Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Effects Of Associative And Category Cuing On Recall Of Items From Exhaustive And Nonexhaustive Lists
(USC Thesis Other)
Effects Of Associative And Category Cuing On Recall Of Items From Exhaustive And Nonexhaustive Lists
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
71-27,927
HOPKINS, William Morgan, 1940-
EFFECTS OF ASSOCIATIVE AND CATEGORY CUING
ON RECALL OF ITEMS FROM EXHAUSTIVE AND
NONEXHAUSTIVE LISTS.
University of Southern California, Ph.D. ,
1971
Education, psychology
University Microfilms. A XEROXCompany . Ann Arbor, Michigan
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
EFFECTS OF ASSOCIATIVE AND CATEGORY
CUING ON RECALL OF ITEMS FROM
EXHAUSTIVE AND NONEXHAUSTIVE
LISTS
By
William Morgan Hopkins
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
June 1971
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A LIFO R N IA
T H E GRADUATE SC H O O L
U N IV ER SITY PARK
LO S A N G E L E S, C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
...WILLI^..M0RGAn jhopkins..........
under the direction of / i i . ? . Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
n„,, June 1971
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to
his Dissertation Committee Chairman., Dr. C. Edward
Meyers, whose encouragement and enthusiasm sustained him
through the work on the dissertation from its inception.
To Dorothy, the author's wife, words fall short
of expressing the thanks for patience, faith, and late
dinners as well as gentle persuasion to keep working.
To Tara, the author's daughter, is directed a deep
thanks for being more understanding about the times your
father was late or not available than could have been
asked for.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES................................... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ... 1
Statement of the Problems ............ 2
Purpose of the S t u d y ................. 3
Importance of the Study.............. 3
Definitions ........................... 4
Delimitations ......................... 4
Literature Review ..................... 5
Category Clustering .............. 5
Initial Studies ................. 5
Studies Based on the Initial
Work of Bousfield.......... 11
Miller's Chunking Hypothesis . . 13
Construction ................... 15
Closure......................... 15
Recent Studies of Category
Clustering ................. 17
iii
Chapter Page
Associative Clustering ............ 21
Theoretical Issues ................. 30
Developmental Studies ............ 35
Summary of Findings.............. 40
Variables......................... 44
Independent Variables .......... 44
Dependent Variables ............ 44
Design......................... 46
Research Hypotheses of the Present
Study........................... 47
Hypotheses......................... 48
II. METHODS................................. 51
Pilot Study........................... 51
Major Study........................... 52
Subjects........................... 52
Stimulus Items ..................... 52
Response Sheets ................... 57
Procedures......................... 57
III. RESULTS................................. 60
Method of Counting Correct Responses . 60
Incorrect Responses ................... 60
Analysis of the D a t a ................ 6l
iv
Chapter Page
Summary of Data Analysis.............. 68
IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ... 70
Discussion of Results ................ 70
Organization of Recall ................ 77
The von Restorff Effect.............. 78
Construction .......................... 78
Characteristics of Responses for the
Items Used in the Study............ 79
Theoretical Issues .................... 8l
Conclusion............................ 82
Recommendations ...................... 83
APPENDIX........................................... 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................... 86
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Stimulus Items........................... 56
2. Showing Means and Standard Deviations for 62
the Correct Responses for the Groups
3. Summary Table for Analysis of Variance . . 63
Figure
1. Showing designations of the variables 45
of the study .........................
2. Design of the study.................... 46
3- Showing the interaction between the four 66
types of cuing .......................
4. Showing interaction between exhaustive 67
and nonexhaustive groups ............
vi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
From an armchair point of view, it seems reason
able to assume that information is best learned and best
remembered if it is organized in some manner -- if it can
be related to a concept that ties it together, or if it
can be coded by subsuming it under a superordinate system,
or if it can be coded by a transformation which reduces
the initial acquisition and storage load. From an
experimental approach, not only is such an assumption
reasonable, but it can be empirically demonstrated that
such is the case. Investigations of the facilitating
effects of organization have generally emphasized either
the cognitive strategies of the learner (see Bower, 1970)
or the nature of the material to be learned.
Concerning the nature of the material to be
learned, considerable attention has recently been focused
on the phenomenon termed verbal clustering. Verbal
clustering is the occurrence of items in groups at recall,
such groups being formed either because the items have a
clear relatedness to one another (all belonging to a
1
category or a subset of a category) or because a subject
has imposed a subjective organizational scheme upon the
material (such as organizing it alphabetically). Such
clustering has been shown to have a facilitating effect on
the amount of material recalled, and it has been shown to
occur even if instructions to organize randomly presented
items have not been given. In other words, if a list of
items can be grouped, a subject will tend to group them
when learning them. Such groups might be represented by
categories such as "animals," "weapons," "units of dis
tance," for instance. To be noted, however, is that the
clustering phenomenon, as it has been described here,
applies to populations beyond approximately the age of
fourteen, the time at which cognitive abilities are
established even though perhaps not fully matured.
The present study derived from a consideration of
two problems noted with the clustering phenomenon.
Statement of the Problems
The occurrence and effects of verbal clustering
have been amply demonstrated. Two questions raised by
investigators in this area are: 1) whether clustering is
an associative effect or whether it occurs from
categorical organization; and 2) whether differential
effects are to be noted if items are from lists that are
considered to be derived from exhaustive or nonexhaustive
categories, such categories being determined by the
potential number of items that could be subsumed under
them.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to construct and
carry out an experimehtal design whereby the differential
effects of associative and category cuing and no cuing
with exhaustive and nonexhaustive lists of items could be
assessed. From a review of the pertinent literature,
appropriate hypotheses were formulated regarding
expectations of results.
Importance of the Study
Considering that for a student, the processing of
verbal materials is a primary, if not the primary, task,
knowledge of students' mental strategies and the qualities
of materials presented to students should allow educators
the means with which to select and present materials.
This study does not solve any problems or present
definitive answers to grand questions, but does, hopefully
contribute to a body of knowledge from which educators and
students of verbal behavior might further draw. The study
is seen, by the author, as contributing to a further
understanding of how certain materials are best learned
and recalled.
Definitions
Exhaustive Categories: An exhaustive category
is one under which the possible items are quickly
exhausted. A category such as "days of the week" is
exhausted with only seven items, which makes it an
extremely exhaustive category, as well as what might be
termed a closed category. By a closed category, the
author means one in which the items are of such a limited
and set number that no others could be added.
In the present study, the term exhaustive
category means that the number of items are limited, but
the total is not a fixed number. For instance, with the
exhaustive category "military titles," there are a limited
number of items generally given as responses to that
heading, but a considerable number if one gets ultra
specific or esoteric.
Nonexhaustive Categories: A nonexhaustive
category is one under which the possible items are not
quickly exhausted. "First names" would be an example.
The number of instances in such a category, compared with
exhaustive categories, seems unlimited.
Delimitations
While the scope of the study is specifically
limited to the items tested and the population sampled,
it is offered that the results are generalizable to
5
same-aged individuals of similar achievement ranking,
especially since the population was not seen as being
special with regards to strategies used in learning.
Using items similarly derived, similar results should be
obtained for other similar populations.
Literature Review
Category Clustering
Initial Studies
The investigation of the clustering phenomenon
appears to have its roots in a study reported by
Bousfield and Sedgewick (19-44). The investigators had
presented a variety of category headings to subjects,
instructing them to list as many items as occurred to them
under each heading. When the responses were analyzed, it
was noted that some of the items were grouped together
according to some characteristic of relatedness or
"secondary instigators." For example, under the heading
"quadraped animals," there were groupings of "domesticated
animals, commonly exhibited species, and various
zoological phyla (p. 153)." Such groupings appeared with
the initial responses under each category, but the items
towards the end of each list were listed in random
fashion.
This finding was not elaborated upon for almost a
decade, when Bousfield (1953) reported a further investiga
tion of clustering. In that study, subjects were presented
with 60 items that were representative of the categories
"animals," "names," "vegetables," and "professions." The
items were selected on the basis of their frequency of
appearance in the English language, as indicated by the
Thorndike-Lorge tables (published in 1944), and they
ranged from high to low frequency in each category.
The items were presented in random order, and were
read once at a rate of three seconds per word. After the
final item was read, the subjects were instructed to write
down, on their response sheets, as many of the words they
could recall. Every minute during the recall period of
ten minutes, the subjects were instructed to draw a line
under their last response, thus dividing their recall
sheets into ten units.
The results indicated a greater-than-chance
occurrence of clustering of items by appropriate category
relatedness up to the fourth interval (four minutes) and
then a decline to randomness.
To account for the clustering tendency, Bousfield
proposed two factors:
(a) Habit strength (HS) deriving from the rein
forcement an item has received both before and
during the experiment. (b) Relatedness increment
(RI) which is a hypothetical increment added to
habit strength (1953* p. 238).
"As generally used, the term reinforcement refers to an
action or condition having as one of its results the
strengthening of habits (Bousfield and Cohen, 1955* P-
83)." A reasonable interpretation of these statements
would seem to be that prior to the experiment, subjects
had formed relationships between the items, these rela
tionships being based on items belonging to similar
categories. Bousfield’s argument was that an item would
tend to evoke its category, which in turn, would enable
the respondent to recall more items of that category. The
degree to which such an operation was effective depended
upon the strength of the habit of relating these items to
one another on this basis. It is not clear whether
Bousfield may also have meant that there is a certain
habit strength of organizing material in general (somewhat,
but to a limited degree, along the lines of Guilford's
Structure of Intellect operation of convergent production
of semantic classes as an ability stronger in some
individuals than in others). At any rate, according to
Bousfield's early interpretation, high frequency of an item
and high associativeness between items would be rein
forcing characteristics of items.
Frequency of occurrence can be controlled for in
the experimental situation by varying the amount of
practice a subject has with items. Bousfield and Cohen
(1953) varied the number of acquisition trials for
different groups of subjects, using the same items from
Bousfield's earlier study. It was found that with greater
amounts of practice, both clustering and recall of items
increased. In other words, even though the items were
presented randomly each time, the category to which they
belonged seemed to be clearer and more useful as a
facilitator the greater the number of presentations. By
way of interpretation, the following was offered:
. . . The production of a single word in our type
of experiment will tend to activate its superordi
nate system, namely that which represents the cat
egory to which the word belongs. This superordinate
system would then tend to facilitate it subordinate
word-habits. What we have termed the relatedness
increment would thus result from the facilitating
activity of the superordinate system (1953j p. 79)*
An implied position, of secondary but important
interest, of the Bousfield and Cohen findings is that of
time rather than number of trials being responsible for
the facilitation of clustering. Bugelski (1962) found that
the longer the trial, the fewer trials needed for subjects
to reach criterion on a recall task, suggesting it is not
the number of trials per se but the total time subjects
have with the material that enhances greater recall,
Murdock (i960) found that longer lists of items yielded
greater recall of items than did shorter lists. However,
when presentation time was equated for lists of differing
lengths, there were no differences in the amount recalled.
Continuing with the review of early studies,
Bousfield and Cohen (1955)> still operating on the above
discussed reinforcement theory, selected items from the
animal, vegetable, name, and profession lists on the
degree to which they had a high frequency or low frequency
of occurrence, again using the Thorndike-Lorge tables. As
expected, there was greater clustering and greater recall
of high frequency items.
Finally, in this sequence of studies, Bousfield
and Cohen (1956) varied the number of categories presented
to subjects, keeping the total number of items constant.
There were three groups, one with two categories and 20
words per category; one with four categories, ten words
in each; and one with eight categories, five items each.
