Further Study of Implicit Verbal Chaining in Paired-Associate Learning

Abstract

Russell and Storms ( 5 ) recently reported that an implicit verbal response chain can facilitate the learning of paired associates. They paired nonsense syllables, like CEF, with Kent-Rosanoff association test stimulus words, like Stem. A high frequency associate of Stem is Flower and a high frequency associate of Flower is Smell, After the learning of a list of pairs like CEFStem, Ss learned a list of pairs like CEF-Smell. As compared with control pairs the learning of the pairs in which there was this implicit associative relationship was significantly facilitated. This demonstration of the effects of associative linkages on learning is of utmost importance as a step in the description of the ways in which verbal responses are organized and can interact. It is of considerable interest to determine other ways in which such interactions can take place. For example, can meaningful relationships, as distinct from direct associative connections, underlie such interactions? It has often been asserted that meaningful relations can do so, but usually it has not been shown that such effects are independent of associative connections. The present study was designed to investigate this point in a limited and exploratory way. To continue with the example cited above, what we did was take a synonym of the word Stem, namely Stalk, and pair it with CEF. Then we studied the effect of pairings of this type on the rate of learning of a second set of pairs, like CEF-Flower. In other words, we have used a synonym of the word to which the meaningful word in the second set of pairs is an associate. Our question is this: Will the learning of nonsense syllable-word pairs be facilitated when, in immediately prior experience, the nonsense syllable has been associated with a synonym of the stimulus word to which the meaningful word in the second pair is a high frequency associate? METHOD The method used followed that described by Russell and Storms ( 5 ) . Table 1 shows all of the words employed in this experiment. Our design proposes that, for example, the learning of CEF-Stalk will facilitate the learning of CEF-Flower, because Stalk is a synonym of Stem, to which Flower is a frequent associate but that the learning of CEF-Joy will not be facilitated,