e c t of Awareness Source df. Mean Square F_ Between Subjects Awareness 2 32.08 1.0 E r r o r 37 45.16 Within Subjects S a t i a t i o n X Awareness 2 7.76 1.07 E r r o r 37 7.28 Mediation X Awareness 2 9.24 1.23 E r r o r 37 7.51 S a t i a t i o n X Mediation X Awareness 2 32.74 2.47* E r r o r 37 13.23 * .10 \ p v .05 - 2 8 -l e a r n i n g was s p e c i f i c to the mediator i t s e l f being s a t i a t e d , and not j u s t due to a p e r i o d of r e p e t i t i o n , a c o n t r o l group where unrela t e d words were s a t i a t e d was i n c l u d e d . Both these groups had to be compared to a mediated non-satiated group. Again, a nonmediated group was i n c l u d e d to ensure that "mediation" a c t u a l l y occurred. The groups are pre-sented i n Table 7. M a t e r i a l s The m a t e r i a l s were the same as those used i n Experiment 1, except that the l i s t s were decreased to s i x p a i r s , and the number of orders was in c r e a s e d to f i v e . Procedure The procedure f o r l e a r n i n g the f i r s t two l i s t s was the same as i n the f i r s t experiment, but the s a t i a t i o n procedure was d i f f e r e n t . The subject was r e q u i r e d to repeat each of the 6 words f o r 3 sets of 15 seconds. There was a 5 second r e s t p e r i o d between each s e t . The t o t a l time between l i s t s 2 and 3 was 6 minutes. The two non s a t i a t e d groups were engaged i n conversation (not allowed to rehearse) f o r the 6 minutes between the l a s t two l i s t s . A f t e r l e a r n i n g the t h i r d l i s t , the sub j e c t s were asked the same questions as i n experiment 1. Sub.j ects The s u b j e c t s were 40 female student nurses from two h o s p i t a l s i n Vancouver. They were a l l of s i m i l a r age and - 29 -Table 7 The Four Groups i n Experiment 2 Group L i s t 1 L i s t 2 S a t i a t i o n L i s t Mediated S a t i a t e d B A-B B-C B A-C Mediated S a t i a t e d D A-B B-C D A-C Mediated A-B B-C r e s t A-C Non Mediated A-B D-C r e s t A-C - 30 _ academic background. On the ba s i s of the number of t r i a l s r e q u i r e d to l e a r n the f i r s t l i s t , the subjects were assigned to one of the four groups to equate them with r e -spect to l e a r n i n g a b i l i t y . Four su b j e c t s were unable to l e a r n the f i r s t l i s t w i t h i n 35 t r i a l s and were dropped from the experiment. R e s u l t s The dependant v a r i a b l e decided upon f o r the l a s t l i s t was the number of e r r o r s i n the f i r s t 6 t r i a l s . It i s g e n e r a l l y considered a more s e n s i t i v e measure of mediation i n t h i s type of study (Jenkins, 1965). The number of t r i a l s to c r i t e r i o n was used as the measure f o r the f i r s t two l i s t s . The means f o r the four groups on the three l i s t s are presented i n Table 8. The means f o r l i s t 1 show that the attempt to equate the four groups was s u c c e s s f u l ; no a n a l y s i s was done. For the second l i s t , the means f o r the three mediated groups were compared to the mean f o r the non mediated group. This r e s u l t i s shown i n Table 9. The second l i s t was learned s i g n i f i c a n t l y slower by the mediated groups. This i s the same demonstration of negative t r a n s f e r found i n experiment 1. Three orthogonal comparisons of the t h i r d l i s t r e s u l t s were of i n t e r e s t . Comparison one i s between Mediated S a t i a t e d B and Mediated S a t i a t e d D. This shows the s p e c i f i c - 31 -Table 8 Means f o r the Four Groups i n Experiment I I Group L i s t 1 L i s t 2 L i s t 3 Mediated S a t i a t e d B 13.7 14.1 16.2 Mediated S a t i a t e d D 13.3 14.8 17.9 Mediated 13.6 13.2 17.1 Non Mediated 13.5 5.5 22.4 - 32 -Table 9 A n a l y s i s of the Second L i s t Data f o r Experiment II 5ource df. Mean Square F Between Comparison 1 1 545.71 12.69* Remainder 2 6.65 <1.0 E r r o r 36 43.02 *p <.01 - 33 -e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n of the mediator and i s the c r u c i a l comparison. Comparison two i s between the two s a t i a t e d groups and the mediated non s a t i a t e d group. I t would show any n o n s p e c i f i c e f f e c t o.f r e p e t i