The interrelations among measures of anticipation, recognition and savings are examined. It is shown that (a) the difficulty level of a recognition task can be above or below that of anticipation for the same material, and (b) the slope of retention curves based upon recognition measures may be more or less steep than the slope of curves based upon recall measures of the same material. Previous contrary conclusions reflect the exclusive use of easy recognition tests, and experimental designs in which the degree of learning is much greater for the recognition than for the recall task.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BahrickH. P. (1964). Retention curves—facts or artifacts?. Psychol. Bull.61, 188–94.
2.
BahrickH. P.FittsP. M.BriggsG. E. (1957). Learning curves—facts or artifacts?. Psychol. Bull.54, 256–68.
3.
LuhC. W. (1922). The conditions of retention. Psychol. Monogr.31, No. 142.
4.
MilerA. (1957). Vergleich der Vergessenskurven für Reproduzieren und Wiederer-kennen von sinnlosem Material. Zeit. exp. ang. Psychol.7, 29–38.
5.
PostmanL.RauL. (1957). Retention as a function of the method of measurement. Univ. Calif. Publ. Psychol.8, 217–70.
6.
UnderwoodB. J. (1949). Experimental Psychology.New York.
7.
UnderwoodB. J. (1954). Speed of learning and amount retained: A consideration of methodology. Psychol. Bull.51, 276–87.