It was hypothesized that the two-category group
would have greatest recall because during presentation
they had greater time and experience with relating items
to just two categories, ideally forming a strong bond
between the items and the headings. However, the results
revealed greater clustering with the greater number of
categories (the items had been presented in random fashion
with regard to the category they belonged to, not in
blocked form). Interpreting their findings, the authors
submit: "With sufficient massed activation, a super
ordinate system tends to show a decrease in its capacity
to facilitate the action of its subordinates (p. 105)."
In clear terms, the circuit was overloaded and shorted out.
Another way of viewing the results (but not an interpreta
tion supported by the study, the authors note) is through
Hull's postulate of reactive inhibition.
Bousfield (1953) and Bousfield and Cohen (1953)
had offered that Hebb's theory of cell assemblies might be
a plausible explanation of the phenomenon of clustering.
Hebb (19^9) had postulated that certain lasting neurologi
cal connections may be made in the brain and that when one
area of a circuit was triggered off, the points on the
circuit (other items of a similar category) would be
triggered off, also. The Bousfield and Cohen study
reported directly above also taps Hebb's theoretical views,
suggesting that if too large a circuit is created, activa
tion of the various components of the circuit will not
occur.
Summarizing what has been discussed thus far may
prove of value for the purpose of clarity. Bousfield and
Sedgewick noted the clustering phenomenon. The interpre
tation of such clustering and for the clustering in
subsequent studies was that a single item of a category
recalled by a subject might serve to reveal the category
itself which in turn would assist the subject in recalling
other instances of that category. A reinforcement
hypothesis was also presented and tested. High frequency
items were seen as reinforcing, as was the number of pre
sentations, and a limited number of categories. High
frequency items and a greater number of presentations of
the items yielded higher clustering, but it was found
11
that the fewer categories did not yield greater clustering.
The explanation for this last observation was that too
great an activation of a superordinate system tended to
diminish the effectiveness of that system.
The remaining studies to be reported do not
present such theoretical interpretations as that of Hebb's
cell assemblies or reinforcement. The interpretations,
on the whole, are limited to explanations void of extensive
theoretical suppositions.
Studies Based on the Initial Work of
Bousfield
Mathews (1954) was concerned with the problem of
the effect of the numbers of categories on amount recalled.
She was not interested in the demonstration of clustering
per se but its facilitating effects and subsequently the
differential effects of varying the number of categories.
Using famous individual's names as items (from the
categories "artist,1 ' "athlete," "conquerors," "musicians,"
"poets," and "scientists"), she varied the number of
categories from two to three to six, and held the number
of items constant (24). As Bousfield and Cohen later
found, her results indicated that the more categories, the
more items recalled.
Mathews had, however, introduced a critical
variable in the study, that of allowing subjects to refer
to the categories from which the items were drawn, if they
wished to.
In the same vein as Mathews' study, and using
the norms developed by Bousfield, Cohen, and Whitmarsh
(1958), Dallet (1964) varied both the number of items per
category and the number of categories, with contiguous and
random presentation of the items. Therefore, one group
had many items with few categories; other groups had the
same variable differences but were different as whether
the items they received were blocked together by their
category or randomly arranged. It was found that with
short (12-item) lists, greater recall occurred if four
categories were utilized rather than one, two, three, or
six categories. The results demonstrated, then a curvi
linear relationship between the number of categories and
the amount of recall. With long (24-item) lists, there
was a decreasing relationship between the number of
categories and amount recalled. Also, "Degree of category
clustering did not always parallel recall scores (p. 1)."
Dallett's results for the long lists are the
opposite of those found by Mathews. The studies cannot
be directly compared, though, because of the availability
of cues in the Mathews' study. Dallett, in one of his
experiments, had presented the category headings to which
items belonged at presentation and recall but found this
was facilitating (compared to controls) only with groups
receiving six categories of items.
13
Miller's Chunking Hypothesis
A timely concurrent theory, offered at the time
when investigations of clustering were progressing, was
that of the chunking hypothesis of George Miller (1956a,
1956b). Miller suggested that bits of information, a
series of numbers for example, can be chunked and coded
for later recall. Miller offered that seven elements,
plus or minus two, could be chunked at one time. The
learner, then, does not have to store seven units, but one
code for the seven. At recall, the learner retrieves the
information by decoding. The best way to remember a group
of items is to "group the input events, apply a new name
to the group, and then remember the new name rather than
the original input events (Miller, 1956a, p. 93)."
Such a procedure may be used by subjects in
studies involving clustering. Tulving (1968) distinguishes
between those units defined by the experimenter and those
defined (implicitly) by the subject. The experimenter may
view a list of items as comprising so-many separate items,
but the subject may view the list as comprising fewer
items if he employs some grouping or organization scheme
to the list.
The applicability of Miller's chunking theory to
that of category clustering was tested by Cohen (1963a).
He used 70-word lists of two types. One list was composed
of 70 words that represented ten exhaustive categories,
14
and the other was composed of 70 words of ten lists
representing nonexhaustive categories. The exhaustive
lists were so designated because relatively few items fit
the categories, the categories thus being quickly
exhausted of items. Items from such categories were
represented by such words as "North/' "East/' "South/1 and
"West"; and "blond," "brunette," and "redhead," for
example. The nonexhaustive categories were seen as having
potentially more items, categories represented by such
words as "chair," "desk," and "couch"; "mountain," "hill,"
"valley," and "river"; and "dog," "horse," "bear," and
"lion," for instance.
The results revealed that more items from the
exhaustive groups were recalled. Cohen noted that some of
the subjects had put down as a response the logical name
of some of the categories, indicating that they had coded
the information, thus supporting Miller's general
chunking hypothesis to a limited extent, according to
Cohen. It does not seem that such an interpretation is
without some question, though, for the fact that some
subjects recalled the appropriate heading of some of the
items does not necessarily indicate that they used such a
mediator in acquiring or storing instances of those
categories.
While there were a total of 20 categories, not all
of the categories were recalled, as measured by items or
15
category headings recalled. Approximately ten to fourteen
of the categories were recalled, and generally more than
one item in those categories. This finding does indicate
that some grouping occurred.
Construction
From the sample items from Cohen's two types of
categories (presented above), it can be seen that the
nonexhaustive groups, such as "animals,1 1 "types of
furniture," and "geological formations" represented
categories in which a great range of items could be
included. The exhaustive groups, though, such as "points
of the compass" and "hair colors" were almost exhausted by
the very items given to the subjects. Such a situation
suggests the possibility of what is termed construction
of correct responses, wherein the subject gives a correct
response for reasons other than recall-logical guessing,
for instance. If a subject recalled the item "South," he
might guess that the other items were the remaining three
major compass headings, and if he listed them on the recall
sheet, those items would be counted as having been
recalled, when in fact they had not been.
Closure
Also, since the exhaustive groups were so re
strictive, it is possible to interpret part of the results
as having been influenced by the cloze phenomenon on the
16-
part of the subjects. The cloze phenomenon or closure is
derived from Gestalt psychology and represents the tendency
of an individual to fill in the gaps of incomplete forms
to achieve a whole perception. It seems possible that
some of the subjects may have thought of an item., such as
"South," not as a single item but as part of the complete
system of primary compass headings. Offering the other
headings on the response sheets would then be a function
of closure, not recall.
A subsequent study by Cohen (1963b) involved
further testing of Miller's chunking hypothesis. The
reasoning in this study was that list of words comprising
20 categories would be recalled as well as a list of 20
unrelated items. Since a group of items tied together by
some form of commonality can be viewed as one unit, then
there is little difference between that situation and
single items. This would especially be so if a subject
actually did, as Miller suggests, code a group and give
that group a label. It was found that there was no
difference in number of items recalled between two such
groups if the groups were matched for the total
presentation time. Such matching was necessary, since the
group that received more items had more time.
It would be appropos to discuss Ausubel's subsump
tion theory at this juncture; however, organizational
consideration of this review suggests discussion of his
17
theory after a presentation of research.
Recent Studies of Category
Clustering
The next group of studies to be reviewed comprise
a segment of the literature on category clustering based
upon variations of similar themes. Miller’s chunking
theory is no longer a reference pointy and certain
variables affecting clustering have been identified.
Refinements of the finding up to this point now become the
concern of investigators.
While frequency of a word's occurrence in the
English language had already been demonstrated as a
variable in the degree of clustering, and while it had
been shown that groupable items would be clustered, it
was of interest to Cohen, Bousfield, and Whitmarsh (1957)
to develop norms of category inclusion of items from
subjects themselves. That is, one can refer to Thorndike-
Lorge tables and select high frequency items that belong
to a given category, but this does not reveal to what
degree a subject may relate those items to the category.
Also, an investigator may see items as being highly
representative of a category, but he is subject to his
idiosyncratic patterns of thinking which may vary from
those patterns of organization of the population he is
studying.
18
Therefore, Cohen, et_ al asked 400 subjects,
equally divided by sexj to list the first four items that
occurred to them for each of 43 categories presented. It
was reasoned that the items most frequently listed would
be those items that had the strongest relatedness to the
category heading.
When the data from this study were analyzed, and
the high and low frequency items were selected, Bousfield,
Cohen, and Whitmarsh (1958) presented the two types of
items to different subjects. The items were presented in
random order, and it was found that greater clustering and
greater recall occurred for that group which received the
high frequency items. The authors state:
. . . the more readily Ss can categorize
groups of words, the more readily will
the words be recalled and the greater will
be the organization of recall (1958, p. 44).
The study indicated that clustering was dependent upon,
among other variables, the degree to which items belonged
to a category.
The findings of the Bousfield et_ al. study were
expanded by Cofer, Bruce, and Reicher (1966). In this
study the same norms developed by Cohen et al. were used.
The independent variables were: high and low frequency
items, blocked and random organization of the items at
presentation, rate of presentation, and immediate and
delayed recall. Those groups receiving the items blocked
together "by category showed more clustering than those
groups receiving random presentations of the items. But
this block presentation only facilitated the recall
of items from the high frequency groups. Finally,
immediate recall produced greater clustering than delayed
recall, but a subsequent recall trial, after an immediate
one, maintained or increased clustering. It was suggested
that organizational principles alone did not account for
the clustering, that associations between items and
associations between items and their headings were also
involved.
Studies thus far reported, the study just dis
cussed excepted, favor a coding hypothesis as an inter
pretation of clustering. The alternative hypothesis is
that items are clustered because they have high associa
tive value to one another, or they have a high associative
value with the category heading. Taking a further look
at the norms developed by Cohen at al, it can be seen
that one could interpret the high frequency items as having
high inter-item associative strength as opposed to
category relatedness. In other words, was the second item
that was given a response to the category or a response to
the first item given? With the category "tools," for
instance, "hammer" is a high frequency response. Is the
second item ("saw" from the recent Battig and Montague
(1969) norms) a response to "hammer" or to "tools?"
20:
Cofer et al. address themselves to this problem.
They suggest that the high-frequency items probably have
higher inter-item associative strength than the low-
frequency items, in addition to category relatedness.
Thus, a subject can take advantage of associative and
organizational strategies with high frequency items. The
authors suggest that both associative and coding strategies
were employed by subjects.
A further question to be asked regarding cluster
ing or the imposing of some type of structure on a list of
items is that of what happens with a list of words that are
seemingly unrelated to one another. Tulving (1962) pre
sented 16 items to subjects. The items were, from
Tulving's view, not related to one another by any clear
concept. He presented the items for 16 trials, each time
in a new random order. After each presentation, subjects
recalled as many items as they could. It was found that
even though the items were presented randomly, they were
recalled with an increasing order or grouping. The
subjects, then, imposed order in an unstructured situation.
