Associative asymmetry, availability, and retrieval

Rubin, David C.

doi:10.3758/bf03197665

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there may be other factors, not included in our set of variables, that contribute to familiarity ratings, our results show clearly that familiarity ratings cannot be used as a substitute for objective word frequency measures (Rubin, 1976), since other factors, such as word learning age, contribute to the familiarity ratings (see also Rubin, 1983). Indeed, not only does AOA independently predict familiarity ratings, but in our study it was more highly correlated with the familiarity measure than were either of the frequency counts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Brown (1984) found that rated familiarity was more highly correlated with spoken than with written word frequency and was most highly correlated with rated word age-ofacquisition. Rubin (1983) found that associative frequency predicted rated familiarity, although his analysis included no measure of age-of-acquisition. Accordingly, we examined the extent to which various factors contribute to variance in familiarity ratings by using rated familiarity as the dependent measure in multiple regression analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Galbraith and Underwood suggested that "contextual variety" may influence the rating process. In addition, Rubin (1983) found that associative frequency predicts perceived familiarity . Note that our claim is not that objective frequency counts provide an adequate index of actual frequency of word encounter.…”

Section: Age-of-acquisition and Familiarity 209mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is concerned with recent claims that subjective measures ofword frequency are more suitable than are standard word frequency counts as indices of actual frequency of word encounter. A multiple regression study is reported, which shows that the major predictor offamiliarity ratings is word learning age. Objective measures of spoken and written word frequency made independent contributions to the variance. It is concluded that rated familiarity is not an appropriate substitute for objective frequency measures. A multiple regression study of word naming latency is reported, and shows that rated word learning age is a better predictor ofword naming latency than are spoken word frequency, written word frequency, rated familiarity, and other variables. Possible theoretical explanations for age-of-acquisition effects are discussed and it is concluded that early-learned words have a more complete representation in a phonological output lexicon. This conclusion is related to relevant developmental literature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fragment theory therefore predicts that targets and cues are interchangeable. This distinctive and testable assumption of fragment theory, though it is not central to our main point and though it on occasion appears to be false (Anderson & Bower, 1980, p. 237;Rubin, 1983), is maintained in order to explore the pervasive role of uniqueness. In particular, we claim that the symmetry assumed by fragment theory can hold only if all possible cues in a stimulus (i.e., all components) are uniquely related to all possible targets (i.e., all other components), which implies that each component can appear in only one stimulus.…”

Section: Five Studies With Nonunique Cues That Would Not Support Fragmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rhyme and reason: Analyses of dual retrieval cues.

Rubin

Wallace²

1989

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If and only if each single cue uniquely defines its target, a independence model based on fragment theory can predict the strength of a combined dual cue from the strengths of its single cue components. If the single cues do not each uniquely define their target, no single monotonic function can predict the strength of the dual cue from its components; rather, what matters is the number of possible targets. The probability of generating a target word was .19 for rhyme cues, .14 for category cues, and .97 for rhyme-plus-category dual cues. Moreover, some pairs of cues had probabilities of producing their targets of .03 when used individually and 1.00 when used together, whereas other pairs had moderate probabilities individually and together. The results, which are interpreted in terms of multiple constraints limiting the number of responses, show why rhymes, which play a minimal role in laboratory studies of memory, are common in real-world mnemonics.

show abstract

“…For instance, Kintsch and van Dijk (1978) offer a quantitatively successful model of why particular units of text are remembered or forgotten. Not as much formal theoretical work has been undertaken with lists, but empirically it appears that imagery and associative frequency are the major factors in predicting which words are recalled (Rubin, 1980(Rubin, , 1983. Still lacking, however, is a formal theory of why the rank order is stable over some changes in conditions, but not others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memorability as a measure of processing: A unit analysis of prose and list learning.

Rubin¹

1985

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe percentage of subjects recalling each unit in a list or prose passage is considered as a dependent measure. When the same units are recalled in different tasks, processing is assumed to be the same; when different units are recalled, processing is assumed to be different. Two collections of memory tasks are presented, one for lists and one for prose. The relations found in these two collections are supported by an extensive reanalysis of the existing prose memory literature.The same set of words were learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Included were intentional free-recall tasks, incidental free recall following lexical decision, and incidental free recall following ratings of orthographic distinctiveness and emotionality. Although the nine free-recall tasks varied widely with regard to the amount of recall, the relative probability of recall for the words was very similar among the tasks. Imagery encoding and recognition produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. Similar results were obtained with a prose passage. A story was learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Eight free-recall tasks, which varied with respect to incidental or intentional learning, retention interval, and the age of the subjects, produced similar relative probabilities of recall, whereas recognition and prompted recall produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks.A review of the prose literature was undertaken to test the generality of these results. Analysis of variance is the most common statistical procedure in this literature. If the relative probability of recall of units varied across conditions, a units by condition interaction would be expected. For the 12 studies that manipulated retention interval, an average of 21% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of retention interval, 17% by the main effect of units, and only 2% by the retention interval by units interaction. Similarly, for the 12 studies that varied the age of the subjects, 6% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of age, 32% by the main effect of units, and only 1% by the interaction of age by units. Moreover, although there was enough statistical power so that the unit main effects, which used the same error term as the interactions, were all significant at the .001 level, only half of the age by units interactions were significant at the .05 level. Unlike studies varying retention interval and the age of the subjects, studies varying the perspective of the reader at encoding often produced interactions larger than their main effects.Similar results were obtained for the list learning and prose studies, suggesting a continuity between these two domains. In particular, the relative probability of recall changed little when retention interval, age of subject, or depth of processing changed in standard ways. This similarity among th...

show abstract

Associative asymmetry, availability, and retrieval

Cited by 23 publications

References 26 publications

First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency

First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency

Rhyme and reason: Analyses of dual retrieval cues.

Memorability as a measure of processing: A unit analysis of prose and list learning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About