t i o n . The t h i r d comparison i s between the three mediated groups and the non mediated group and i s e s s e n t i a l to show that "mediation" did occur. This a n a l y s i s shows that mediation occurred, but that s a t i a t i o n had no e f f e c t e i t h e r s p e c i f i c or general (see Table 10). The s u b j e c t s ' awareness was assessed on the b a s i s of the i n t e r v i e w and a l l subjects i n the three mediated groups were c l a s s i f i e d as aware or unaware (there were only a few sub j e c t s who might have been c l a s s i f i e d as p a r t i a l l y aware, and these were combined i n t o the aware group to s i m p l i f y computations). The mean number of e r r o r s f a r each awareness group i s presented i n Table 11. The d i f f e r e n c e s between the means of the aware subjects i n the Mediated S a t i a t e d B and Mediated S a t i a t e d D groups (11.3 and 14.0) were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (t = 0.6, 8 d f . ) ; nor were the means f o r the unaware sub j e c t s (23.5 and 20.5) d i f f e r e n t (t = 0.7, 8 d f . ) . Because there were no d i f f e r e n c e s between the two s a t i a t e d groups, these groups were combined. The r e s u l t s are presented i n Table 12. The d i f f e r e n c e between the means f o r the aware and - 3 4 -Table 10 Comparisons of T h i r d L i s t Means i n Experiment II  Source df. Mean Square F Between Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3 E r r o r 1 1 1 36 28.3 .02 210.68 39.57 <1.0 <1.0 5.32* * p <.05 - 35 -Table 11 T h i r d L i s t Means and Group S i z e s f o r Each of the .Awareness Levels i n Experiment II Mediated S a t i a t e d B Mediated S a t i a t e d D Mediated Aware 11.3 (N=6) 14.0 (l\l=4) 17.1 (N=10) Unaware 23.5 (N=4) 20.5 (N=6) (l\l=0) - 36 -Table 12 T h i r d L i s t Means with the S a t i a t e d Groups Combined Mediated S a t i a t e d (B and D Mediated  Combined) 1 Aware 12.4 (N=1Q) 17.1 (N=10) Unaware 21.7 (N=10) (N=0) - 37 -unaware sub j e c t s w i t h i n the s a t i a t e d group (12.4 and 21.7) was s i g n i f i c a n t (t = 3.25, 18 df., p <.01). To determine whether there was any i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e i n the l e a r n i n g a b i l i t y of the aware and unaware subjects w i t h i n the s a t i a t e d group which might have accounted f o r t h i s l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e , a t t e s t was performed to compare the mean number of t r i a l s to l e a r n the f i r s t l i s t f o r the aware and unaware subjects (10.5 and 16.5 t r i a l s r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The value obtained (t = 1.98, 18 df., p <.1Q) suggests that the subjects who became aware were f a s t e r l e a r n e r s than the subjects who were unaware. A c h i square (corrected) was performed on the number of subj e c t s w i t h i n the two groups who were aware and unaware, and the value obtained ( = 5.30, 1 df., p <.Q25) showed that there were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more unaware sub j e c t s i n the s a t i a t e d group. - 38 -CHAPTER III DISCUSSION Both experiments demonstrated negative t r a n s f e r on the second l i s t and mediated f a c i l i t a t i o n on the t h i r d l i s t . These f i n d i n g s are i n accordance with those u s u a l l y reported (see i n t r o d u c t i o n ) and do not r e q u i r e f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n . The awareness data y i e l d e d some i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s but because these f i n d i n g s do not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e to the main purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n w i l l be postponed. The most important f i n d i n g was that s a t i a t i o n of the mediator had no e f f e c t on A-C l e a r n i n g . There are two p o s s i b l e reasons f o r not f i n d i n g any e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n : e i t h e r the s a t i a t i o n treatment did not e x t i n g u i s h the a s s o c i a t i o n s acquired on the f i r s t two l i s t s , or the a s s o c i a t i o n s were broken down, but not to a s u f f i c i e n t extent to a f f