The number of items recalled also increased over trials.
Along these lines, Bousfield and Bousfield {1966)
suggest:
... It may be said that among the habits S_
brings to the learning situation is a strong1
tendency to impose some type of order when
stimuli occur randomly. Classification or
21
categorization is one such habit. Sequential
ordering in repeated free recall is another
(p. 9^1).
Battig (1964) also reports., in a paired-associate task.,
that subjects appeared to group items by some subjective
association rather than learning the pairs separately.
Bousfield and Abramczyk (1966) elaborated on
Tulving1s findings and found that sequential ordering was
a function of list length, longer lists showing a pattern
of sequencing which in time stabilized. The sequential
order was similar between subjects, as was the finding of
Bousfield, Puff, and Cowan (1964).
Associative Clustering
While the above discussed investigators have
generally tended to favor a coding hypothesis as an
interpretation of the clustering phenomenon (as have
others: Sakoda, 1956; and Gonzalez and Cofer, 1959)j
arguments for associative factors have also been advanced.
Jenkins and Russell (1952) offered that: "Among
the possible determinants of clustering as observed in
. . . experiments is simple word-association strength
(p. 8l8)." To test the associative influence on cluster
ing in free recall (recall in which there is no imposed
structure by the experimenter as to the arrangement of
items when they are recalled), they presented subjects
with 48 randomized words, which were selected from pairs
22
with high associative strength based on the Kent-Rosanoff
word association test. Therefore, there were, in the
list, but not contiguous, 24 pairs of high associative
items.
On recall, 50 percent of the responses occurred in
pairs, well beyond chance occurrence. While these findings
do not refute a coding hypothesis, they do suggest a
concommitant explanation of the factors involved in
clustering.
The pairs of words in the Jenkins and Russell
study, while not presented contiguously, were all of high
associative strength. Jenkins, Mink, and Russell (1958)
varied the items they used on the basis of high and low
associative strength, again as determined by the Kent-
Rosanoff lists. They found that the higher the associative
strength between pairs, the more likely they were to be
recalled in pairs, even though, they had been presented
randomly. Also, greater recall occurred with the
stronger associates.
Deese (1959) presented subjects with items of
varying inter-item associative strength, again from Kent-
Rosanoff lists. Those items that had high inter-item
relatedness were recalled more than low-frequency items.
Additionally, Deese presented to some subj'ects at
acquisition the category heading of the Kent-Rosanoff
words but found that such presumed facilitators had no
23
effect on amount of recall. Deese reasoned that
associative principles were clearly responsible for recall
facilitation and that no facilitation was provided by
presentation of the category heading for the words.
Deese rested his case on the assumption that if
the headings had increased recall., then it would be
assumed that some sort of organizational scheme was
involved. It is important to distinguish, however, when
it is that organization, if it occurs, might occur. It
can occur at acquisition, at storage, or at recall. That
is, it is necessary to limit Deese's findings in light of
the view that organization was not demonstrated at recall.
The question remains as to what would have been the
results had he supplied the headings to the subjects on
the recall trials.
It is appropriate at this time, in light of the
observations just made, to point out that it does not
necessarily follow that because a subject does not recall
Items he did not learn them or store them. What can be
said is that the subject cannot retrieve the items, if he
learned them and if they are in storage. At times the
recall task or the recall situation Is such that the
sought for information cannot be brought out from storage.
Brown and McNeil (1966) refer to the 1 1 tip of the
tongue" phenomenon.
24
The "tip of the tongue" (TOT) state involves a
failure to recall a word of which one has knowledge.
The evidence of knowledge is either an eventually
successful recall or else an act of recognition that
occurs without additional training, when recall has
failed (p. 325).
Also, Hart (19^5) presents evidence that when a
group of subjects was instructed to indicate recall of
items if they had a "feeling-of-knowing" they were likely
to be correct. Compared to a group that received no such
instructions, Hart found higher recall scores for the
group that had been given the special instructions.
The general theoretical framework into which such
observations, as these just reported, belong is that of
availability versus accessibility. The distinction is made
clear by Handler's (1967) analogy of stored items in
memory to items in a library. All the books in the library
are available, but they are not accessible unless one has
knowledge of how to retrieve them. With the retrieval of
items from memory, it is not knowledge of how to retrieve
the items so much as it is having the appropriate recall
facilitators. The everyday example is the lawyer telling
the witness on the stand, "Let me refresh your memory."
And he provides appropriate cues.
The major variable in an attempt to determine at
which phase of memory -- acquisition, storage, or
retrieval — the facilitating effects of clustering play
a part is that of cuing. Cues can be seen as tags to
25;
which one can relate a group of items. The cue can be '
in the form of a category heading or an item of high
associative strength to the item that is to be remembered.
Mathews had used cues in her study because a pilot study
revealed such poor recall of items without such cues. It
has also been reported (above) that Deese cued one group
of subjects during acquisition by providing them with the
stimulus word to which the items he chose were high
associates.
Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) presented subjects
with a randomized list of words that fit unstated
categories. At recall, one half of the subjects were
given the category headings as retrieval cues, but no
cues were given the remaining half of the subjects.
Significantly higher recall was demonstrated by the cued
group. This study varies from Deese’s, in addition to
other variables, on the basis of the time at which cuing
was provided. In Tulving and Pearlstone’s study it was
given at retrieval. The study demonstrates that items
were in storage but could not be withdrawn effectively
without a facilitator — the cue.
The effect of the temporal position of cues was
studied further by Wood (1967) as an elaboration of the
Tulving and Pearlstone study. He presented a list of 40
words, representing 40 categories, to four groups of
subjects. One group was given the category names at
26
presentation and at recall; a second group was given these
cues at presentation but not at recall; the third group
received no cues during presentation of items but did
receive them during recall; and the fourth group received
no category cues.
The group receiving the cues at both acquisition
and retrieval recalled significantly more items than any
of the other groups. However^ the group that was cued only
during recall demonstrated significantly superior
retrieval than the remaining two groups.
Dong and Kintsch (1968) had subjects sort words
into categories5 using whatever principles of organization
as occurred to them. The subjects were further instructed
to give the groups labels. After this task was completed^
all of the subjects were asked to recall their itemsj but
some of the subjects were given their subjective organiza
tion headings as cues. The cued group recalled more items
than the noncued group.
Finally^ Crouse (1968) divided subjects according
to the pattern Wood devised. Crouse, though^ found that
there was no facilitation in recall if cues were presented
at recall and not at acquisition., also. These findings
are at variance with the findings of previously discussed
studies. Crouse interpreted his results via the
theoretical position that items must be tagged at
acquisition for the cues to have any effect if presented
27
at recall. By so stating, Crouse takes the position that
items are stored according to an organized pattern, and if
this pattern is not present at acquisition, providing the
pattern at retrieval will have no effect.
Slamecka (1968) suggests a contrasting position —
that items are stored independently and that organization
occurs during the retrieval process. In presenting such
a view, Slamecka is somewhat in agreement with Yntema and
Trask (1963), who suggest that recall is an active process
of retrieval, incorporating search plans.
In his study, Slamecka distinguished between
independent and dependent storage.
Storage independence means that traces are func
tionally isolated, so that the fate of one does
not influence the fate of any other. Thus, if
some items are made directly accessible at recall
this shoult not change the probability of retriev
ing the rest.
Storage dependence means that traces are associ
ated with or in contact with each other, so that
the fate of one affects the status of another.
In such cases, assuring the accessibility of some
items at recall should increase the probability of
retrieving the rest (p. 505).
In the literature, the dependent position, whether
explicitly stated or not, is the predominant Interpretation.
It will be noted that Bousfield’s original study implied
such an interpretation.
Slamecka's study involved presenting subjects with
a list of words, and then, during recall, presenting half
the subjects with a proportion of the words already given. 1
28 I
I
If the dependent position were to he demonstrated, then
the group with some items on the recall sheets should
recall significantly proportionally more words than the
group with the blank recall sheets. The groups had been
further divided by the type of words they received -- rare,
common, or words that had high inter-item associative
strength.
The results indicated that for all list types, the
group that was given words on their recall sheets did not
recall more items than those with blank sheets.
The same type of experiment was conducted with
five different variations, and in each case the presence
of words on the recall sheets provided no facilitation in
recall. Slamecka states:
With regard to the original question of whether
trace storage in these tasks is dependent or inde
pendent, the most reasonable conclusion which can
be drawn from the overall findings is that the
traces are stored independently of each other (p. 510).
He further offers that independent storage does not lead
to the supposition that retrieval is haphazard. Even
though the items are stored independently, the subject
uses a retrieval plan based on organizational principles.
Slamecka does not address himself to Hebb's theory of
cell assemblies in his discussion of results.
While Slamecka1s methods and findings open up various
areas of interpretation, the present writer will limit
comment to two points. First of all, it is not clear if,
29
in the process of retrieval, recall ability is enhanced
when the subject himself recalls those items that trigger
off the retrieval of other items or if it is enhanced when
such items are presented to the subject by the experimenter
It is probably reasonable to say that such an either-or
situation does not exists that the types of items would
influence the degree of facilitation provided by either
approach, as would the subjective strategies of the
learners.
In any case, those subjects who received some of
the items they had learned would not be able to make much
use of those items. The items were presented in a solid
group. Such a presentation would not be ignored by
subjects. They are faced with a new learning situation
that might interfere with whatever types of relatedness
may have been found in the initial acquisition trial.
Earhard (1967) was also concerned with the
independent/dependent storage problem. She presented a
list of items to subjects who were instructed to recall
them alphabetically. Different groups, though, were
given these instructions to alphabetize at various points
along the conduct of the study period. One group, for
example, was given the instructions before the items
were presented, and other groups were given the instruc
tions after the first recall trial, the fifth, the ninth,
sixteenth, and twenty-first recall trial. The same general
30
experiment was conducted three different times with
different subjects, and the results of each indicated
that those groups that received the instructions to
alphabetize before presentation of the items performed
significantly better on recall than any other group.
In addition, the later the recall instructions
were given along the sequence of recall trials, the poorer
the recall in alphabetical order. The results indicate,
then, that when the instructions for recall are given
before presentation of the items, better recall is
demonstrated than when instructions are given at some
point after recall has begun. Such findings lend support
to an argument that recall is facilitated if information
is taken in according to an organization scheme, and that
imposing an organization scheme on information already
taken in is not facilitating for retrieval.
Theoretical Issues
The next area of review of the literature is
concerned with theoretical issues of the clustering
phenomenon. This review is not intended to be definitive,
but representative of some points that appeared to be
germane to the dissertation.
A question to be raised is that of Just what it is
that is recalled in the clustered recall of randomly
presented items. Cohen (1966) offers that if an
31
instance of a category is recalled, other items of that
category will be recalled. However, not all categories
will be recalled. He thus sees a "some-or-none"
phenomenon operating. Free recall is a three-stage
process, according to Cohen, involving detection, storage,
and retrieval.
The first phase involves the detection by Ss of the
categorized nature of the list. At the present
time, there is no objective evidence concerning
the validity of the detection phase.
The relationships among the words having been de
tected, the second phase, storage, now goes along
with detection. It is difficult to conclude whether
Ss store individual items in memory or code these
words into their appropriate categories and store
the category labels in memory.
The final phase, retrieval, is the phase which can
be most adequately assessed (p. 187).
