Subject-generated versus experimenter-supplied mediators in paired-associate learning.

Schwartz, Marian

doi:10.1037/h0030536

Cited by 24 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken at face value, the present findings seem contrary to previous literature (Bobrow and Bower, 1969;Bower and Winzenz, 1970;Bugelski, 1970;Griffith, 1976;Pelton, 1969;Schwartz, 1971;Schwartz and Walsh, 1974), which for the most part indicates (only Schwartz and Walsh, 1974, dissent) that mnemonic mediators generated by the subject produce better recall than mediators provided by experimenters.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Testing the limits of the phonetic mnemonic system

Patton

Lantzy

1987

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments tested the efficacy of the phonetic mnemonic system under varying conditions of application. The first study attempted unsuccessfully to replicate and extend the work of Morris and Greer (1984), who had shown training in the phonetic mnemonic method to facilitate memorization of a serial list of two-digit numbers. In the present study, subjects trained in the phonetic mnemonic method failed to learn lists of two-, four-, and six-digit numbers better than control subjects. The second experiment partially replicated the first, the differences being that training in the phonetic mnemonic method was strengthened, and time allotted for number recall was extended. Under these circumstances the phonetic mnemonic group recalled the two-, four-, and six-digit numbers significantly better than the control groups, a finding conforming with Morris and Greer's (1984) results. The third experiment partially replicated the second, everything being the same except that, in this case, subjects constructed their own key words representing each number, instead of these words being supplied by the experimenter. Under these conditions, subjects trained in the phonetic mnemonic method recalled significantly fewer numbers than control subjects.The phonetic mnemonic method (Higbee, 1977: 135-151; Lorayne and Lucas, 1974: 83-93) is based on the assumption that words are easier to remember than numbers, and was devised especially to facilitate memorization of numeric material. In this system each of the digits 0-9 is represented by a consonant sound. The consonant sounds are linked together by vowels (which have no numerical value) to produce words, which represent the numbers to be remembered. For example, the word 'man' could represent the number 32 (i.e. rn = 3; the letter a has no numerical value; and n = 2). These words can subsequently be decoded to retrieve the original numbers. Cermak (1976) describes the phonetic mnemonic system as among the most powerful of the mnemonic techniques.Evidence concerning the effectiveness of the phonetic mnemonic method, however, is contradictory. Morris and Greer (1984) demonstrated that use of the phonetic mnemonic method improved retention of a serial list of two-digit numbers; Bruce and Clemons (1982) found that this method did not enhance the ability to remember conversions btween metric and standard measurement units (e.g. 1 kg = 2.2 Ib), and Patton (1986) found that not only did the phonetic mnemonic method fail to improve recall of numbers, dates, street addresses, and telephone numbeis, but that under some conditions this technique actually inhibited recall.The following set of three experiments was designed to resolve differences among previous studies and, in so doing, delineate the conditions under which the phonetic mnemonic method can or cannot be expected to be effective.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Testing the limits of the phonetic mnemonic system

Patton

Lantzy

1987

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This analysis draws support from other research that has directly examined the efficacy of experimenter-supplied versus subject-generated encodings (Pelton, 1969;Schwartz, 1971;Hasher & Johnson, 1975;Wang, 1983;Wall & Routowicz, 1987). All of these studies employ variations of a yokedexperimental design in which the elicited encodings of one group of learners are collected and "carried-over" to another group of subjects studying the same material.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

The Effect of Imagery‐Based Mnemonics on the Long‐Term Retention of Chinese Characters

Wang

Thomas

1992

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies compared the effects of imagery‐based instruction and rote learning on the long‐term recall of English translations of Chinese ideographs. Both studies used a 2×2 factorial design with Learning Condition (mnemonic vs. rote learning) and Time (immediate vs. delayed recall) as the between‐subjects factors. In Study 1 total exposure time to Chinese ideographs and their English equivalents was held constant for both learning conditions. Cued recall was tested immediately and after a two‐day delay. In Study 2 total exposure time for the rote learning group was increased so that the immediate recall performance for both learning conditions would be comparable. Also, the delayed retention period was lengthened to one week. Despite variations in procedure, the pattern of results obtained in both studies was the same: in no instance was there any indication that imagery‐based mnemonics conferred an advantage beyond the immediate test of recall. In fact, greater forgetting was found under conditions of mnemonic learning compared to rote learning. This finding is discussed within a theoretical framework emphasizing the differential long‐term effect of experimenter‐imposed versus subject‐generated encodings.

show abstract

“…The authors argued that an interaction exists between the creator of the mnemonic and its difficulty. For mnemonics that are easy to use, subject-produced mnemonics are better because they are personally meaningful (Garten & Blick, 1974), result in easier to construct or more likely images (Dickel & Slak, 1983), and create better retrieval cues (Schwartz, 1971) and, hence, are easier to recall. However, a point may be reached where the mnemonic is so difficult to construct that the subject may fail at the task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Testing the Efficacy of Name Mnemonics Used during Conversation

Patton

1994

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies successfully used the face-name mnemonic to improve recall of fictitious surnames of individuals appearing in photographs. Exps. 1 and 2 tested whether this mnemonic could also aid recall of the actual surnames of real people met during conversations. Exp. 1, like previous studies, showed that the face-name mnemonic facilitated recall of surnames of photographed individuals; however, chis mnemonic reduced name recall following conversations. Exp. 2 refined the procedure used in Exp. 1 by including a control group in the design and strengthening the training procedures for the face-name mnemonic group. The results of Exp. 2 paralleled those of Exp. 1, again showing no advantage to using the face-name mnemonic during conversation. Exp. 3 explored alternatives to the face-name mnemonic, and featured use of self-help mnemonics (those initiated by the learner without help from others) and stranger-provided mnemonics (those provided by the person whose name was being memorized). A combination of self-help and stranger-provided mnemonics produced significantly greater recall of surnames following conversation than that achieved by self-help strategies alone, a control group, or the face-name mnemonic.The face-name mnemonic was devised by Lorayne (1957) to enhance ability to remember last names. As described by Hill, Yesavage, Sheikh, and Friedman (1989), "The face-name mnemonic involves three components: (a) identification of a prominent feature of the person's face (e.g., a wide mouth), (b) derivation of a concrete, high-imagery transformation of the person's name (e.g., the name Whealen becomes a whale), and (c) formation of a visual image associating the prominent feature with the transformed name (a whale in the person's mouth). To recall the name, the participant had to (a) identify the prominent feature of the test face, (b) use that feature as a retrieval cue for the image association, (c) reconstruct the name transformation (whale) from the image association, and (d) decode the name from the transformation (whale means Whealen)" (p. 634).The face-name mnemonic has frequently been used successfully to improve recall of common, fictitious surnames assigned to individuals appearing in photographs (

show abstract

Subject-generated versus experimenter-supplied mediators in paired-associate learning.

Cited by 24 publications

References 6 publications

Testing the limits of the phonetic mnemonic system

Testing the limits of the phonetic mnemonic system

The Effect of Imagery‐Based Mnemonics on the Long‐Term Retention of Chinese Characters

Testing the Efficacy of Name Mnemonics Used during Conversation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About