e c t A-C l e a r n i n g . The f i r s t a l t e r n a -t i v e would be easy to accept e s p e c i a l l y i n view of the number of previous f a i l u r e s to demonstrate s a t i a t i o n (see i n t r o d u c t i o n ) . Nevertheless the second a l t e r n a t i v e cannot be r u l e d out. Although there i s a great deal of evidence that s a t i a t i o n of a word can a f f e c t the l e a r n i n g of a p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l i s t c o n t a i n i n g the word; and even though Kanungo et a l . (1962) using the method of r e c a l l showed that a s s o c i a t i o n s r e c e n t l y acquired by l e a r n i n g a pa i r e d - 39 -a s s o c i a t e l i s t can be broken down by s a t i a t i o n , there i s s t i l l no evidence that s a t i a t i o n can e x t i n g u i s h r e c e n t l y acquired a s s o c i a t i o n s to an extent which would a f f e c t the r a t e of l e a r n i n g of a p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l i s t . It i s p o s s i b l e that w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d a s s o c i a t i o n s and r e c e n t l y acquired a s s o c i a t i o n s are a f f e c t e d d i f f e r e n t l y by s a t i a t i o n . Some authors t r e a t r e c e n t l y acquired and w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d a s s o c i a t i o n s quite d i f f e r e n t l y ; Earhard and Mandler (1965,b) f o r example suggest that the former c o n t r i b u t e to i n t e r l i s t i n t e r f e r e n c e , while the l a t t e r only c o n t r i b u t e to conceptual s t r a t e g i e s . It i s a l s o p o s s i b l e that s a t i a t i o n does not have a strong enough e f f e c t on r e c e n t l y acquired a s s o c i a -t i o n s to s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the r a t e of l e a r n i n g of a p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l i s t , but i t s e f f e c t may s t i l l be strong enough to be shown by a more s e n s i t i v e measure such as r e c a l l . I f the dependant v a r i a b l e i n the Kanungo et a l . (1962) study had been the time r e q u i r e d to r e l e a r n the p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l i s t (or to l e a r n an A-C l i s t or some other t r a n s f e r paradigm), the s a t i a t i o n treatment might not have had any n o t i c e a b l e e f f e c t . U n t i l a study i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n on r e c e n t l y acquired a s s o c i a t i o n s using p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g i s performed, there cannot be any c e r t a i n t y about whether to t r e a t the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n on r e c e n t l y acquired a s s o c i a t i o n s and on w e l l es-t a b l i s h e d a s s o c i a t i o n s as being the same or d i f f e r e n t . - 4 0 -Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s that s a t i a t i o n of r e c e n t l y acquired a s s o c i a t i o n s w i l l impair the r e l e a r n i n g of a p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l i s t , but w i l l have no e f f e c t i n the mediation paradigm where the s a t i a t e d word doesn't enter d i r e c t l y i n t o the t e s t l i s t l e a r n i n g . This can be t e s t e d by r e p l i c a t i n g the present study with the m o d i f i c a t i o n of presenting a matching task a f t e r the s a t i a t i o n p e r i o d i n -stead of the t h i r d l i s t . I f performance was not a f f e c t e d by s a t i a t i o n (as i t wasn't i n t h e present study), then the c o n c l u s i o n would have to be reached that s a t i a t i o n of a mediator has no e f f e c t on the a b i l i t y of the s u b j e c t s to a s s o c i a t e the A and C terms. U n t i l these two s t u d i e s are performed, the reason f o r the f a i l u r e to obtain s i g n i f i -cant s a t i a t i o n e f f e c t s i n e i t h e r of the present two ex-periments cannot be determined. One p a r t i c u l a r reason f o r c a r r y i n g out t h i s i n v e s t i g a -t i o n was the p o s s i b i l i t y of e v a l u a t i n g the pseudomediation hypothesis. The main d i f f e r e n c e between the pseudomedia-t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of A-C l e a r n i n g and the mediation i n -t e r p r e t a t i o n i s the r o l e played by the B term. The former i n t e r p r e t a t i o n claims i t i n t e r f e r e s , the l a t t e r claims i t f a c i l i t a t e s . The simplest t e s t of these two t h e o r i e s i s to e i t h e r i n c r e a s e or decrease the st r e n g t h of the connec-t i o n s to the B term; the two t h e o r i e s make opposite p r e d i c t i o n s of the e f f e c t of t h i s upon l e a r n i n g . Unfor-- 41 -t u n a t e l y the problem i s not simple, s i n c e the pseudo-mediation hypothesis i s a s s o c i a t e d with a conceptual s t r a t e g y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and although these two phenomena are supposed to occur i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s , i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e e i t h e r or both might be o c c u r r i n g at any one time. For t h i s reasonthe pseudomediation theory can never be c o n c l u s i v e l y disproved; a l l that can be hoped f o r i s to l i m i t the s i t u a t i o n s i n which pseudomediation might be o c c u r r i n g . The mediation theory on the other hand i s t e s t a b l e . I f f i n d i n g s are presented which are contrary to i t s p r e d i c t i o n s , i t must reach a compromise with pseudo-mediation or f a l l by the wayside. As explained i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , semantic s a t i a t i o n appeared to be a p o s s i b l e means of decreasing the strength of the a s s o c i a t i o n s of B to both A and C. According to the l e a r n i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s a t i a t i o n (Kanungo and Lambert, 1963, a and b), the r e p e t i t i o n of a word i n c r e a s e s the strength of the a s s o c i a t i o n of the word to i t s e l f , and at the same time extinguishes the e a r l i e r a s s o c i a t i o n s to the word. There are, however, two i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the e f f e c t which s a t i a t i o n of the mediator w i l l have on A-C l e a r n i n g i n l i g h t of the pseudomediation hypothesis. The f i r s t i n -t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that s i n c e a s s o c i a t i o n s are b i d i r e c t i o n a l (at l e a s t to some extent: a necessary assumption i n the pseudomediation i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) , s a t i a t i o n of B should - 42 -leave both A and C f r e e r s i n c e the B-A and B-C a s s o c i a t i o n s w i l l both be extinguished to some extent. The subsequent l e a r n i n g of A-C should be f a c i l i t a t e d , s i n c e the strength of the i n t e r f e r i n g responses has been decreased. Kanungo (Personal Communication) proposes an a l t e r n a t e i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n based on the f i n d i n g by Kanungo et a l . (1962) that s a t i a t i o n of stimulus words impaired l a t e r r e c a l l of r e -sponse words, but s a t i a t i o n of the response words had no e f f e c t . T h i s study suggests that s a t i a t i o n has no e f f e c t on backward a s s o c i a t i o n s , but only extinguishes forward a s s o c i a t i o n s . I f t h i s i s t r u e , and given the f a c t that s a t i a t i o n causes an a s s o c i a t i o n to be b u i l t up between the word and i t s e l f , then s a t i a t i o n of the B term a f t e r l e a r n i n g the second l i s t w i l l leave an A-B-B chain which would cause as much i n t e r f e r e n c e as the two previous a s s o c i a t i o n s A and B. This l a t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ignores the f a c t that the A-B a s s o c i a t i o n s are already broken down to a l a r g e extent a f t e r the l e a r n i n g of the second l i s t (Earhard and Mandler, 1965,a). Moreover the f i n d i n g that s a t i a t i o n has q u a l i t a -t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on forward and backward a s s o c i a -t i o n s i s incompatible with the f i n d i n g s from s t u d i e s of negative t r a n s f e r that both forward and backward a s s o c i a -t i o n s are capable of causing i