Effects of distribution of practice of the acquisition pairs upon mediating responses and response availability.

Peterson, Margaret Jean; Jamison, Sarah M.

doi:10.1037/h0022651

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The pairs from one set were shown and tested before pairs from another set were shown. When this procedure was modified by interspersing pairs from other sets among the pairs of the set to be tested, thereby increasing the possibilities of interset interference, evidence of interference was obtained (Peterson & Jamison, 1965). Not all experiments using standard PA or study-test procedures have reported differential unlearning (e.g., Goulet & Postman, 1966;Schulz, Weaver, & Ginsberg, 1965) but these experiments, like those claiming positive evidence, usually compared the rates of learning second and third lists for the mediation and control paradigms or pseudo-mediation (A-B, B-C, A-E) and control (A-B, C-D, A-E) paradigms (e.g., Earhard & Earhard, 1967;Handler & Earhard, 1965) rather than assessing the availability of the pairs, a more direct test of unlearning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third stage consisted of one of the four interpolated conditions discussed below and the fourth stage was the test trial. The test-trial card showed the response term from the second pair as the stimulus for three response alternatives, including the response term from the first pair, C. Thus, the presentation of a single mediation set followed the sequence: B-C, 2 Peterson and Jamison (1965), Exp. II, found that inversion of the cue trials yielded evidence of mediated facilitation over a longer period of time than did noninversion of the cue trials.…”

Section: Experiments I Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retention of the acquisition pairs in a mediation paradigm before and after the test trial.

Peterson¹,

Koltnow²

1968

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The retention of the acquisition pairs of a mediation and a control paradigm was studied by introducing free-recall or recognition tests before and after the test trial. The 2nd-stage pairs were frequently recalled before the test trial for both paradigms. The Ist-stage pairs, recalled with a lower frequency, were remembered more often for the mediation than for the control paradigm. Retention of the 1st-and 2nd-stage pairs dropped appreciably following the test trial whereas the recall of the test-trial stimulus and the critical response remained high for both paradigms. The B term or mediator was recalled more often for the mediation paradigm when evidence of mediated facilitation was obtained than for the other conditions.The performance on the third or test curs because the repeated term of the stage of a mediational paradigm such mediation paradigm-the mediator, B as B-C, B-A, A-C, frequently has been -chains together the two unique terms superior to performance on the test during either the second or the third stage of a control paradigm, e.g., X-C, stage (see Horton & Kjeldergaard, B-A, A-C. A number of factors 1961; Jenkins, 1963). Horton and might produce the difference in test-Kjeldergaard suggested that with the trial performance and the present ex-B-C, B-A, A-C paradigm, presentation periments investigated some of these of B as the stimulus for the secondfactors, stage pair might elicit C, the response Some mediational theorists have as-learned to B during the first stage, sumed that the facilitation of the test The 5 might actually learn B-C-A durstage of the mediation paradigm oc-j ng tne second stage (the C term may , TH.. , . , . o ... be implicit or explicit). The subse-1 This research was supported by Public v . , \ "' .. , Health Service Research Grant MH 07944

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments I Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention of the acquisition pairs in a mediation paradigm before and after the test trial.

Peterson¹,

Koltnow²

1968

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peterson and Jamison (1965), Exp. II, found that inversion of the cue trials yielded evidence of mediated facilitation over a longer period of time than did noninversion of the cue trials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradigmatic difference in acquisition-pair retention.

Peterson¹,

Koltnow²

1969

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recognition of the acquisition pairs was tested before and after the test trials of two chaining paradigms, a response-equivalence paradigm, a stimulus-equivalence paradigm, and a general facilitation paradigm, X-Y, B-Z, A-C. The second-stage pairs were recognized on almost all tests. The first-stage pairs were recognized less often and the frequency of recall was highest for the equivalence paradigms, less for the chaining paradigms, and lowest for the general facilitation paradigm. The test-pair terms were recognized most often after the test trials and the B terms (mediators) were recognized more often for the equivalence paradigms than for the other paradigms. A second experiment showed all the acquisition-stage pairs as a single list, the test trials as a separate list, and tested the recall of the acquisition pairs before and after the test-trial list. The pairs with a common term tended to be recalled together by the mediation group both before and after the test-trial list.Mediational theory assumes that mediation takes place during either the second or third stage of three-stage paradigms such as B-C, B-A, A-C. The second-stage hypothesis (e.g., Horton & Kjeldergaard, 1961;Jenkins, 1963) assumes that presentation of the B trigram of the second-stage pair tends to elicit the term with which it was associated during the first stage, C, so that an association may occur between A and C during the second stage which will transfer to the third stage. The third-stage hypothesis posits that presentation of A as the test-stage stimulus tends to elicit the term with which it was previously associated, B, which in turn tends to elicit another former associate, C.Others have claimed that mediation is an artifact due to differential unlearning and/ or interference. For example, Handler and Earhard (1964) suggested that the first-stage pairs of mediation sets were unlearned as the second-stage pairs were acquired. Then the first-stage pairs would not be available to in-

show abstract

The retention of first-stage pairs in a mediation and a control paradigm

Peterson

1967

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of distribution of practice of the acquisition pairs upon mediating responses and response availability.

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

Retention of the acquisition pairs in a mediation paradigm before and after the test trial.

Retention of the acquisition pairs in a mediation paradigm before and after the test trial.

Paradigmatic difference in acquisition-pair retention.

The retention of first-stage pairs in a mediation and a control paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About