The some-or-none phenomenon is represented by the
occurrence, at recall, of items from some of the categories
but the absence of any items from others. The present
writer has noted the presence of this situation in pilot
studies in which subjects are asked to give instances of
categories. For some subjects, there will be obvious
voids in subcategories, as fowl for the category birds or
military weapons under the category weapons.
Perhaps the major theoretical issue concerning
clustering is that in which distinctions are made between
associative and coding (or organizational) factors. One
point that appears reasonable to make (Cofer et_ al, 1966)
32^
is that the items in categorized lists have higher
associative relatedness than non-categorized items. The
actual measure of associative strength between items has
received the attention of several investigators (see
Marshall and Cofer, 1963).
Freund and Underwood (1970) presented a list of
30 nouns to subjects. Paired to each noun was a descrip
tive adjective. Another group received Just the nouns, and
a third received Just the adjective. On the first recall
trial, subjects were asked to recall as many items as they
could remember. On an immediately subsequent recall trial,
the appropriate cues were given -- adjectives to one group
and nouns to the other. "Cues were quite ineffective
unless they occurred on the study trial adjacent to the
word to be remembered (p. 136)."
This study is seen by the present writer as
supporting the view that it is not only the pre-experi-
mental associativeness of items but the associativeness
during the experiment that is also critical. If pre-
experimental associativeness were responsible for recall
facilitation, then it would have been expected that those
groups who received either the descriptive adjective or
the appropriate noun fitting the adjective, as a cue,
would have done as well or better than the group for whom
the noun and adjective were paired during presentation.
Mandler (1968) presents a discussion bearing
33!
directly on the matter of associations: "Association and
Organization: Facts, Fancies, and Theories,," and he
supports the organization interpretation of clustering.
Association is taken to mean the evokability of one item
for another. Mandler points out that this describes
the contiguity of items but does not explain why the
contiguity exists. He presents a model of organization,
offering that items are associated with one another (not
merely two items but a true group of several) by an
organizational hierarchy. High associative strength,
then, means there has been a developed organizational
pattern for those items. Interestingly, this associative
ness is assessed by investigators by asking subjects to
respond to a given category, or, if a distinction is to be
made, an item that has no category properties of its own.
Hence, the norms for such items are based on strictly
the retrieval organizational habits of subjects. Finally,
Mandler suggests that a category has greatest facilitating
value when there are a limited number of items subsumed
under it.
Such a suggestion provided part of the rationale
for the present study, a category under which there are
few items being an exhaustive category.
Another theorist who has looked into the
association-of-items problem is Asch (1968). He argues
that the most that associationists have done is to show
34!
that items can and do occur together, the emphasis being
on the contiguity of items. All the various reasons why
items may be grouped together are practically ignored,
giving way to the simple fact that items occur together.
He writes:
The consequence is that the existing body of know
ledge and theory refers mainly to the condition of
contiguity alone. This emphasis, which is respon
sible for the systematic neglect of phenomena of
interdependence, is a direct consequence of the
elementarlstic assumption that the coexistence of
unrelated events is prior to and more fundamental
than relations between them (p. 216).
Some remarks by Jenkins (1968) also seem pertinent
at this point. He states:
We psychologists have often shown our reluctance
to study learning tasks that deviate from tradi
tional procedures. We would like to have situations
in which there is no question concerning the units
that the subject is employing and the ways in which
he employs them, but we also know that we have not
been able to find such a case. Subjects seem to
persist in trying to do more than we want them to
do . . . (p. 543).
There is not, as might be expected, unitary
acceptance on the part of investigators of verbal behavior
on the issues raised immediately above. Pollio (1968) for
example takes a rather firm habit-strength stand as the
explanation for associativeness between items. Pollio may
be interpreted as seeing that the subject is committed by
habit to a set of associations in his repertoire of
verbal behaviors. Items have been linked together through ;
conditioning. Since Pollio does not go too deeply into
35!
the theoretical foundations of his position., it is, again,
more of a description than explanation of Just what it is
that occurs when items are Joined together.
Developmental Studies
The study of the developmental aspects of cluster
ing phenomena do not appear to shed any new light on the
controversy. One might expect it to, on strictly specu
lative grounds. For example, if the habit-strength
position were to be investigated, there would be an
expected difference between children and adults on this
level. The conceptual level of children, not being as
developed as that of adults, would be revealed in the
degree of categorization. From a Piagetian view, this
would definitely be the case.
Gerjuoy and Spitz (1966) state that associative
clustering "does not develop until a rather high point in
the MA scale (pp. 925-926)." In their study of
intellectual and developmental variables in clustering in
free recall, they found that spontaneous organization did
not occur frequently until age l4, which lends support to
Piaget’s conceptions.
Rossi (1963) studied clustering in normal and
retarded children at three levels of mental age. He
found that retarded children clustered their recalled
words less than normals did, and that they had more ;
36j
erroneous recalls, or what are usually termed intrusions.
It was found that the number of items recalled was a
positive function of mental age, but there were no
differences between retardates and normals on such recall.
Since the retardates had more intrusions than normals,
it is possible to suggest that retardates had adopted a
generalized scheme — the categories -- for storing and
remembering the items.
Evans (1964) used Rossi's procedures with adult
retardates, who were divided into two groups on the basis
of comparative high and low intelligence. No differences
were found regarding associative clustering, but the
brighter subjects tended to recall more words.
Using pictures representing categories, Weatherwax
and Benoit (1957) found no differences in the clustering of
organic and non-organic mentally retarded children,
suggesting that both groups have abstract concept
abilities and suggesting caution in making distinctions
between the two groups.
Bousfield, Esterson, and Whitmarsh (1958) used
subjects from three age levels: subjects in the third
grade of elementary school, subjects in the fourth grade,
and subjects who were attending college. The stimulus
items were 25 names of objects printed below their colored
pictures. The items could thus be classified by category
or by color. The items were presented in random order.
37 |
The results revealed that clustering and amount recalled
varied positively with the developmental levels of the
subjects. The college students tended to group items
more by meaning than by color, but the expected decrease
in clustering by color, according to developmental level,
did not occur. Another unexpected result was that the
third grade subjects clustered more by color than the
fourth grade subjects, but the college-age subjects used
color a higher percentage of the time than the other two
groups. The authors interpreted their results in light
of correlations with Rorschach norms.
Also using pictures, Osborn (i960) found no
significant differences between retardates and normals of
the same mental age in the amount of clustering of items.
However, qualitative differences did suggest differences
in thinking between the retardates and the normals.
None of the studies dealing with intellectual and
developmental variables argues for either an associative
or coding interpretation of clustering in recall.
However, since clustering in most of the studies did not
vary between groups, and duller subjects usually had more
categorical intrusions, this is an indication of support
for the coding or organizational view of clustering.
While not in the domain of free-recall type of
analysis, Ausubel’s subsumption theory (1963) appears to
bear on the present issues under discussion.
38
The model of cognitive organization proposed for
learning and retention of meaningful materials as
sumes the existence of a cognitive structure that
is hierarchically organized in terms of highly im-
clusive conceptual traces under which are subsumed
traces of less inclusive subconcepts as well as
traces of specific informational data (p. 24).
The very fact that such material is subsumable
in nonarbitrary . . . fashion (i.e., relatable
to stable elements in cognitive structure) ac
counts for its potential meaningfulness and
makes possible the establishment of meaningful
relationships or the emergence of actual mean
ing. If it were not subsumable it would con
stitute rote material and form discrete and
relatively isolated traces (p. 25).
The hierarchy of which Ausubel speaks appears to be, in
nature, the distinctive elemental difference between those
who adopt either the associative or the organizational
interpretation of what occurs when items are grouped
together. It has been generally shown that when the
relationships between items is pointed out to the subjects
in free recall tasks before they are presented with the
items, recall is enhanced compared to those subjects who
are given no such structure.
Ausubel further suggests (1963) that the higher
conceptual elements are remembered more than the elements
subsumed under them. This would be in close agreement
with the data reported in most studies. Subjects do
appear to recall the categories more than they recall
items under the categories. Category clustering, then,
should facilitate storage and recall more than mere
associative relationships would, because the categories
39
are higher conceptual units than the associations between
words.
The situation more than likely stands unresolved,
as Cofer (1965) discusses, because subjects use both
devices, and an either-or stand is yet to be shown to be
demonstrable. Cofer takes the position, after a review of
selected literature, that both associational and
categorical bases for clustering appear in studies.
Ideally, it may be reasoned, subjects use whatever means
they can, depending on the material itself and depending
on the subject.
It is interesting to note in the literature
hardly an instance where consideration is given to the
question of there being a difference between the experi
mental situation and a subject's previous cognitive
experience. That is, when it is considered that almost
all subjects in the studies cited were college students,
it seems almost specious to this writer to question the
overriding emphasis of organizational patterning for these
individuals. Also, it seems reasonable to assume, that
subjects of this age and apparently mature level of
cognitive abilities are not limited to pre-experimental
conditions in their organizational abilities. That is,
while the items a subject is to remember do, in themselves
(because of frequency, for example), play a role in the
amount recalled, this does not mean that a subject cannot
adjust to the experimental situation and the organizational!
structure provided for him.
These remarks hear directly on the inherent
concern for the application of the findings in verbal
behavior studies. When seeking to find facilitating
circumstances or strategies in learning, one has to keep
in mind the so-called real world. Students in school are
not* and it is doubted ever will be, afforded the
situation in which they are going to be learning only
high frequency items, or items groups on that variables.
Some of what a student learns will be high frequency value,
some low. But frequency itself is but a minimal variable
out of the large reservoir of variables that impinge upon
acquisition, storage, and retrieval, or, in short,
learning and the demonstration of it.
Summary of Findings
From the review of the literature, the following
circumstances appear to obtain regarding clustering.
1. There is a tendency on the part of subjects to im
pose an organizational structure upon lists of
words presented to them. If the words belong to
categories, then category organization will appear
when subjects recall the words. If the words have
high associative strength, then associative organi
zation will appear. If the words have no clear
relatedness on any basis, subjects will tend to
impose a subjective grouping upon them.
2. Variables that affect the degree of organization
are the frequency of words (prior to or during the
experiment), associative strength between items,
size of categories to which the words belong, and
cues that suggest a viable organization scheme,
and the degree to which the words are presented
with an organizational pattern.
3. There appears to be a direct, positive relationship
between the amount of organization of to-be-learned
words and amount recalled. Also, if one item of a
category is recalled, other items of that category
will tend to be recalled, and if the category is
not recalled (where appropriate), no items of that
group will be recalled.
4. Major theories or propositions that appear to apply
to the clustering phenomenon are: the chunking
hypothesis of George Miller, the cell assembly
theory of D. 0. Hebb, the subsumption theory of
David Ausubel, and (though not explicated in this
paper) the convergent production of semantic
classes from Guilford’s proposed Structure of
Intellect.
An issue not dealt with to any great degree in the
literature but one that has at least theoretical interest
is that of items being associated with one another as
opposed to being associated with a particular item. In
paired-associate learning just one item is usually tagged
to another. In clustering, however, from an associative
point of view,.one item elicits another, which elicits
another, and so on. Unless the items were being presented
in pairs, it seems reasonable to assume that a set
sequence would be expected on recall. That Is, if
associative norms were derived for associative value
between several items, and if association is majorly
viewed as contiguity between items, then the items should
be recalled in a set sequence -- other variables (such
as serial effect) being held constant, if possible. Such
an effect has not been demonstrated, which, up to this
point, casts doubt on the associative position.