n t e r f e r e n c e and being ex-t i n g u i s h e d (e.g. Ekstrand, 1966). Nevertheless the present experiments d i d not y i e l d any evidence which would allow an ev a l u a t i o n of the pseudo-- 43 -mediation p o s i t i o n . In both experiments the f a c t o r of awareness was considered and the r e s u l t s were re-analyzed t a k i n g aware-ness i n t o account. Unfortunately there i s a great deal of controversy i n the l i t e r a t u r e concerning the importance of awareness to mediation. . The e a r l y i n v e s t i g a t o r s (Bugelski and 5charlock, 1952; R u s s e l l and 5torms, 1955; and Horton and Kjeldergaard, 1961) a l l reported that mediation occurred without awareness. This r e s u l t has al s o been r e -ported i n s e v e r a l recent s t u d i e s (e.g. Peterson, et a l . , 1964). Nevertheless, four s t u d i e s (James and Hakes, 1965; Horton, 1964; Martin and Dean, 1964; and Dean and Martin, 1966) a l l f a i l e d to f i n d any evidence f o r mediation without awareness. In c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s discrepancy, Horton (1964) r e j e c t s the p o s s i b i l i t y that there was a lack of systematic i n t e r v i e w i n g i n the o t h e r . s t u d i e s and suggests that "when the experimental c o n d i t i o n s are not p a r t i c u l a r l y conducive to awareness, many of the unaware S's can, and f r e q u e n t l y do, perform quite w e l l . " (P. 193). Unlike the area of ve r b a l operant c o n d i t i o n i n g where awareness may be essen-t i a l f o r any change i n performance ( c f . Dulany, 1963; S p i e l b e r g e r , 1962) v e r b a l mediation may occur without aware-ness. In the conve n t i o n a l mediation model, awareness i s perceived as unnecessary (e.g. Jenkins, 1963). Earhard and Mandler (1965,b) when proposing the conceptual - 44 -s t r a t e g y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were c a r e f u l not to equate t h i s with awareness; they mention c o g n i t i v e manipulation but do not imply that t h i s a c t i v i t y can be assessed by means of awareness. At present there i s no se r i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of mediation which a t t r i b u t e s the p e r f o r -mance of aware and unaware subjects to q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r -ent processes. In the f i r s t of the present experiments the aware and unaware subjects d i d not d i f f e r ; both c l e a r l y showed mediated f a c i l i t a t i o n . In experiment two, however, the unaware su b j e c t s learned s i g n i f i c a n t l y slower than the aware s u b j e c t s , and not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the non mediated s u b j e c t s . The discrepancy between these two r e -s u l t s appears d i f f i c u l t to r e s o l v e s i n c e the same types of ma t e r i a l s were used i n both s t u d i e s . The p o s s i b i l i t y that the d i f f e r e n c e i s due to the d i f f e r e n c e i n design (within versus between groups) must be r e j e c t e d s i n c e others have not reported such d i f f e r e n c e s due to design. On f u r t h e r examination of the r e s u l t s of the second experiment, i t was found that the unaware subjects were a l s o slower l e a r n e r s on the f i r s t l i s t , suggesting that they were i n i t i a l l y of lower a b i l i t y than the aware subjects and could thus be expected to be slower l e a r n e r s on the A-C l i s t as w e l l . Because the unaware su b j e c t s were slower l e a r n e r s i n i t i a l l y , any comparison of t h e i r performance on the A-C l i s t with - 45 -the performance of the non mediated group who were of higher i n i t i a l a b i l i t y i s not a p p r o p r i a t e . I f the unaware subj e c t s were compared to a non mediated group of equal a b i l i t y they would probably show s u p e r i o r performance. This discrepancy can thus be viewed as an a r t i f a c t due to the unaware subjects i n experiment two being slower l e a r n e r s , and the c o n c l u s i o n can be reached that the present r e s u l t s ( e s p e c i a l l y experiment 1) demonstrate mediation without awareness as w e l l as mediation with