Individual differences in ease of conditioning.

Campbell, Albert A.; Hilgard, Ernest R.

doi:10.1037/h0062140

Cited by 38 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The last two measures were not considered in the present study since differences in experimental conditions made the data insufficiently comparable in these respects. Fairly high correlations between amplitude of response and frequency or criterion measures, based on parts of the data here considered, were reported by Campbell (a) and by* Campbell and Hilgard (3). These authors also presented distributions showing individual differences in latency and amplitude of response.…”

supporting

confidence: 67%

“…All trials were reinforced; anticipatory conditioned lid responses were recorded photographically. In the case of five of the studies (3,5,6,7,8), embracing a total of 118 subjects, the original data were available; in the remaining three studies (2,9,10) data in a greater or less stage of condensation had to be used. All of the results here presented are based on records for as many subjects as was permitted by the availability of data on the particular measures under consideration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measures of individual differences in susceptibility to conditioning.

Lumsdaine¹

1941

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 67%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of individual differences in susceptibility to conditioning.

Lumsdaine¹

1941

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…with the relationship between intelligence and learning ability, most investigators have also been interested in the generality of learning ability; that is, is there a single learning ability which determines performance in all learning sL tuations? Consequently, a wi.de variety of learning tasks have been used; for example, mirror star tracing and the Witmer Cylinder Test (Wilson, 1928), finger and stylus mazes (Spence & TOYDsend, 1930;Hall, 1936), and eyeblink conditioning (Campbell & Hilgard, 1936), as well as lists of nonsense syllables, paired associates, etc. It was generally found that measu.re s of learning for such tasks had Lov correlations both with other tasks and 'Ivith intelligence (Hall, 1936;Woodrm.…”

Section: Intelligence Iij:id the Ability To Learn Abs Tractmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence and the Ability to Learn

Duncanson¹

1964

ETS Research Bulletin Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTELLIGENCE .IIJ:ID THE ABILITY TO LEARN Abs t.ractThe attempt to discover the relationships between learning and intelligence and between learning in one task and learning in other tasks has been relatively unsuccessful until recently. Correlations of gains or other learning measures . . . . 7ith intelligence and with measures of learning in other tasks were generally found to be low, leading many investigators to conclude that learning ability and intelligence are u-~elated and that each learning task requires its Ovffi specific learning ability.A methodological advance was made in the early 1950's in the area of motor learning. A number of ability tests were factor analyzed in a battery which included scores made at various stages of practice ona complex psychomotor task. Inspection of the loadings indicated that abilities did contribute to the learning performance, thus establishing a relationship·· between abilities and learning. Tne same approach has since been applied to cognitive tasks with the finding that learning and abilities are related, but that there are also learning factors which are independent of the measured abilities. The present study was an attempt to clarify these learning factors.Nine learning tasks and a battery of ability tests were administered to 102 sixth-grade children. The tasks were of three types, concept formation, paired associates, and rote menlory, each type including one task with verbal, one with nunlerical, and one with figural material. The ability measures included intelligence, scholastic achievement, associative memory, memory spa.Y1, nunlber facility, perceptual speed., reasoning, and vocabulary. iii iv Each learning task was subjected to a separate factor analysis in order to determine the number of factors necessary to describe the learning performances of the subjects on that task. Factor scores were then calculated for the subjects, and the factor scores of all the subjects on all the tasks were entered in a factor analysis together i·d-th the scores on the ability measures. Seven factors were extracted and rotated to an equamax solution. One factor was found to be specific to the ability measures. It was interpreted as a speed factor. Three factors iv-ere common to the ability and learning measures. They were interpreted as verbal ability, rote-luemoryability, and reasoning ability. Three factors were specific to the learning measures. They were interpreted as verbal learning, nonverbal learning, and concept formation.It was concluded that (a) measured abilities are related to measured learning performance, (b) learning performance depends upon factors whl ch are independent of ability measures, (c) learning in one task is related to learning Ln others, and (d) performance in concept-formation tasks is not related to the ability measures used or to performance in rote-memory tasks.

show abstract

“…This is an example of a natural conditioned reflex which can be used as a developmental test. On the other hand Campbell and Hilgard (1936) using the conditioned eye-blink in 63 university students, found that there were wide individual differences in the ease with which a conditioned response could be formed. After performing intelligence tests on the students, they came to the conclusion that intelligence was not significantly related to the ease 50 copyright.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%