Rules and Paired-Associate Retention

Abstract

The present study sought to determine whether the superior retention enjoyed by lists with rules is a function of superior storage of individual pairs or superior retrieval resulting from the reduction in response-set size. Fifty-four students participated as a requirement for introductory psychology. They were randomly assigned to conditions and individually tested. A retroactive inhibition design was used with all lists made up of 12 CVC word pairs. Each student learned one of t h e e first lists. For two of the lists a general rule applied, either each pair rhymed, e.g., PAN-FAN, or changed middle letter, e.g., PAN-PIN. The third list consisted of unrelated pairs, e.g., PAN-WIG. Stimuli in the three lists were the same and responses were similar in ThorndikeLorge frequency. Anticipation learning at 2:2-sec. rate with a 4-sec. intertrial interval was taken to 7/12 correct. Three different orders of the pairs were used, and all lists had the same sequence of orders. subjects were informed of the rule applying to their list. All subjects received 12 anticipation trials on a common second list of unrelated pairs, containing the first list stimuli and responses unrelated to those in the first lists. There followed a test of retention of the first list in which the entire set of stimuli was presented on a sheet of paper. Half the subjects had to recall each response and half had to select it from two alternatives, both of which followed the rule for the rule lists or were unrelated for the unrelated list. Mean crials to first-list criterion were 3.44 (middle-letter change), 5.33 (rhyme), and 9.78 (unrelated). These means were significantly different (P2,51 = 19.66, p < .01). Number of responses recalled yielded a significant F2.24 of 13.13 ( 9 < .01). The means were 10.00 (middle-letter change), 9.22 (rhyme), and 5.44 (unrelated). Little difference was observed in recognition, with means ranging from 11.33 ro 12.00. These results support the response-restriction hypothesis which maintains that rules are beneficial to the extent that they restrict the number of possible responses to the stimulus. In first list learning and in recall rules did indeed prove helpful, with the more restrictive rule (middle-letter change) proving most effective. As expected, rules were not helpful in recognition. Since both alternatives satisfied the rule, response-set size was the same for all. W e may conclude, then, that rules aid retrieval by response restriction rather than storage of individual pairs. This conclusion can only be tentative, however, for the negligible difference obtained among means for recognition may have been imposed by a ceiling effect. Accepted December 17, 1981. '