In a study of the effects of percentage of mediation-pairs and control pairs in a 3-list chaining paradigm, 5 groups of Ss learned lists in which 0, 20, 40, 60, and 80% of the pairs were chaining pairs, and the remainder were “warm-up” control-pairs. The results did not support a hypothesized direct relationship between mediation-effect and percentage of mediation-pairs. Rather, the 20 and 80% groups showed the greatest mediation-effect, the 60% group showed little mediation-effect, and the 40% group showed no mediation-effect. Results were interpreted in terms of intralist interference resulting from differences in the discriminability of mediation and control conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EarhardB.MandlerG.Mediated associations: Paradigms, controls and mechanisms. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1965, 19, 346–378.
2.
GlazeJ. A.The association value of nonsense syllables. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1928, 35, 255–269.
3.
HortonD. L.The effects of meaningfulness, awareness, and type of design in verbal mediation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3, 187–194.
4.
HortonD. L.KjeldergaardP. K.An experimental analysis of associative factors in mediated generalizations. Psychological Monographs, 1961, 75, No. 11 (Whole No. 515).
5.
JenkinsJ. J.Mediated associations: Paradigms and situations. In CoferC. N.MusgraveB. (Eds.), Verbal behavior and learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Pp. 210–245.
6.
MandlerG.EarhardB.Pseudomediation: Is chaining an artifact?Psychonomic Science, 1964, 1, 247–248.
7.
NobleC. E.An analysis of meaning. Psychological Review, 1952, 59, 421–430.
8.
SiegelS.Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
9.
WinerB.Statistical principles of experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