Of course, it must be noted that when a subject
receives a group of items, he may break that group down
into smaller groups. This has been offered as a suggestion
by Tulving as reported earlier. In this case, then,
certain items would appear more contiguously than other
items and in a definite order. They would appear in a
order because some words have more stimulus value for a
response, in pairs, than do other items. Hence, while
"animal" may frequently elicit "horse," "horse" may not
elicit "animal" with the same frequency.
To return to the unitary versus segmented problem
in clustering, from the associative view, if clustering
of items by association were to be maintained, then only
three conditions could exist. Either the items were
chained to one another, which seems doubtful (the order
effect not having been demonstrated) or smaller segments
were made. If smaller segments were made, then it would
seem that the individual had more chunks to keep in mind.
Chunks would be easier to remember than separate items,
but the question of separate items is resolved: subjects
do group items. There is a third possibility, and that
is that the items could be associated separately to one
item, such as an associative cue. But again, unless all
items had the same strength to that cue, there should be
the appearance of some items coming first. Also to this
writer's knowledge, this has not been demonstrated;
although it is recognized such literature may exist.
The determination of what strategy may be operating
would appear to be dependent upon the types of items used.
Items can be of highly meaningful (this is a controversial
area in the literature, and the present study will not go
into the interpretation of meaningfulness) or of little
meaning, with numbers or nonsense syllable versus words
being an example of extremes. And among other values put
on items, is included, as a variable, the type of
category to which items belong as a variable. Some
categories are seen to encompass a plethora of items,
while others are seen to have comparatively fewer items
subsumed under them. Also, some categories have the
potential for having many subcategories, while others are
practically the smallest subunit possible. Hence, the
category "Animals" can be broken down into many sub
categories, while "Parts of the face" as a category is
not reducible by much more.
The present study, then was concerned with
exhaustiveness and nonexhaustiveness (the terms being
relative to one another), cuing and no cuing, and type of
cuing -- associative versus category -- as variables.
It was the purpose of the present study to
approach resolution of some of the issues that have been
raised, specifically the following.
1. Is there a difference between exhaustive and
nonexhaustive lists of items, as these groups
have been designated by the present writer, as
measured by the number of words recalled?
2. Will there be differential effects on the amount
recalled depending on the type of cue -- associa
tive or category or both or none -- presented at
presentation and at recall?
3. Will these differential effects by influenced by
the type of list -- exhaustive versus nonexhaus
tive?
4. Will greater numbers of errors be noted with
nonexhaustive lists due to the larger number of
potential items in those lists compared to the
number of potential items in exhaustive lists?
Variables
Independent Variables: The variables being
manipulated in the study were the type of cue given, if
any, and the type of list. The variables are referenced
in the following manner:
A-^ Exhaustive lists
a2 Nonexhaustive lists
b i
Category cues
B2
Associative cues
B3
Category and Associative cues
%
No cues
Dependent Variables: The variables being
measured in the study were the interactions of the groups
and the differences between the groups. This was
measured by the number of correct responses, as well as
by the number of incorrect responses.
For purposes of clarity, the following figure
(Figure 1) is presented, with appropriate designations
that are used in the presentation of the hypotheses and
the interpretation of results.
B
Cate
gory
Cuing
Ei
Associa
tive
Cuing
B2
Category &
Associative
Cuing
B
3
No
Cuing
e4
Exhaustive
Lists
A2 Nonexhaustive
Lists
Figure 1. Showing designations of the variables
of the study
Design
The design of the study has the following pattern
(Figure 2).
TYPE OF TYPE OF CUING
LIST
Category &
Category Associative Associative None
Exhaustive 10 10 10 10
Ss Ss Ss Ss
Nonexhaustive 10 10 10 10
Ss Ss Ss Ss
Figure 2. Design of the study
The concept of exhaustiveness of lists is somewhat
different from Cohen's concept (reported above). Cohen
had used exhaustive categories that were very restrictive.
In some cases, the items he presented were the only items
that comprised the category. His nonexhaustive lists had
a great range of variability as to the number of items
that could be subsumed under them. This was so much the
case, that some of Cohen's nonexhaustive categories are
used in this study as exhaustive categories. The
exhaustiveness of categories in this study was considered
not to be absolute but relative. That is, many items
could be subsumed under the exhaustive categories, but,
as is shown below, the nonexhaustive lists contained
comparatively a great many more items. This distinction
was based on norms derived for this study.
Research Hypotheses of the Present Study
It was a hypothesis of the study that the items in
the exhaustive list would be recalled more than items in
the nonexhaustive list (as was the case with Cohen’s
study) because the subjects’ conceptualization of the
category would be clearer. It was also a rationale under
lying this hypothesis that with the nonexhaustive groups
there would be greater pre-experimental interference, by
way of errors, since there were potentially more items
available as interferers, and, therefore, the category cue
would not be as facilitating for this group.
It was further hypothesized that the nonexhaustive
group would perform better than the exhaustive group with
associative cues. Since the categories were not assumed
to be facilitating with this exhaustive group, it was
reasoned that if a subject could tag the items with the
cue word, this state of affairs would enhance recall. The
exhaustive group with associative cuing was expected to
do less well because, as discussed above, they would
depend on category organization.
The groups that received both types of cuing
should do better than any other groups, since they have
the option of using whatever facilitator is subjectively
48
more efficient, or they could use both, which would more
likely he the case.
As for errors, it was hypothesized that the non
exhaustive groups would have more opportunity to put down
an erroneous response, since they had a larger reservoir
of potential items from which to draw.
Hypotheses
Based on the considerations and rationales
presented in this chapter, the following hypotheses were
generated. They are stated in experimental and in null
form and with figural representation for clarity.
Hypothesis I
H:1 Significantly more items would he recalled hy
the groups with Exhaustive lists than by
those groups with Nonexhaustive lists.
Exhaustive +
Nonexhaustive
H:0 Groups with Exhaustive lists would recall
the same number or fewer items than the
groups with Nonexhaustive lists.
49
Hypothesis II
H:1 More items would he recalled by the
Exhaustive/Category-cue group than by the
Nonexhaustive Category-cue group.
Category Cuing
Exhaustive +
Nonexhaustive -
H:0 The same number or fewer items would be re
called by the Exhaustive/Category-cue group
than by the Nonexhaustive/Category-cue group.
Hypotheses III
H:1 More items would be recalled by the Nonex-
haustive/Associative-cue group than by the
Exhaustive/Associative-cue group.
Associative
Cuing
Exhaustive
Nonexhaustive
-
+
H:0 The Nonexhaustive/Associative-cue group
would recall the same number or fewer items
than the Exhaustive/Associative-cue group.
Hypothesis IV
H:1 The Exhaustive/ and Nonexhaustive/Category
& Associative-cue groups would recall more
items than any of the other groups.
50
Category
Cuing
Associative
Cuing
Category &
Associative
Cuing
No
Cuing
Exhaustive - -
+ -
Nonexhaustive - - + -
H:0
Hypohtesis V
H:1
The Exhaustive/ and Nonexhaustive/Category &
Associative-cue groups would recall the same
number or fewer items than any of the other
groups.
The Exhaustive/ and Nonexhaustive/No-cue
groups would recall fewer items than any of
Exhaustive
None xhau s t i ve
the other groups.
Category
Cuing
Associative
Cuing
Category &
Associative
Cuing
No
Cuing
+ + + -
+ + + -
CHAPTER II
METHODS
Pilot Study
A small-sample pilot study was conducted, using
ten subjects recently graduated from high school. The
purpose of the pilot study was to work out procedural
problems of the conduct of the study and to gain insight,
from informal interview, as to the strategies used to
remember the items presented.
The subjects were given one presentation of the
items used in the major study. They were then asked to
write down the items they had been asked to remember.
When queried, these subjects unanimously agreed that they
tried to remember the items in the order in which they
had been presented. This illustrated the presence of a
strong serial-learning effect. However, the subjects
generally agreed among themselves that the cue item they
were given was utilized, but they were not sure how.
That is, the cue word seemed to stand out in their minds
(as they described it), but the subjects could not recall
what use they made of the cue word.
From the pilot study, methodological problems of
51
52
the actual conduct of the study were cleared up. The
subjects of the pilot study also made meaningful sugges
tions as to the specific manner in which materials could
be organized and distributed.
Major Study
Subjects
Subjects for the study were students of the
eleventh and twelfth grades attending a high school
serving a city adjacent to one of the nation’s largest
metropolitan areas. According to the teachers of the
classes from which the students were selected, the
majority were from upper-middle class homes and were
considered by the teachers to be above average in
intelligence and likely to continue their education at
the college level.
The subjects had been told ahead of time, by their
teachers, that they would be asked to serve in a study,
but that they could decline to participate. No prospective
subject declined. A total of eighty subjects were
selected, 45 boys and 35 girls.
Stimulus Items
Even though word lists of varying types exist,
it was considered desirable by the author to develop his
own norms. The rationale for doing so stemmed from
53
several considerations. One was that the existing word
lists were either not seen as applicable, or, if
applicable, out of date. The Thorndike-Lorge tables were
considered too old, having been developed in 1944. Also,
the interest of the study was not in frequency of an
item's occurrence in the English language but an item's
frequency of occurrence in recall.
Using a method similar to that of Cohen,
Bousfield, and Whitmarsh (1957) and Battig and Montague
(1969)> norms for the study were developed.
Twenty-eight subjects participated in this phase
of the study. They were subjects who were comparable to
those participating in the study with regards to level in
school and achievement ranking. They were presented with
eight category headings and were instructed to list as
many items as occurred to them under the headings. They
were further instructed to keep the items with the con
ceptual limits of the categories. They were told that
quantity was an important factor but that spelling was
not important.
Twenty minutes were allowed for this procedure.
About two and one-half minutes were allowed for each
category. At the end of the time, the sheets were
collected.
The total number of responses for each category
was counted. Two groups of items were discarded. These
54
from each category. The most frequently occurring item
was selected as the associative cue for those groups that
received this form of cuing. Therefore, there were
three categories, seven items per category, or a total of
21 items that the subjects of the study were to learn
and recall.
The next step involved typing the items on a
mimeograph stencil. The items were arranged on the
stencil to enable the sheets that were run off to be cut
evenly into rectangular pieces, one item per piece of
paper. After the stencils were run, the papers were cut.
The items were then assigned a number and were arranged
with reference to a table of random numbers. Then for
each category, the appropriate cue was placed on top of
the stack of the seven items, and this packet was stapled
on the left side. This procedure was carried out for all
groups of items. The items for the group of subjects who
were to have no cue had a blank piece of paper placed on
top instead of a cue word.
When all of the items were thus arranged, the
individual items for each group were again assigned
numbers, and were organized with reference to a table of
random numbers. If two or more items appeared in the
same order as items for the first presentation, these
items were then reversed.
Envelopes were then constructed, and each
55
were groups that, compared with the other groups, did not
fit either extreme of exhaustiveness clearly, "being some
what in between. Table I shows the categories selected
and the number of different items listed. It can be seen
that the mean number of items for the nonexhaustive group
is almost four times the mean number of items for the
exhaustive group.
The next procedure was to count the number of times
any one item occurred. Each item listed by a subject had
the potential, theoretically, of being listed by every
subject. There was, therefore, the potential for 28
responses of any one item listed by a subject. Such an
occurrence was noted for some of the words listed. Next,
those items that were listed by 14 subjects, or 50 per
cent of the respondents, were drawn out. The next items
drawn were those listed by 13 subjects, then those
listed by 12, and those listed by 11. It happened that no
response so selected had been given by fewer than 11
subjects. The fifty percent level was selected because
items were desired which were neither too frequent nor
items that were so infrequent as to be esoteric. However,
it was considered desirable, in order to control partially
for frequency as a variable, to select those items that
were less frequent responses, when a choice had to be
made.