awareness. In experiment one, the e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n appeared to i n t e r a c t with awareness and mediation c o n d i t i o n although the obtained F wasn't s i g n i f i c a n t . The main reason f o r the d i f f e r -ence was that the unaware subjects learned the mediated s a t i a t e d p a i r s more slowly. This suggested that s a t i a t i o n of the mediator might impair l e a r n i n g , but only f o r unaware s u b j e c t s . In experiment two, no d i f f e r e n c e was found between the two s a t i a t i o n groups f o r e i t h e r the aware or unaware s u b j e c t s . There i s not s u f f i c i e n t evidence to conclude that s a t i a t i o n of the mediator has an e f f e c t f o r p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l s of awareness. In experiment two there were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more unaware subj e c t s i n the two s a t i a t e d groups than there were i n the mediated group. This suggests that the s a t i a t i o n a c t i v i t y had the n o n - s p e c i f i c e f f e c t of preventing some subjects from becoming aware of the mediation paradigm. This f i n d i n g i s - 46 -not too s u r p r i s i n g , and agrees with Horton's statement that "degree of awareness can be s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d by experimental c o n d i t i o n s and i s not e n t i r e l y a matter of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s between S's" (1964, P. 193). The i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t i s that even though there were more unaware sub j e c t s i n the s a t i a t i o n groups, they s t i l l l e arned at the same r a t e as the mediated group. I f awareness was necessary f o r mediation to occur, the mediated group should l e a r n f a s t e r s i n c e i t doesn't contain any unaware s u b j e c t s . The f a c t that the mediated group learned at the same r a t e as the s a t i a t e d groups suggests that awareness d i d not f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g i n the second study. It i s p o s s i b l e that s i n c e awareness wasn't necessary f o r mediation to occur, these two f a c t o r s are independant. This agrees with the f i n d i n g p r e v i o u s l y mentioned that mediation occurred f o r both aware and unaware s u b j e c t s . CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS The present i n v e s t i g a t i o n found negative t r a n s f e r on the second l i s t , mediated f a c i l i t a t i o n on the t h i r d l i s t and f a i l e d to f i n d any e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n . No d i f f e r e n c e s were observed between the r e s u l t s of the two experiments, one using a w i t h i n group design, and the other a between group design. As a reason f o r not f i n d i n g any e f f e c t of s a t i a t i o n , the p o s s i b i l i t y that s a t i a t i o n has a d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t on r e c e n t l y acquired a s s o c i a t i o n s than on well e s t a b l i s h e d a s s o c i a t i o n s was suggested. Awareness was not found to be an important f a c t o r i n demonstrating mediation; both aware and unaware subjects showed mediated f a c i l i t a t i o n . S a t i a t i o n did however have the non s p e c i f i c e f f e c t of preventing some sub j e c t s from becoming aware. - 47 -- 48 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Amster, H. Semantic s a t i a t i o n and generation: l e a r n i n g ? adaptation? Psych. B u l l . , 1964, 62, 273-286. Archer, E.J. A r e - e v a l u a t i o n of the meaningfulness of a l l p o s s i b l e CVC t r i g r a m s . Psych. Monoqr., I960, 74, No. 10, (Whole No. 497). Barnes, J . and Underwood, B.J. "Fate" of f i r s t - l i s t a s s o c i a t i o n s i n t r a n s f e r theory. J . exp. Psychol.. 1959, 58> 97-105. Be e c r o f t , R.5. Verbal l e a r n i n g and r e t e n t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of the number of competing a s s o c i a t i o n s . J . exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 216-221. B u g e l s k i , B.R. and Scharlock, D.P. An experimental demon-s t r a t i o n of unconscious mediated a s s o c i a t i o n . J_. exp. Psychol.. 