The purposes of the present study were to compare the study-test and anticipation procedures and to investigate the effect of high intralist similarity upon learning by each method. Forty Ss, 24 females and 16 males, learned one list by each method. The results indicate that the study-test method leads to better performance, as measured by number of trials to criterion. The detrimental effect of high intralist similarity was significant only for the study-test method. This finding is contrary to the results reported by other investigators.
References
1.
BattigW. F.BrackettR. H.Comparison of anticipation and recall methods in paired-associate learning. Psychol. Rep., 1961, 9, 60–65.
2.
BugleskiB. R.Presentation time, total time, and mediation in paired-associate learning. J. exp. Psychol., 1962, 63, 409–412.
3.
FeldmanS. M.UnderwoodB. J.Stimulus recall following paired-associate learning. J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 53, 11–15.
4.
GlazeJ. A.The association value of nonsense syllables. J. genet. Psychol., 1928, 35, 255–267.
5.
HovlandC. I.KurtzK.Experimental studies in rote learning theory: X. Prelearning syllable familiarization and the length-difficulty relationship. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 44, 31–39.
6.
LindquistE. F.Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin, 1953.
7.
UnderwoodB. J.RunquistW. N.SchulzR. W.Response learning in paired-associate lists as a function of intralist similarity. J. exp. Psychol., 1959, 58, 70–78.
8.
WaughN. C.Two methods for testing serial memorization. J. exp. Psychol., 1963, 65, 215–216.