By the method described, seven items were selected
TABLE I
STIMULUS ITEMS
EXHAUSTIVE NONEXHAUSTIVE
PARTS OF ITEMS OF LAND . .
THE FACE FURNITURE FORMS ANIMALS OCCUPATIONS NAMES
Number of
Different
Items
22
59
6l
125 175
ro
(V)
LO
Mean for
type of
Category
47.3 17^.3
57;
envelope was filled with the three packets of items for
the appropriate group. Two envelopes were made for each
subject,, one for each presentation.
Response Sheets
The response sheets were papers about two and one
half inches wide and five and one half inches long. A
separate response sheet was provided for each category.
Therefore, each subject had three response sheets. The
sheets were arranged so that only three subjects in each
group had the same order. These sheets were stapled at
the top, and each sheet had the appropriate cue at the
top and seven lines on which the responses were to be
written.
Procedures
The study was conducted during the regular hours
of the school day. The author entered the classroom and
was introduced by the teacher to the students. The author
then read from a prepared sheet of instructions. The same
instructions were read to all subjects.
I am conducting a study to find out how people
like yourselves best remember what they learn. I
will give each of you two envelopes; one is marked
in blue, the other in red. When the receive the
envelopes, please do not open them until I ask you.
Inside the envelopes are three packets, and each
packet has eight pieces of paper in it.
58
The first piece of paper has a word on it that
will help you to remember the other words beneath
it. Try to use this first word to help you in re
membering the other words. You will see this word
again on your paper on which you will write down
as many words as you can remember when I ask you to.
If you have a blank sheet, then that also has value
in helping you to remember the words.
I will ask you to pick up a packet, look at the
first word and turn to the next. Each time I say
"next" please turn to the next word. We will do
this with all the packets. Then we'll do it again
with the packets in the other envelope. You will
have two chances to learn the words. Then you will
be asked to write down as many of the words you can
remember. Are there any questions?
When the questions were answered, the envelopes
were handed out. Each envelope was marked with a code
as to the group to which the stimulus items belonged.
Therefore the author was able to arrange the envelopes
so that no two subjects sitting next to one another had
the same items. Also, since three classes were used, it
was possible to give each class an equal number of
similar items, so that no one class received a dispropor
tionate number of similar items. The time of day and
classroom environment, as variables, were also controlled
for in this manner.
After the envelopes were handed out, subjects were
told to remove the packets from the envelope marked in
blue, to turn them so they were upside down and arranged
in a row, and then to take the packet on their left,
turn it over and to study the first word or blank piece
of paper. Fifteen seconds were allotted this portion
59
of the study. Then the subjects were told to turn to the
first word. Using a stop watch as a timer, the author
said "next" every four seconds. When one packet was thus
exhausted, the subjects were told to pick up the next one
on their left and the same procedure was followed.
When the last packet was completed, subjects were
instructed to put the packets back in the envelopes and
to take out those from the envelope marked in red. The
same procedures were followed for the presentation of
these items as had been used in the items from the first
envelope.
When the last item had been presented, subjects
were instructed to replace the packets in the envelopes.
This procedure took about ten seconds. They were then
told to write down as many words as they could remember,
in any order, but to fill in all the blank spaces. Five
minutes were allotted this procedure. At the aid of this
period, the envelopes and recall sheets were collected,
and the subjects were thanked for their participation.
This procedure was carried out in all three
classrooms.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Method of Counting Correct Responses
A response was counted as correct if it was a
close approximation, in spelling, to the stimulus item.
In one case, a subject wrote "bread," which was counted as
a correct response for "beard"j another subj'ect wrote
"paino" which was accepted for "piano." On some recall
sheets, an item was given twice. Only one correct
response was counted in these instances.
The scores for each subj'ect in a particular
category were then totaled for the analysis of the data.
Incorrect Responses
It had been hypothesized that there would be more
intrusions or errors by the groups with the nonexhaustive
lists than by the groups with exhaustive lists. However,
inadvertently given directions at presentation of the
items that precluded such an analysis. The subj'ects had
been told to fill in all the spaces on their answer
sheets, even if they did not think the response was
60
61
correct, that it was better to guess than to leave a
space blank. This instruction yielded errors that could
not distinguish from errors in recall. At the end of some
response sheets, for instance, it was apparent that the
wrong responses were due to instructions rather than to
genuine errors, for some individuals listed the correct
responses and then at the end listed items that fit the
categories but were not correct. Errors between correct
items may have sometimes been due to subjects following
instructions, also.
The procedure of having the subjects fill in all
the available spaces stemmed from the rationale that
scores would be higher if a subject did not believe he
would be penalized for an incorrect response or if he was
not sure if a response was or was not correct. In this
manner, the limits of recall were pushed and responses
forced.
Analysis of the Data
The means and standard deviations for each group
are shown in Table 2. An analysis of variance, two by
four design, was run on an IBM, model 360, computer,
utilizing BIMED Program BMD02V for factorial design (1970).
Table 3 is a summary table for the analysis of
variance.
62
TABLE 2
Showing Means and Standard Deviations
for the Correct Responses for the
Groups
TYPE OF CUING
TYPE OF
LIST
Category Associative
Category &
Associative None
X SD X SD X SD X SD
Exhaustive 16.2 4.5
11.9
3.6
13.9 3.3 12.3 3.8
Nonexhaus tive 16.2 2.7 16.2 2.0
13-3
3.4 16.5 2.3
63
TABLE 3
Summary Table for Analysis of Variance
A = Type of List
B = Type of Cue
A = Exhaustive Lists
A2 = Nonexhaustive Lists
Bp = Category Cuing
B2 = Associative Cuing
Bo = Category and Associative Cuing
B^ = No cuing
Sums of
Squares DF
Mean
Squares F
A
78.01245
1 78.01245 7.16*
A at B - j ^ 0.0 1 0.0 0.0
A at Bg
92.45
1
92.45
8.48**
A at B^ 1.98 1 1.98 .18
A at B^ 88.2 1 88.2 9.09**
B 77.93736 3 25.97911
2.38
B at Aj_
114.3 3
38.1 3.49***
B at Ag 68.1
3
22.7 2.08
AB 104.44254
3
34.8l4l8
3.19*
Within Cells 785.29517 72
Total 1045.68750
79
*P .05
**P .0125
***P .025
64
The analysis of variance revealed a significant
difference between exhaustive (A^) and nonexhaustive (A^)
groups, indicating that over-all mean performance was
higher under nonexhaustive lists.
No significant difference was found to exist
between types of cuing (B-^, B2, B-^, B^). However a
significant interaction was found between type of cuing
and exhaustive (A^)/nonexhaustive (Ag) groups. This
interaction is indicated in Figure 1.
No separate pairwise comparisons were made between
types of cuing averaged over the exhaustive/nonexhaustive
lists due to the insignificant effect of this variable.
In order to obtain additional insight into the
significant interaction between the two variables (cuing
and list type), tests of the simple main effects for each
variable were undertaken. Results of these procedures
along with the over-all analysis of variance are presented
in Table 3. As recommended by Kirk (1969* P- l8l), the
same per family error rate was assigned to the simple main
effect tests. A comparison of A at B]_ indicated no
significant difference between exhaustive and nonexhaustive
lists for category cuing. A comparison of A at B2
revealed that associative cuing was significantly better
for nonexhaustive lists than for exhaustive lists. The
simple main effects of A at B_^ was not significant,
indicating that the combination of category and associative
65
cuing was equally effective for both types of lists. The
comparison of A at resulted in a significant difference,
indicating that no cuing with nonexhaustive lists gave
higher recall than no cuing with exhaustive lists.
A significant difference was also found for the
simple effect of B at A^ (exhaustive lists). Tukey's HSD
(honestly significant differences) method for a posteriori
comparisons was utilized in order to gain increased
insight into this result (Kirk, p. 189). It was found
that for exhaustive lists (A^), category cuing (Bj) was
significantly better than either associative cuing (B2)
or no cuing (B^) (q=5-82, PC.01 and q=5.28, PC.01,
respectively). No significant differences were found
between any other comparisons of cuing procedures under
exhaustive lists.
The test of the simple main effects of B (cuing)
at A2 (nonexhaustive lists) revealed no significant
differences.
Figure 3
Showing the Interaction Between
the Four Types of Cuing
18 -
17 -
16 -
(Nonexhaus
tive Lists)
15 -
14 -
13 -
VA. (Exhaustive
Lists)
12
11
10
o o o o
oS >
■H
> i - P
Sh ctf
O -H
hD O
t t ) O
-P ra
•H -P
O
67
Figure 4
Showing Interaction Between Exhaustive
and Nonexhaustive Groups
18 -
17 -
Ax ..............^--;
16 - / « ■ '
15 - / . ‘
/ . '
14 - >
1
i
I
i
/ .
13 -
✓ . ■
A^,-* A-^=Category Cue
12 -
Ag' A2=Associative Cue
A^Category & Associa
11 - tive Cue
10 -
A||=No Cue
9 -
Ai A2
Exhaustive Nonexhaustive
Lists Lists
68
Summary of Data Analysis
In addition to the tables and figures., a summary
of the results is offered below.
Hypothesis I: Significantly more items would be
recalled by the groups with Exhaus
tive lists than by those groups with
Nonexhaustive lists.
Result: Hypothesis not confirmed. Significantly
more items were recalled by the groups
with Nonexhaustive lists than by those
groups with Exhaustive lists.
Hypothesis II: More items would be recalled by the
Exhaustive/Category-cue group than
by the Nonexhaustive/Category-cue
group.
Result: Hypothesis not confirmed. Both groups
recalled identical number of items.
Hypothesis III: More items would be recalled by
the Nonexhaustive/Associative-cue
group than by the Exhaustive/
Associative-cue group.
Result: Hypothesis confirmed.
Hypothesis IV: The Exhaustive/ and Nonexhaustive/
Category and Associative-cue groups
would recall more items than any of
the other groups.
Result: Hypothesis not confirmed.
Hypothesis V: The Exhaustive/ and Nonexhaustive/
No-cue groups would recall fewer
items than any of the other groups.
Result: Hypothesis not confirmed
Results not hypothesized: The Nonexhaustive/No-cue
group recalled significantly more items than the
Exhaustive/No-cue group.
Category cuing was significantly better than either
Associative or No cuing for the Exhaustive group.
69
There were no significant differences between
groups for the Nonexhaustive lists.
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS
Discussion of Results
The results are discussed, in the order in which
they are listed above, in the following write-up.
1. The Nonexhaustive groups recalled significantly more
items than the Exhaustive groups.
Reference to Table 2 reveals that there were no
differences between the groups on the variable of
Category Cuing; the scores for both groups were identical.
Further, the scores for the groups on the Category/
Associative-Cuing variable are not only close, but the
score for the Exhaustive group is higher. Therefore the
difference between groups is to be found in the
Associative and No-Cuing variables.
The question to be asked is if there was some
characteristic of an associative cue or lack of a cue
that interacted with the type of list to yield the
differences. One possibility is that the categories for
70
71
the Exhaustive groups were not as clear (as represented
by the items) as were the categories for the Nonexhaustive
groups. That is, if one takes the items in the
Nonexhaustive lists, these items might more clearly lead
to a subject's noting the over-all category than would
the items of the Exhaustive lists. When the subjects in
Category Cue groups were told the categories, such
information was facilitating, and without that informa
tion, the subjects in the Associative and No Cue groups
did not readily distinguish the categories.
Reference to the items in the groups appears to
lend support to this line of reasoning, admittedly on
a_ priori speculation. The categories for the Nonexhaus
tive groups were: animals, occupations, and names. It
can be seen that if one is given a group of names that
the category to which they belong is quite obvious.
John, Bill, Jim, Mary, and Jack are little else but names;
they do not belong to any other readily discernable
category. The items in the occupation category were also
quite restricted to that category. The same is true for
the items in the occupations group.
When the items in the Exhaustive groups are
reviewed, though, there is comparatively less clarity as
to category inclusion. In the furniture group, the item
"piano" might be more readily thought of as a musical
instrument, and the item "stereo" is not clearly an item
72
of furniture. Also, the items in the parts of the face
category might belong to other categories as well, such
as parts of the body. Finally, with the land forms
category, "lake" and "river" may not readily appear as
land forms to subjects; they could fit another category
more readily, perhaps bodies of water.
The method in which the items were selected,
though, would appear to preclude such an argument as
that just offered. The items were listed under the
headings supposedly because subjects saw those items as
being representative of the headings offered. However,
it cannot be assumed that the two types of thinking are
the same; one is deductive (giving items to a heading),
while the other in inductive. The two operations may be
different, so that when subjects are given parts of the
face as a heading certain items are listed, but when those
items are given, the category of parts of the face is not
so clear.
2. The Nonexhaustive/Assoelative-cuing group recalled
significantly more items than the Exhaustive/Associative-
cuing groups.
The opposite effect had been hypothesized. The
reasoning had been that the associative cue would not be
as facilitating for the Exhaustive groups as it would be
for the Nonexhaustive groups. It was assumed that the
73
groups would use the cue presented, but such may not have
been the case. Despite the author's intention that the
subjects use the associative cue; the subjects of the
study may have had (literally) their own ideas.
It had been the reasoning of the author that a
cue presented to the subjects would be more facilitating
to use than any other cue they themselves might come up
with. It will be remembered that the subjects had been
instructed to study the cue word for 15 seconds. They
studied this word for a total of 30 seconds (two pre
sentations). The total time spent with the items was
56 seconds (4 seconds per word times 7 words times 2
presentations). If the total-time hypothesis is appli
cable, then the subjects had significantly more time with
the cue word than with any individual word. Indeed,
35 percent of the time spent by any group was spent with
the cue word. The author sees this as a justification
for assuming the cue word was acquired. This word also
appeared on the recall sheets. Therefore, it appeared
that any other cue the subjects devised would have had
the strong potential of incurring an interference effect.
Two other alternative explanations are possible for the
obtained results.
One is that the subjects ignored the cue word.
This is doubtful, since they were instructed to study it
for 15 seconds, were further told that this word should
be connected to the succeeding words, and since the word
was written on the recall sheets. The other alternative
is that, while the subjects did study the cue word, the
organizational schema of the Nonexhaustive groups of items
was so clear as to override the associative effect. The
subjects may not have utilized the associative cue even
though they learned it.
The Exhaustive groups may have used the cue, but
it may not have been facilitating. It is reasoned that
the cue could have been used in two ways. One way is to
link each individual word with the cue; the other is to
set up a chaining of responses. The chaining would not
have been a successful strategy, since the subjects
received the items in one order on the first presentation
and in another on the second. The linking of each item
with the cue is an A-B, A-C, A-D, A-E, A-F, A-G, A-H
paired associate paradigm, which is the antithesis of the
clustering strategy (being 21 separate items) and would,
therefore, not be facilitating (theoretically). Such a
situation would have been along the following lines, for
example:
Mountain-canyon, Mountain-lake, Mountain-penninsula,
Mountain-desert, Mountain-plains, Mountain-river
Mountain-is land
One might reason that Mountain-lake would be a strong
pair, but the item "lake" was the second to the least
75
item recalled. If this strategy did not prove facilitat
ing, the alternative is the clustering strategy, which
would be represented along the lines of the following:
Land Forms
canyon
lake
penninsula
desert
plains
river
island
This strategy might be seen as a quasi-recognition
strategy. That is, when searching for the available
items, one might retrieve possible items from the
reservoir and recognize certain of the items as having
belonged to the list that had been presented. In effect,
this is what had been hypothesized. If the subjects from
the Nonexhaustive group used such a strategy, they would
retrieve too many items from pre-experimental memory.
The problem with the associative cue is that, as
has been discussed, it did not indicate the category
clearly, and without the category being clear it could
not be used.
3. The Nonexhaustive/No-cue group recalled significantly
more items than the Exhaustive/No-cue group.
The same general argument is offered here as in
the discussion immediately above. The Nonexhaustive
groups apparently did not need the organizational name
76
for the category, for it was quite clear. Such was not
the case for the Exhaustive group.
4. Category cuing was significantly better than either
Associative or No cuing for the Exhaustive group.
This finding appears to lend support to the inter
pretation of the data along the reasoning that the
category heading was necessary in order to reveal what
the category was, and that when it was revealed the
category heading proved to be facilitating. The
Exhaustive/Category-cue group recalled identically the
number of items recalled by the Nonexhaustive/Category-
cue group.
5. There was no significant difference between the two
types of lists for Category Cuing.
The groups receiving category cues (Exhaustive
and Nonexhaustive lists) did equally as well as each
other. These results indicate that category cues are
facilitating in either learning items or recalling them.
6. There were no significant differences between groups
for the Nonexhaustive lists.
This finding appears to support the argument that
when the category is clear, it will be utilized, and
when it is utilized it will facilitate learning, as
demonstrated by amount recalled.
77
Organization of Recall
The study depended on subjects grouping items.
If grouping were not reflected in the recalled items,
then the clustering effect would not have been operative.
Almost without exception the recalled items were
placed on the appropriate recall sheet. With the groups
that received no cues, there was less grouping. With
these latter groups there were more instances of correct
items being interspersed between groups. Subjects would
recall some of the items of a group they had listed after
they had recalled items of another group. While this
situation obtained for a greater percent of the subjects
in the nonexhaustive group (11 percent) than for the
exhaustive group (7 percent), this lack of total cluster
ing is not considered to provide the basis for interpre
tation of the results obtained from the study. When
subjects in the nonexhaustive group had these nongrouped
items, the items were usually just one occurrence per
category. Subjects recalled the items, then apparently
recalled one they had not recalled when going through
the category. Subjects of the exhaustive group,
though, would recall a few items, then another category,
then a few more of the first category. Thus, there did
appear to be more clustering for the nonexhaustive than
exhaustive group with the no-cue presentation.
A pilot study indicated that a serial position
78
effect was apparent with only one presentation of the
stimulus items. With two presentations this effect did
not appear. Subjects of the pilot group were queried as
to the strategies they used in learning the items, and
they reported, almost unanimously, that trying to remember
the items in the order of their occurrence, when there
were two random order presentations, was confusing.
Three presentations were not given in order to prevent
the occurrence of a ceiling effect, which, to judge from
the scores obtained, was not present. The highest score
possible for any one group was 210, and the highest score
obtained was 169.
The von Restorff Effect
Since it has been discussed that some items did
not appear to fit the categories with discreteness,
observation of the von Restorff effect might have been
expected. However, from observation of scores on the
recall of individual items, no such effect was noted. In
no instance did the items that the author saw as
possibly belonging to other categories appear with
greater frequency than the most frequently occurring
item on the recall sheets.
Construction
The possibility of construction in recall has been
noted in Chapter I as a possible function in Cohen's
79
results in which exhaustive groups had greater recall of
items than nonexhaustive groups. If construction had been
a variable in the present study, opposite results from
those obtained would have been expected. Also, if this
were a significant variable, it would have been expected
to operate in all groups, yielding more homogeneous
scores.
Characteristics of Responses for the
Items Used in the Study
It was of interest to the author to review the
response sheets, from which the stimulus items were
drawn, for characteristics noted by previous researchers.
A definite clustering effect was noted, with a
diversity of organizational patterning, however. The
items "dog" and "cat" appeared together on almost all
response sheets. Some subjects utilized several
strategies, that is, putting barn-yard animals together
but at the same time using a homophonic strategy in
other instances. In subsequent pilot studies with
college students as subjects, this same phenomenon has
been noted. The clustering on the response sheets was
usually comprised of two or three items.
From observation there was no relationship
between the contiguity of items on the response sheets
and the contiguity of the items on the experimental
recall sheets. For instance, only one subject in the
80
group from which the items were drawn listed ’ ’giraffe"
and "mouse" together, but 13 subjects (or 32.5 percent)
of the experiment listed the items together.
Also,, Bousfield1 s finding that items tend to be
clustered in random fashion towards the end of the lists
was not found. For the group from which the norms were
derived as great an amount of clustering was found at the
end of the response sheets as at the beginning. These
findings were not treated statistically.
The variability between items appearing contigu
ously on the response sheets and on the recall sheets.,
though, was obvious enough as to warrant some considera
tion. From the response sheets, one could not have
determined or even guessed that there would be the
relatedness between items as that which occurred during
recall. This appears to indicate that while subjects may
have some inclination towards an associative bond between
items, this may not be revealed, depending on the
conditions and total number of items available. If the
group from which the items were drawn was comparable to
the experimental group (and the assumption is that it
was), then the experimental group used a different
associative patterning than the other group, indicating
an adjustment to the test situation that could not have
been predicted. That is, if one wished to interpret the
results in the light of the associative position, one
81
could not have assessed the associativeness of the items
before hand.
Theoretical Issues
While some theoretical issues have been discussed
in Chapter I, additional comments appear relevant at this
time. Some statements from Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)
seem particularly valuable. He states:
If a person is shown a long list of familiar words
and is then asked to recall the list, he can recall
some words, but not all of them. It can be assumed
that the person learns each single word at the time
of its presentation, in the sense that the probabili
ty of recall of the word arises from a value near
zero immediately before the presentation. The failure
to recall some of the words, therefore reflects
intratrial forgetting. . . .
Intratrial forgetting is a descriptive lable that
carries no implications as to the fate of the memory
traces associated with nonrecalled words. It may be
attributable to the decay of traces as a consequence
of passage of time between the presentation and at
tempted recall of an item. . . or to the displacement
of some of the items stored earlier by subsequently
presented items. ... In either case, failure to re
call a certain item would be interpreted to mean that
the trace of the item is no longer available in the
memory storage at the time of recall. It Is also pos
sible, however, that intratrial forgetting represents
a failure to "find" otherwise intact traces in the
storage (p. 3^1) •
Tulving and Pearlstone's position is, then, that all the
items have essentially the same potential of being
learned but that not all items are available at recall,
either due to decay or to some inefficiency in the search
process. A reasonable extension of this position is that
the recall of some items may inhibit the recall of others.
82
This would be particularly so with an associationist
point of view.
Conelusion
The purpose of the present study was to assess the
differences between exhaustive and nonexhaustive types of
lists of items by measuring the amount recalled by
subjects. It was also the purpose of the study to assess
the effects of three types of cuing for the two types of
lists -- category cuing, associative cuing, and category
and associative cuing -- and to assess the effects of no
cuing. These variables created eight cells for the
design of the study. Ten subjects were assigned to each
cell.
It had been a hypothesis of the study that the
performance of the groups receiving items from exhaustive
lists would be significantly greater than that of the
groups receiving items from nonexhaustive groups, as
measured by the number of items correctly recalled. The
opposite finding was indicated by the results of the
study, and this finding was primarily attributed to the
possibility that the items of the nonexhaustive group
were more readily recognized as belonging to specific
groups. Such recognition enabled the subjects to group
the items into clusters. Clustering has been shown, in
previous research cited in the study, to facilitate recall.