1952, 44, 334-338. Das, J.P. Hypnosis, v e r b a l s a t i a t i o n , v i g i l a n c e and per-s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . J . abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1964, 68, 72-78. Das, J.P. and Cook, R. On the development of an a s s o c i a -t i v e response time measure f o r semantic s a t i a t i o n . P s y c h o l . Rep.. 1964, 15, 55. Dean, S.J. and Martin, R.B. Reported mediation as a f u n c t i o n of degree of l e a r n i n g . Psychon. S c i . , 1966, 4_, 231-232. Dulany, D.E., J r . The place of hypotheses and i n t e n t i o n : An a n a l y s i s of v e r b a l c o n t r o l i n v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n -i n g . J . Pers. (Suppl.) 1962, 30, 102-129. Earhard, B. and Mandler, G. Pseudomediation: A r e p l y and more data. Psychon. S c i . . 1965, 3_, 137-138, ( a ) . Earhard, B. and Mandler, G. Mediated a s s o c i a t i o n s : para-digms, c o n t r o l s , and mechanisms. Canad. J . Psychol., 1965, 19., 346-374, (b). Ekstrand, B.R. Backward a s s o c i a t i o n s . Psych. B u l l . , 1966, 65, 50-64. Fillenbaum, S. Semantic g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n v e r b a l s a t i a t i o n . Psych. Rep.. 1963, 13, 158, ( a ) . - 49 -Fillenbaum, S. Verbal s a t i a t i o n and changes i n meaning of r e l a t e d items. J . verb. Learn, verb. Behav., 1963, 2, 263-271, (b). Fillenbaum, S. Semantic s a t i a t i o n and d e c i s i o n l a t e n c y . J . exp. Psychol.. 1964, 68., 240-244. Floyd, R.L. Semantic s a t i a t i o n : r e p l i c a t i o n and t e s t of f u r t h e r i m p l i c a t i o n s . Psychol. Rep.. 1962, 11, 274. Gough, P.B. and Kohrman, N.L. Semantic s a t i a t i o n , f o r e -warning and d e c i s i o n l a t e n c y . Psychon• S c i . , 1965, 2, 387-388. Goulet, L.R. and Postman, L. An experimental e v a l u a t i o n of the pseudomediation hypothesis. Psychon. S c i . , 1966, 4, 163-164. Gumenik, W.E. and Perlmutter, Verbal r e p e t i t i o n , s e t , and d e c i s i o n l a t e n c y . J . exp. Psychol. . 1966, 7_2, 213-216. Gumenik, W.E. and 5pencer, T. Verbal r e p e t i t i o n and changes i n meaning of synonyms: s a t i a t i o n or set? J . verb. Learn, verb. Behav.. 1965, 4_, 286-270. Horton, D.L. The e f f e c t s of meaningfulness, awareness, and type of design i n v e r b a l mediation. J . verb. Learn. verb. Behav.. 1964, 3,, 187-194. Horton, D.L. and K j e l d e r g a a r d , P.M. An experimental a n a l y s i s of a s s o c i a t i v e f a c t o r s i n mediated g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . . P s y c h o l . Monoor.. 1961, 75, No. 11 (Whole No. 515). J a k o b o v i t s , L.A. and Lambert, W.E. Semantic s a t i a t i o n among b i l i n g u a l s . J . exp. Psychol.. 1961, 6_2, 576-582. Jako b o v i t s , L.A. and Lambert, W.E. Mediated s a t i a t i o n i n v e r b a l t r a n s f e r . J . exp. Psychol.. 1962, 64» 346-351, ( a ) . J a k o b o v i t s , L.A. and Lambert, W.E. Semantic s a t i a t i o n i n an a d d i t i o n task. Canad. J . Psychol.. 1962, 16. 112-119, (b). Jakobovits, L.A. and Lambert, W.E. S t i m u l u s - c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as determinants of semantic changes with repeated p r e s e n t a t i o n . Amer. J . Psychol.. 1964, 7_7, 84-92. - 50 -James, C.T. and Hakes, D.T. Mediated t r a n s f e r i n a four stage stimulus-equivalence paradigm. J . verb. Learn, verb. Beahv.. 1965, 4, 89-93. Jenkins, J . J . Mediated a s s o c i a t i o n s : paradigms and s i t u a -t i o n s . In C.N. Cofer and B.S. Musgrave, (eds.) Verbal  behavior and l e a r n i n g : Problems and processes. Pp. 210-245. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Jenkins, J . J . Comments on pseudomediation. Psychon. S c i . , 1965, 2, 97-98. Jenkins, J . J . and Foss, D.J. An experimental a n a l y s i s of pseudomediation. Psychon. S c i . , 1965, 2., 99-100. Kanungo, R.N., Lambert, W.E. and Mauer, S.M. Semantic s a t i a -t i o n and p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e d l e a r n i n g . J . exp. Psychol.. 1962, 64, 600-607. Kanungo, R.N. and Lambert, W.E. Semantic s a t i a t i o n and meaningf ulness. Amer. J . Psychol.. 