Class inclusion and working memory

Rabinowitz, F. Michael; Howe, Mark L.; Lawrence, Joan A.

doi:10.1016/0022-0965(89)90048-9

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In "easy" conditions, in which memory demands were low, or in groups with higher reading-span scores, memory was at ceiling. This former result has been obtained previously (e.g., Rabinowitz et al, 1989).…”

Section: I-ss S C Dciisupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Finally, it was of interest to determine whether reading span and memory load effects might be additive. The memory parameters estimated in our prior research suggested that college students were not operating at ceiling in the no load conditions or at floor in the load conditions (Howe & Rabinowitz, 1996;Rabinowitz et al, 1989). If the use of reasoning strategies is actually linearly related to resource availability, additive effects would occur.…”

Section: Specific Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…We have acknowledged in our previous articles (Howe & Rabinowitz, 1996;Rabinowitz et al, 1989) that color problems represent a variant on the traditional classinclusion problems, one that increases both syntactic and semantic complexity. However, the advantage of using such problems is that it allows the study ofclass-inclusion reasoning in a domain that necessitates memory.…”

Section: Our Class-inclusion Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, reading-span scores below a low threshold would constrain subjects to the use of a primitive strategy, whereas scores above a high threshold would result in the use of a sophisticated strategy. However, in the class-inclusion task used here, it might be possible to observe additive effects, because we have not found floor or ceiling effects with college students (Howe & Rabinowitz, 1996;Rabinowitz et al, 1989). If additive effects were observed, then a number of functional constraints could be imposed on future modeling endeavors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Surprisingly, these effects were primarily additive. The results were interpreted in terms of global resource models and fmdings from the developmental literature.In a recent series of experiments, we have used classinclusion tasks to study reasoning-remembering tradeoffs in the development of human problem solving across the lifespan (Howe & Rabinowitz, 1996;Rabinowitz, Howe, & Lawrence, 1989). In general, the class-inclusion task involves the presentation of two subclasses: a major subclass (e.g., there are six robins) and a minor subclass (e.g., there arefour swallows).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Individual differences in working memory and reasoning-remembering relationships in solving class-inclusion problems

1998

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present experiment, we evaluated the effects of individual differences in reading span and variation in memory demands on class-inclusion performance. One hundred twenty college students whose reading spans ranged from low to medium to high (as indexed by a computerized version of the Daneman and Carpenter [1980] reading-span task) solved 48 class-inclusion problems. Half of the subjects had the solution information available when the problems were presented; the other half performed a detection task between solution information and problem presentation. The results from both standard statistical analyses and from a mathematical model indicated that differences in reading span and memory load had predictable, similar effects. Specifically, the sophistication of reasoning strategies declined when memory demands increased or when reading spans decreased. Surprisingly, these effects were primarily additive. The results were interpreted in terms of global resource models and fmdings from the developmental literature.In a recent series of experiments, we have used classinclusion tasks to study reasoning-remembering tradeoffs in the development of human problem solving across the lifespan (Howe & Rabinowitz, 1996;Rabinowitz, Howe, & Lawrence, 1989). In general, the class-inclusion task involves the presentation of two subclasses: a major subclass (e.g., there are six robins) and a minor subclass (e.g., there arefour swallows). Following this, subjects are asked an inclusion question involving the superordinate class (birds) and the major subclass (Are there more robins or more birds?). Additional questions can be asked involving the subclasses (Are there more robins or more swallows?) or the superordinate class and the minor subclass (Are there more swallows or more birds?).When solving class-inclusion problems, subjects can use a variety of strategies. The most appropriate reasoning strategy reflects an understanding that the numerosity of the superordinate class has to be greater than or equal to the numerosity ofthe subclasses. This is known as classinclusion reasoning. Alternatively, subjects can use an inappropriate strategy in which they treat the superordinate class as the subclass that is not specified in the problem. To illustrate, ifthe problem is a class-inclusion one ofthe form "Are there more robins or more birds?" and the subject treats "birds" as "swallows" (and remembers the rela-

show abstract

Section: I-ss S C Dciisupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Specific Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Our Class-inclusion Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations