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

Abstract

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 <l uen t tes t tnal . A -C < would tend to from the National Institute of Mental elicit, in a backward direction, at least Health, United States Public Health tne C-A portion of the chain acquired XTSe alSta^ ffiH^^S ***** the second stage. This analycollected the data of Exp. IV and V.

Effects of Emotional and Sensorimotor Knowledge in Semantic Processing of Concrete and Abstract Nouns

“…As noted in footnote 2, the higher end of the concreteness ratings (in the Friendly et al, 1982, and Paivio et al, 1968, norms) can be treated as measuring more typical instances of the category “concrete things,” whereas the lower end of the concreteness ratings can be treated as measuring more typical instances of the category “abstract things.” In the concrete SCT, there were significant negative semi-partial correlations between concreteness and categorization latency and categorization error. These findings indicate that higher concreteness ratings (i.e., higher typicality ratings of “concrete things”) were associated with faster and more accurate categorizations.…”

“…Two hundred concrete nouns and 200 abstract nouns were selected from the Toronto Word Pool (Friendly et al, 1982) or the Paivio et al (1968) word banks. The concrete and abstract nouns are listed in Concrete Nouns Used in the Experiments and Abstract Nouns Used in the Experiments in Appendix, respectively.…”

“…For example, Hampton (1997) reported that typicality accounted for significant amounts of unique within-category variability in both categorization latency and response probability across a variety of categories (see also, Casey, 1992; Larochelle and Pineau, 1994; and Smith et al, 1974, for similar results). Because the two categories used in the present study were quite broad, namely whether nouns were concrete or abstract, we used the concreteness ratings from the Friendly et al (1982) and the Paivio et al (1968) norms as typicality ratings. The instructions used in these studies included the following, “Each word was accompanied by a seven-point bipolar numerical scale, with the extremes labeled Highly Abstract and Highly Concrete, respectively…the ends of the scale were defined in terms of abstractness-concreteness rather than low concreteness-high concreteness…the present instructions stated that, ‘Any word that refers to objects, materials, or persons should receive a high concreteness rating; any word that refers to an abstract concept that cannot be experienced by the senses should receive a high abstractness rating”’ (Paivio et al, 1968, p. 5).…”

“…Because the two categories used in the present study were quite broad, namely whether nouns were concrete or abstract, we used the concreteness ratings from the Friendly et al (1982) and the Paivio et al (1968) norms as typicality ratings. The instructions used in these studies included the following, “Each word was accompanied by a seven-point bipolar numerical scale, with the extremes labeled Highly Abstract and Highly Concrete, respectively…the ends of the scale were defined in terms of abstractness-concreteness rather than low concreteness-high concreteness…the present instructions stated that, ‘Any word that refers to objects, materials, or persons should receive a high concreteness rating; any word that refers to an abstract concept that cannot be experienced by the senses should receive a high abstractness rating”’ (Paivio et al, 1968, p. 5). Thus, the lower ratings associated with the abstract words provided an indication of their relative “abstractness” (as was indicated at the lower end of the scale), and are therefore appropriate for entry into the analysis of the abstract categorization task data.…”

Encoding variability in mediated transfer

“…While the phenomenon of pseudomediation has been demonstrated in such ways several times (e.g., Earha;rd & Earhard, 1967), there have been failures to find pseudomediation (e.g., Goulet & Postman, 1966), and the presumed unlearning has not always been found (peterson & Koltnow, 1968 ;Schulz , Liston, & Weaver, 1968). While one explanation for the discrepancies may be the assumption that unlearning occurs simultaneously in both directions (e .g., Petrich, 1971), the present research concerned another possible confounding.…”