1963, _76_, 421-428, (a ) . Kanungo, R.N. and Lambert, W.E. P a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g as a f u n c t i o n of stimulus and response s a t i a t i o n . B r i t . J . Psychol.. 1963, 54, 135-144, (b). Kanungo, R.N. and Lambert, W.E. E f f e c t of v a r i a t i o n s i n amount of v e r b a l r e p e t i t i o n on meaning and p a i r e d -a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g . J . verb. Learn, verb. Behav., 1964, 3, 358-361. Kausler, D.H. Readings i n v e r b a l l e a r n i n g . New York: Wiley, 1966. Lambert, W.E. and Jakobovits, L.A. Verbal s a t i a t i o n and changes i n the i n t e n s i t y of meanings. J . exp. Psychol.. 1960, 60, 376-383. McCullers, J.C. An a n a l y s i s of some f a c t o r s u n d e r l y i n g i n t r a l i s t a s s o c i a t i v e t r a n s f e r i n p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g . J . exp. Psychol.. 1963, 6_5, 163-168. Mandler, G. Comments on Professor Jenkin's paper. In C.N. Cofer and B.S. Musgrave, (eds.) Verbal behavior and  l e a r n i n g : Problems and processes. P. 245-252. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Mandler, G., and Earhard, B. Pseudomediation: Is chaining an a r t i f a c t ? Psychon. S c i . . 1964, 1, 247-248. - 51 -Martin, R.B. and Dean, 5.J., I m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t mediation i n p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g . J . exp. Psychol.. 1964, 6 8 , 21-27. Messer, R., Jakobovits, L.A., Kanungo, R. and Lambert, W. Semantic s a t i a t i o n of words and numbers. B r i t . J .  Psychol. . 1964, 5_5, 155-163. Osgood, C.E. Method and theory i n experimental psychology. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1953. Osgood, C.E., S u c i , S.J. and Tannenbaum, P.H. The measure-ment of meaning. Urbana, 111.: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, 1957. Peterson, M.J., C o l a v i t a , F.B., Sheehan, D.B., III and B l a t t n e r , K.C. Verbal mediating chains and response a v a i l a b i l i t y as a f u n c t i o n of the a c q u i s i t i o n para-digm. J . verb. Learn, verb. Behav.. 1964, 3., 11-18. Reynierse, J.H. and Barch, A.M. Semantic s a t i a t i o n and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . Psychol. Rep • . 1963, 13., 790. R u s s e l l , W.A., and Storms, L.H. I m p l i c i t v e r b a l chaining i n p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g . J . exp. Psychol.. 1955, 49, 287-293. Sacks, and R u s s e l l , W.A. as c i t e d by Jenkins, J . J . i n C.N. Cofer and B.S. Musgrave, (eds.) Verbal behavior and  l e a r n i n g : Problems and processes. P. 213, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Schulz, R.W., Weaver, G.E., and Ginsberg, S. Mediation with pseudomediation c o n t r o l l e d : Chaining i s not an a r t i -f a c t ! Psychon. S c i . . 1965, 2, 169-170. Schulz, R.W., Weaver, G.E., and Radtke, R.C. Verbal S a t i a -t i o n ? Psychon. 5 c i . . 1965, 2, 43-44. Shima, F. Sex, stimulus, a s s o c i a t i o n s t r e n g t h , duration and r a t e of r e p e t i t i o n i n semantic s a t i a t i o n . Psychon. S c i . . 1966, 4, 429-430. Smith, D.E.P. and Raygor, A.L. Verbal s a t i a t i o n and per-s o n a l i t y . J . abnorm. soe. Psychol.. 1956, _52, 323-326. S p i e l b e r g e r , C D . The r o l e of awareness i n v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n -i n g . J . Pers. (Suppl.) 1962, 30, 73-101. Thorndike, E.L. and Lorge, I. The teacher's word book of  30.000 words. New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1944. - 52 -Underwood, B.J. and 5chulz, R.W. Meaninqfulness and  v e r b a l l e a r n i n g . New York: L i p p i n c o t t , I960. .Wertheimer, K. and G i l l i s , W. Mediation and the r a t e of lapse of v e r b a l meaning. J . gen• Psychol.. 1958, 59, 79-85. Wolfensberger, R. Conceptual s a t i a t i o n : An attempt to v e r i f y a c o n s t r u c t . Amer. J . Ment. D e f i c . 1963, 68. 73-79. Yelen, D.R., and Schulz, R.W. Verbal s a t i a t i o n ? J . verb, Learn, verb. Behav.. 1963, 1_, 372-377. 

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.831.1-0104819/manifest

Comment

Related Items