Imagery and frequency in verbal discrimination learning.

Wallace, William P.; Murphy, Michael D.; Sawyer, Timothy J.

doi:10.1037/h0035485

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are entirely consistent with those obtained by Wallace et al (1973), who also employed paired comparison tests for frequency discrimination, and lend support to their argument that imagery affects situational subjective frequency in a manner that makes frequency differences between members of highimagery pairs easier to detect.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…It would seem, however, that decisions based upon subjective frequency are involved in both tasks. Furthermore, if the accrual of subjective frequency units for concrete items differs from that for abstract items in such a manner that frequency discriminations are easier for concrete pairs than abstract pairs (in a relative rather than absolute sense) in a paired comparison test, it would be parsimonious to infer similar differences in subjective frequency accrual for these items in VDL.One of the purposes of the present investigation was an attempt to replicate and extend the Wallace et al (1973) findings using a factorial manipulation of presentation frequency and a comparative frequency judgment task of word pairs homogeneous and heterogeneous with respect to item concreteness. A second purpose was to explore a possible interpretation as to why frequency discriminability between alternatives of concrete word pairs is better than that for abstract word pairs consistent with frequency theory as it…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…One of the purposes of the present investigation was an attempt to replicate and extend the Wallace et al (1973) findings using a factorial manipulation of presentation frequency and a comparative frequency judgment task of word pairs homogeneous and heterogeneous with respect to item concreteness. A second purpose was to explore a possible interpretation as to why frequency discriminability between alternatives of concrete word pairs is better than that for abstract word pairs consistent with frequency theory as it presently stands.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wallace, Murphy, and Sawyer (1973), in a recent monograph, pointed out that the critical requirement for a frequency theory interpretation of the imagery effect is a demonstration that correct and incorrect alternatives of concrete word pairs are more discriminable in terms of Requests for reprints should be sent to George D. Goede!, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, College at Geneseo, Geneseo, New York 14454.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The imagery effect and frequency discrimination

Goedel

Thomas

1977

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 300-item list of concrete and abstract nouns with varying frequency of occurrence was presented at a 1-sec rate to 144 subjects under imagery or nonimagery instructions. Subjects were then tested on 72 word pairs homogeneous and heterogeneous with respect to concreteness, where the more frequent member of each pair was to be chosen. Frequency discrimination was found to be a function of relative rather than absolute frequency differences between pair members. In addition, a subjective frequency bias for abstract items was found, with the best performance when the more frequent alternative was abstract and less frequent alternative concrete. The worst performance was for the reverse condition, while that for pair types homogeneous with respect to concreteness fell in-between, with better performance when both alternatives were concrete. The results suggest that the role of imagery may be to produce more discriminable subjective relative frequency differences between alternatives and that the imagery effect generally found in verbal discrimination learning may be reconcilable with frequency theory as it currently stands.One of the more reliable fmdings concerning verbal discrimination learning (VOL) over the last few years has been the so-called "imagery effect" when concrete and abstract word materials are employed. Differential performance on word pairs homogeneous with respect to concreteness (i.e., image-arousal capacity) is typically found with faster learning when both members of a pair are concrete rather than abstract in mixed as well as unmixed list designs (Paivio & Rowe, 1970Ullrich & Balogh, 1972).An attempt was initially made (paivio & Rowe, 1970) to integrate this phenomenon within the general theoretical framework of frequency theory (Ekstrand, Wallace, & Underwood, 1966;Wallace, 1972) which has thus far served well to explain VOL. This attempt took the form of assuming implicit imaginal response evocation to correct high-imagery items more than to incorrect high-imagery items and differential frequency accrual analogous to that postulated by frequency theory for implicit associative responses (lARs). Subsequent failures to confirm several predictions based upon this assumption led to the abandonment of frequency theory interpretations in favor of image "tagging" or differential learning strategy interpretations and to the conclusion that imagery and frequency are independent processes in VDL (Rowe, 1972a, b).It now seems that the abandonment of frequency theory may have been somewhat premature. Wallace, Murphy, and Sawyer (1973), in a recent monograph, pointed out that the critical requirement for a frequency theory interpretation of the imagery effect is a demonstration that correct and incorrect alternatives of concrete word pairs are more discriminable in terms of Requests for reprints should be sent to George D. Goede!, Department of Psychology, State University of New York, College at Geneseo, Geneseo, New York 14454. 53 subjective frequency than are alternatives of abstract word pairs. Usi...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

mentioning

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The imagery effect and frequency discrimination

Goedel

Thomas

1977

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One obvious resolution would be to accept the fact that attributes other than frequency may predominate as the basis for learning in the verbal discrimination task, especially when the dimension of concreteness is salient. In light of frequency discrimination studies (Goedel & Thomas, 1977;Wallace, Murphy, & Sawyer, 1973), however, that have shown relative frequency discrimination to be easier for homogeneous concrete pairs relative to homogeneous abstract pairs, a reluctance to accept such a resolution remains.…”

Section: Resultsand Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The imagery effect and phenomenal background frequency in verbal discrimination learning

Goedel

Englert

1978

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of four experiments was conducted to assess the role of phenomenal background frequency in verbal discrimination learning and its possible involvement in the imagery effect. The initial two experiments produced a reliable imagery effect for mixed and unmixed lists with respect to concreteness of pair members, regardless of phenomenal frequency manipulations, with words high in objective background frequency. No effects were found for phenomenal background frequency. Experiment 3 involved phenomenal frequency ratings for 200 abstract and 200 concrete words. Experiment 4 evaluated the role of phenomenal background frequency for a mixed list using words low in objective frequency. A reliable imagery effect was again found with no effects for phenomenal frequency. An alternative hypothesis involving differential accrual of situational frequency to abstract and concrete items during verbal discrimination learning to explain the imagery effect was also tested by Experiment 4 but was not supported by the data.

show abstract