83
Observation of the items in the exhaustive lists revealed
the possibility that some of the items could have belonged
to lits other than those specified by the cues. When the
category cue was presented to subjects of the exhaustive
list groups their scores matched those of the group that
received items from the nonexhaustive lists and category
cues. The scores from the other groups of the exhaustive
list type items were considerably depressed compared to
the group that received the category cue.
The other findings of the study were influenced
by the heavily weighed influence of the categories of
the exhaustive list groups.
Recommendations
Further studies of the type conducted are
recommended. One important variable to manipulate would
be that of category discreteness -- the degree to which
a group of items is readily clustered.
A P P E N D I X
84
The
APPENDIX
Items Selected for the Study
following items were selected for the study.
ITEMS OF
EXHAUSTIVE LISTS
PARTS OF LAND
FURNITURE THE FACE FORMS
Bookcase Jaw Canyon
Stereo Skin Desert
Piano Beard Plains
Stool Nostrils Island
Chest Moustache River
Dresser Eyelids Lake
Sofa Hair Peninsula
ANIMALS
NONEXHAUSTIVE LISTS
OCCUPATIONS NAMES
Rabbit Carpenter Jack
Snake Salesman Steve
Sheep Engineer Debbie
Giraffe Writer Jim
Mouse Policeman Mary
Deer Lawyer Kathy
Pig Electrician John
85
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asch, S. The doctrinal tyranny of associationism: or
what is wrong with rote learning. In T. R. Dixon
and D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal Behavior and
General Behavior Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968, Pp. 214-228.
Ausubel, D. P. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal
Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton, Inc.,
T$GT-
Battig, W. P. Paired-associate learning under simultan
eous repetition and non repetition conditions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 87-
93-
Battig, ¥. F. & Montague, ¥. E. Category norms for
verbal items in 58 categories: a replication and
extension of the Connecticut norms. Journal of
Experimental Psychology Monograph, 1969, 80, ("3,
Pt. 2).
Bousfield, A. K. & Bousfield, ¥. A. Measurement of
clustering and of sequential constancies in
repeated free recall. Psychological Reports, 1966,
19, 935-9^2.
Bousfield, ¥. A. The occurrence of clustering in the
recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal
of General Psychology, 1953, 49, 229-240.
Bousfield, ¥. A. & Abramcyzk, R. R. Sequential ordering
in repeated free recall as a function of the
length of the stimulus word list. Canadian
Journal of Psychology, 1966, 20, 427-434.
Bousfield, ¥. A. & Cohen, B. H. The effects of reinforce
ment on the occurrence of clustering in the recall
of randomly arranged associates. Journal of
Psychology, 1953, 36, 67-81.
87
88
Bousfield, W. A. & Cohen, B. H. The occurrence of clus
tering in the recall of randomly arranged words of
different frequencies-of-usage. Journal of
General Psychology, 1955j 52* 83-95.
Bousfield, W. A. & Cohen, B. H. Clustering in recall as
a function of the number of word-categories in
stimulus-word lists. Journal of General Psychology
1956, 54, 95-106.
Bousfield, W. A., Cohen, B. H., & Whitmarsh, G. A.
Associative clustering in the recall of words of
different frequencies of occurrence. Psychologi
cal Reports, 1958, 4, 39-44.
Bousfield, W. A., Esterson, J., & Whitmarsh, G. A. A
study of developmental changes in conceptual and
perceptual associative clustering. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 1958, 92, 95-102.
Bousfield, W. A., & Puff, C. R. Clustering as a function
of response dominance. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1964, 67, 76-79-
Bousfield, W. A., Puff, C. R., & Cowan, T. M. The
development of constancies in sequential organi
zation during repeated free recall. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3” j
439-495.
Bousfield, W. A. & Sedgewick, C. II. W. An experimental
analysis of sequences of restricted verbal
associative responses. Journal of General
Psychology, 1944, 30, 149-165.
Bower, G. H. Organizational factors in memory. Cogni
tive Psychology, 1970, 1, 18-46.
Brown, R. & McNeill, D. The "tip of the tongue"
phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5* 325-337•
Bugelski, B. R. Presentation time, total time, and media
tion in paired-associate learning. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1962, 63, 409-412.
Cofer, C. N. On some factors in the organizational
characteristics in free recall. American
Psychologist, 1965^ 20j 261-272.
89
Cofer, C. N. Some evidence for coding processes derived
from clustering in free recall. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 5., 188-192.
Cofer, C. N., Bruce, D. R. & Reicher, G. M. Clustering
in free recall as a function of certain method
ological variations. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1966, 71, 858-888.
Cohen, B. H. An investigation of recoding in free recall
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65,
358-376(a).
Cohen, B. H. Recall of categorized word lists. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1983? 66, 227-234 (b).
Cohen, B. H. Some-or-none characteristics of coding
behavior. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 1986, 5. , 182-187.
Cohen, B. H., Bousfield, ¥. A. & Whitmarsh, G. A.
Cultural norms for verbal items in 43 categories.
Technical Report No. 22, 1957, University of
Connecticut, ONR Contract Nonr-631(00).
Crouse, J. J. Storage and retrieval of words in free-
recall learning. Journal of Educational Psy
chology, 1968, 59, 449-451.
Dallett, K. M. Number of categories and category infor
mation in free recall.. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1964, 68, 1-12.
Deese, J. Influence of inter-item associative strength
upon immediate free recall. Psychological
Reports, 1959, 5, 305-312.
Dong, T. & Kintsch, W. Subjective retrieval cues in free
recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 1983, 7, 813-816.
Earhard, M. Cued recall and free recall as a function
of the number of items per cue. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 257-283.
Evans, R. A. Word recall and Associative clustering in
mental retardates. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 1964, 69, 413-418.
9C
Freundj J. S. & Underwood, B. J. Restricted associates
as cues in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learn
ing and Verbal Behavior, 1970, _9, 136-141.
Gerjuoy, I. R. & Spitz, H. H. Associative clustering in
free recall: intellectual and developmental
variables. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
2.966, 70, 918-927.
Gonzalez, R. C. & Cofer, C. N. Exploratory studies of
verbal context by means of clustering in free
recall. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1959 j 95»
293-320.
Hart, J. T. Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965^ 56, 208-
2157
Hebb, D. 0. Organization of Behavior. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1949.
Jenkins, J. J. The challenge to psychological theorists.
In T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (Eds.) Verbal
Behavior and General Behavior Theory. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.
Pp. 538-5^9.
Jenkins, J. J., Mink, W. D., & Russell, W. A. Associative
clustering as a function of verbal association
strength. Psychological Reports, 1958, 4, 127-136.
Jenkins, J. J. & Russell, W. A. Associative clustering
during recall. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1952, 47, 818-821.
Kirk, R. E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the
Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, California:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1968.
Mandler, G. Verbal learning. In New Directions in
Psychology III New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1967.
Mandler, G. Association and organization: fact, fancies,
theories. In T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (eds.)
Verbal Behavior and General Behavior Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1968. Pp. 109-119.
91
Marshall, G. R. & Cofer, C. N. Associative indices as
measures of word relatedness: a summary and
comparison of ten methods. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior" 1963* 403-421.
Mathews, R. Recall as a function of number of classifica-
tory categories. Journal of Experimental Psycho
logy, 195^, 47, 241-247.
Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus
two: some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological Review, 1956, 63,
81-97 (a).
Miller, G. A. Information and memory. Scientific
American, 1956, 195, 42-46 (b).
Murdock, B. B. The immediate retention of unrelated
words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, i960,
60, 222-2343
Osborn, W. J. Associative clustering in organic and
familial retardates. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 1960, 65, 351-357.
Pollio, H. R. Associative structure and verbal behavior.
In T. R. Dixon and D. L. Horton (Eds.) Verbal
Behavior and General Behavior Theory. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968,
Pp. 37-66.
Rossi, E. L. Associative clustering in normal and
retarded children. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 1963 j 67, 691-699.
Sakoda, J. M. Individual differences in correlation
between clustering and recall of meaningful words.
Journal of General Psychology, 1956, 54, 183-190.
Slamecka, N. J. An examination of trace storage in free
recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968,
76, 504-513.
Tulving, E. Subjective organization in free recall of
unrelated" words. Psychological Review, 1962,
69, 344-354.
92
Tulving, E. Theoretical issues in free recall. In
T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (Eds.) Verbal
Behavior and General Behavior Theory. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Pp. 2-
36.
Tulving, E. & Pearlstone, Z. Availability versus
accessibility of information in memory for words.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
1966, 5., 3«1-391. '
Weatherwax, J. & Benoit, E. P. Concrete and abstract
thinking in organic and non-organic mentally
retarded children. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 1957^ 62, 548-553- ~ ~
Wood, G. Category names as cues for the recall of
category instances. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9,
323-324.
Yntema, D. B. & Trask, F. P. Recall as a search process.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
19^3j 2, 65-74.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Effects Of Success And Failure On Impulsivity And Distractibility Of Three Types Of Educationally Handicapped Children
PDF
Effects Of Preschool Enrollment And Parent Participation On Academic Growth
PDF
Auditory Perceptual Si Factors As Non-Predictors Of Reading Achievement In An Upper-Class And Upper-Middle-Class Population
PDF
Academic And Non-Academic Achievement Of Freshmen And Seniors At Azusa Pacific College
PDF
The Relative Efficiency Of Prompting And Confirmation Learning Paradigms
PDF
The Conditioning Of A Discriminative Stimulus Measured As An Orienting Reaction In Profoundly Retarded Blind Children
PDF
The Effects Of Two Types Of Experimenter Intervention And Schedules Of Reinforcement On Verbal Operant Conditioning Of Affective Self-References
PDF
Acoustic And Associative Variables In The Retention Of Words By Children With Learning Disabilities
PDF
School Behavior And Attitudes Of Retarded And Average High School Boys Asconcomitants Of Intelligence And Socioeconomic Status
PDF
An Empirical Investigation Of F-Test Bias, Disproportionality, And Mode Of Analysis Of Variance
PDF
Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys
PDF
The Modification Of Maladaptive Behavior Of A Class Of Educationally Handicapped Children By Operant Conditioning Techniques
PDF
Delay Of Feedback And The Acquisition And Retention Of Verbal Material Inthe Classroom
PDF
Anxiety, Physiologically And Psychologically Measured, And Its Consequences On Mental Test Performance
PDF
Maternal Child-Rearing Attitudes And Developmental Growth Of Rubella Deaf-Blind Children
PDF
Testing Attitudes Toward Physical Handicap: Stereotyping And Objectivityin A Partially Integrated Elementary Program
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Degree Of Affective Response Elicited By Several Mediated And Nonmediated Instructional Methods
PDF
Validity Concomitants Of Various Scoring Procedures Which Attenuate The Effects Of Response Sets And Chance
PDF
Reading Rates And Comprehension As Affected By Single And Multiple-Ratio Schedules Of Reinforcement Within A Token Economy As Measured By Precision Teaching Techniques
PDF
Confirmation Of Expectancy And Changes In Teachers' Evaluations Of Student Behaviors
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hopkins, William Morgan
(author)
Core Title
Effects Of Associative And Category Cuing On Recall Of Items From Exhaustive And Nonexhaustive Lists
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Meyers, Charles Edward (
committee chair
), Frankel, Andrew Steven (
committee member
), McIntrye, Robert B. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-519909
Unique identifier
UC11362281
Identifier
7127927.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-519909 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7127927.pdf
Dmrecord
519909
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Hopkins, William Morgan
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, educational psychology