Verbal discrimination learning and retention as a function of task and performance or observation

Marx, Melvin H.; Homer, Andrew L.; Marx, Kathleen

doi:10.3758/bf03334498

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this experiment provide much better support than the previous similar but less systematically designed study (Marx et al, 1980) for the hypothesis that the reward process presumably more directly involved in acquisition of performed responses acts to strengthen such responses more than the cognitive processes involved in acquisition of observed responses . The supporting evidence comes not only from the reliably greater mean number of performed responses acquired, but also, and more strongly, from the interaction of perform/observe and task variables.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Verbal discrimination learning and retention as a function of performance or observation and ease of conceptualization of task materials

Marx

Homer

1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four classes of high school psychology students were given verbal discrimination learning tasks with correct responses of varying ease of conceptualization. Study trials were administered with subjects working in pairs, with each subject alternately performing (selecting one of the two projected words) and observing (watching partner make selection). Both in acquisition and in 24-h free recall tests, more correct responses were made under the performance condition. Also, in each instance, there was a reliable Perform/Observe by Group (task) interaction. These results are interpreted as offering support for the proposition that reward functions, presumably operating more directly in the perform than in the observe condition, have some strengthening effect on responses that cannot be accounted for in terms of strictly cognitive processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…This experiment continues the analysis of verbal discrimination learning as a function of task initiated in a recent experiment (Marx, Homer, & Marx, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 70%

Verbal discrimination learning and retention as a function of performance or observation and ease of conceptualization of task materials

Marx

Homer

1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Students in each class were tested in pairs. One student in each pair performed(that is, actually made the responses) while the other student observed, in a manner previously used (e.g., Marx, Homer, & Marx , 1980). Performers paced themselves and wereallowed 5 min for the exercise.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition of learned-response availability: Reduction of cued retrieval by frequency of occurrence and prior recall of target words

Marx

Kim

1984

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment attempted to replicate Marx's (1982) report that transfer (anagram solutions) was inhibited both by more frequent occurrence of target words in a word-completion exercise and by the prior recall of the target words. We substantially confirmed both of these inhibitory factors, but especially the prior recall: Target words that had occurred only once but had been recalled were subsequently retrieved relatively more often than were singly occurring but unrecalled words by a mere 1% (5/342)of the subjects. Other reliable main effects and interactions were found for the time intervals before free recall and before cued-retrieval testing and for the word-frequency variable. Interpretation of the inhibitory effect of prior recall on learnedresponse availability was tentatively made in terms of a Zeigarnik-like function.

show abstract

“…Research in the behaviourist tradition recommends that exposure to incorrect examples should be withheld on the grounds that learners may internalise and learn the wrong information (Skinner, 1961). Consistent with this idea, learners who observe others make wrong responses on a learning task—even if those errors are corrected—have the tendency to later mistake those errors as correct (Marx et al, 1980). Previous work also suggests that the incorrect representations that learners initially form about a given concept can proactively interfere with subsequent learning (Corral, Quilici, et al, 2019), even after the concept has been fully learned (Corral & Jones, submitted).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This mixture condition has not typically been included in previous research on learning from examples (although see Booth et al, 2013; also see Taylor et al, 2016; Zhao & Acosta-Tello, 2016) but provides an important condition for evaluating theories. If subjects simply learn what they see (Marx et al, 1980; Skinner, 1961), then a greater number of correct examples should benefit learning, such that learning will be best for subjects who see only correct examples, followed by mixed examples, and worst for incorrect examples. However, if incorrect examples benefit learning by highlighting the properties of the to-be-learned concept that are not present in the example (Heemsoth & Heinze, 2014), then the condition involving incorrect examples should be most effective for learning, followed by mixed examples and correct examples.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating transfer through incorrect examples and explanatory feedback

Corral

Carpenter

2020

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines whether studying correct versus incorrect examples produces differential learning. A prediction that follows from behaviourism is that learning should be best from studying correct examples. A contrasting prediction is that incorrect examples can highlight a concept’s properties that are missing in the example, and thereby enable concept learning. We test these ideas across two experiments, wherein subjects were shown hypothetical study scenarios and were asked to determine whether each was a true experiment. In Experiment 1, some subjects were only presented correct examples, some were only presented incorrect examples, and others were presented both. In addition, example type was crossed with feedback type: Some subjects were given explanatory feedback and some were not given any feedback; a control condition was also included, wherein subjects were not shown any study scenarios. All subjects completed a posttest involving novel scenarios; some questions asked subjects to indicate whether they were true experiments (classification questions), and some asked them to specify what was lacking in the design or to indicate how it could be fixed (application questions). Experiment 2 used a similar design, but compared explanatory feedback with corrective feedback. In both experiments, as long as some form of feedback was provided, subjects in the mixed example condition achieved the best classification performance. Furthermore, subjects in the incorrect and mixed example conditions performed best on application questions, particularly when explanatory feedback was provided. These findings offer insights into the mechanisms that might underlie learning from incorrect examples.

show abstract

Verbal discrimination learning and retention as a function of task and performance or observation

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Verbal discrimination learning and retention as a function of performance or observation and ease of conceptualization of task materials

Verbal discrimination learning and retention as a function of performance or observation and ease of conceptualization of task materials

Inhibition of learned-response availability: Reduction of cued retrieval by frequency of occurrence and prior recall of target words

Facilitating transfer through incorrect examples and explanatory feedback

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About