Transition probability effects in anagram problem solving.

Beilin, Harry; Horn, Rheba

doi:10.1037/h0042337

Cited by 33 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results demonstrate that P is inversely related to solution probability, which lends support to the Beilin (1962) andEkstrand &Dominowski (1965) findings. Further, since the HP-E and HP-H groups appear to be essentially equal, the P by D interaction is interpreted to mean that D is an effective variable only in the absence of the HP condition.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

“…It is equally reasonable to consider some non-words more pronounceable than other nonwords. In light of the Beilin &Horn (1962) andEkstrand &Dominowski (1965) findings, it is suggested that pronounceability (P) may interfere with word anagram solution. If this is the case, it follows that P should have a similar, though perhaps reduced, effect on the solution of non-word anagrams.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anagram solution as a function of pronounceability and difficulty

Hebert

Rogers

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates the effect of pronounceability (P), as rated by Ss, on anagram solution probability under two levels of difficulty (D) Mayzner & Tresselt (1965) presented evidence that there is no difference in solution times of word and non-word anagrams. This discrepancy of results suggests that perhaps an alternate approach is needed to elucidate the problem of word vs. non-word anagrams.It is reasonable to consider words more pronounceable than non-words. It is equally reasonable to consider some non-words more pronounceable than other nonwords. In light of the Beilin & Horn (1962) and Ekstrand & Dominowski (1965) findings, it is suggested that pronounceability (P) may interfere with word anagram solution. If this is the case, it follows that P should have a similar, though perhaps reduced, effect on the solution of non-word anagrams. For example, if one takes two anagrams of equal letter order difficulty and Thorndike-Lorge frequency, e.g., crove (solutioncover) and mcusi (solution-music), Ssshouldrate crove higher in P than mc u s i. Differences in solution probabilities may then be attributable to P. This study investigates the effect of P, as rated by Ss, upon the probability of solution of non-word anagrams under two levels of difficulty (D), or number of letters moved. Method Materials. Thirty Thorndike-Lorge AA nouns were randomly chosen as potential solution words from a list of five-letter nouns beginning with consonants. Sixty anagrams (30 one-letter move and 30 two-letter move problems) were then constructed by E so as to lend themselves easily to division into high pronounceability (HP) and low pronounceability (LP) categories.Psychon. Sci., 1966. Vol. '" (10) JOHN A. HEBERT AND CECIL A. ROGERS, JR.UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Two hundred and ten Ss then rated the 60 anagrams on a 1 to 5 scale for P (low to high). Each S rated a list of 10 anagrams presented in a random sequence or its inverse. All lists contained expected HP and LP problems. Each anagram was rated by 35 Ss. This procedure yielded four types of anagrams: (1) HP oneletter move or "easy" anagrams (HP-E), (2) HP twoletter move or "hard" anagrams (HP-H), (3) LP oneletter move anagrams (LP-E), and (4) LP two-letter move anagrams (LP-H). The 10 items having the smallest variance in each of the four categories of anagrams were then selected for one of four lists, since no overlap in ratings of the expectedHP and LP items occurred.The HP-E list, (e.g., patin, crove, and larbo with solutions-paint, cover, and labor) had a mean Prating of 4.66, and a range of 4.91 to 4.34, while in the HP-H list (e.g., rocut, sumic, anddoblowithsolutions-court, music, and blood) the mean=4.59, and range = 4.94 to 4.29. In the LP-E list (e.g., sgaru, mcusi, and trnai with solutions-sugar, musiC, and train) themean=2.29,and range = 2.63 to 1.86, while iIi the LP-H list (e.g., drkni, ifgth, and mnoye withsolutions-drink,fight, and money) mean = 1.98, range = 2.57 to 1.45. Some of the solutions, e.g., sugar, were used in more than one list. Note

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anagram solution as a function of pronounceability and difficulty

Hebert

Rogers

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may induce the puzzle doer not only to put the inappropriate word in the blanks but to stop searching for a better alternative. There is evidence that anagrams are more difficult to find if the letters already spell a word than if they do not (Beilin & Horn, 1962;Ekstrand & Dominowski, 1968). I hazard the guess that something similar happens with crossword puzzles, and that it is more difficult to find the correct target word if the space has been filled with an incorrect word than if it has not.…”

Section: Clue Ambiguity and Garden Pathsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five down, Absquatulated: Crossword puzzle clues to how the mind works

Nickerson

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doing crossword puzzles is a popular pastime; no one knows how many people do them, but estimates go as high as 50 million or more in the United States alone. Success at crossword puzzles taxes several aspects of memory and cognition. The purpose of this article is to consider hints that crosswords provide and questions that they prompt regarding how the mind works. Implicated topics include word associations, lexical memory search, semantic priming, the sparseness of word space, list generation, the feeling of knowing and of not knowing, mental aging, and the crossword puzzle as a vehicle for studying cognition.

show abstract

“…The possibility that subjects attempt to use phonemic encodings to solve anagrams provides an interesting interpretation for why easy-to-pronounce anagrams, including word anagrams (Beilin & Horn, 1962;Devnich, 1937;Ekstrand & Dominowski, 1965), anagrams rated easy to pronounce (Herbert & Rogers, 1966), and anagrams pronounced prior to solution (Dominowski, 1969), are relatively difficult to solve. These situations all provide subjects with salient phonemic encodings of particular anagram letter sequences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If subjects do this, they will probably be misled, since it is unlikely that either intact letter combinations from the anagram, or their phonemic encodings, are contained in anagram solution words. Gestalt notions, which suggest that word anagrams or other easily pronounced anagrams are well organized structures that actively resist being broken apart (e.g., Beilin & Horn, 1962;Bourne et al, 1971, pp. 86·87;Devnich, 1937), are therefore somewhat misleading.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of phonemic information to solve anagrams

Fink

Weisberg

1981

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies investigated the role of phonemic information in anagram solving. In the first study, subjects were given bigram clues to beginnings of solution words. In addition, some subjects pronounced the letters, either correctly or incorrectly with respect to their pronunciations in the solution words. Correct pronunciations facilitated and incorrect pronunciations inhibited anagram solving. The second study required subjects to repeat the pronunciation of the entire anagram prior to attempting solution. Again, correct pronunciations were solved more quickly than were anagrams containing incorrect phonemic units. Results of the two studies support an analysis of anagram solving in which both orthographic and phonemic information are used to search memory to retrieve possible solution words. The relationship of the present results to recent research concerning reading and other lexical access tasks is discussed.

show abstract

Transition probability effects in anagram problem solving.

Cited by 33 publications

References 11 publications

Anagram solution as a function of pronounceability and difficulty

Anagram solution as a function of pronounceability and difficulty

Five down, Absquatulated: Crossword puzzle clues to how the mind works

The use of phonemic information to solve anagrams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About