through repetition proved to be easier than response substitution for Group 3 (T = 0, N = 10, p < .0 I).It seems clear that if learning through substitution is equivalent to learning repetitiously, then the second group should have shown the same amount of positive transfer as tbe first. Since they did not, it may be concluded that the marginal advantage provided by frequency was cancelled out by the presence of practice in the leaming of the replacement list. Furthermore, when the interference of partially learned responses is added to the absence of repetition, performance significantly deteriorates. Accordingly, the noncontinuity standpoint must be categorically rejected. ADDENDUM There have been many studies on one-trial learning carried forth in our laboratory. It seemed most profitable to abstract the findinp as one separate appendage to the main body of this article, as opposed to submitting a host of lengthy papers to a group of weary editors.First, we inquired as to whether it was possible to use Rock's substitution procedure in such a way as to permit the intrusion of old, pmialJy leamed responses. It was reasoned that if the order of a list of paired associates is held constant, then the response item of a deleted pair should subsequently be elicited by the position which it had previously occllPied in the list. This wouJd allow it to compete with the recaU of a newfy formed connection. Accordingly, an experiment WIS conducted in which the Ieamin, of • ~etition list was compared to that of a replacement list, keeping I fixed order of presentation. As a result, learning through repetition was significantly easier.Secondly, it was difficult to support the continuity position when using the repJacement paradigm with a group of rapid learners. However, it was found that frequency provided a decided advantage for these very same Ss when the task was made harder by merely increasing the length of the list.Finally, the prompting method has been found to be sensitive to small differences between repetition and substitution which cannot be detected using the method of aided recall.In condusion, noncontinuity results seem to be based upon a peculiar combination of events. namely, subjecting rapid learners to a menial task, varying the order of pairs from trial to trial, and using the method of aided recall. When these conditions are not met, the facilitative effects of frequency emefJe· REFERENCE ROCK, I. :rhe tole of repetition in ISIOCiative learning. Americln Journal ofPsycholo §, 1957,70, 18lH9l.
NOTESI. The interference of prior leamina was not possible in the Rock substitution procedure. This is partiaUy because the stimuli required 10 elicit the partilUy learned responses were no lonau present. In addition, the JelpORRs ~Id not be selected out on the basis of their previous position within the list, beCluse the order of the Plirs WIS varied from trial to trial.2. In order to overcome the possible criticism that the second repetiti01l lilt mlY have been easier tllan the fint, it 111" randomly chosen from ...