Direct measures of interlist response differentiation were made in the A-B, A-C and A-B, C-D paradigms as a function of degree of first- and second-list learning and found to be equal and nearly perfect in all conditions. Furthermore, negative transfer was markedly increased by higher degrees of second-list learning whereas the effect of first-list degree of learning was not significant. These effects were explained on the premise that transferable intralist stimulus differentiation exists for A-B, A-C but not for the A-B, C-D control. This hypothesis can explain why negative transfer levels off with higher first-list learning but increases with higher second-list learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GibsonE. J.A systematic application of the concepts of generalization and differentiation to verbal learning. Psychol. Rev., 1940, 47, 196–229.
2.
JungJ.Transfer of training as a function of degree of first-list learning. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav., 1962, 1, 197–199.
3.
JungJ.Comments on Mandler's “From association to structure.”Psychol. Rev., 1965, 72, 318–322.
4.
MandlerG.From association to structure. Psychol. Rev., 1962, 69, 415–427.
5.
MandlerG.Subjects do think: A reply to Jung's comments. Psychol. Rev., 1965, 72, 323–326.
6.
PostmanL.Transfer of training as a function of experimental paradigm and degree of first-list learning. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav., 1962, 1, 109–118.
7.
PostmanL.Does interference theory predict too much forgetting?J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav., 1963, 2, 40–48.
8.
SpenceJ. T.SchulzR. W.Negative transfer in paired-associate learning as a function of first-list trials. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav., 1965, 4, 397–400.
9.
UnderwoodB. J.The effect of successive interpolations on retroactive and proactive inhibition. Psychol. Monogr., 1945, 59, No. 3 (Whole No. 273).
10.
UnderwoodB. J.RunquistW. N.SchulzR. W.Response learning in paired-associate lists as a function of intralist similarity. J. exp. Psychol., 1959, 58, 70–78.
