Groups of sixth, eighth, and tenth grade students learned eight pairs of paired-associate items followed by recall for the stimulus items. Each group learned a different list constructed from items of comparable meaningfulness determined by standardization for each group. As analysis of variance indicated no significant differences among groups, it was concluded that backward learning is not a variant of incidental learning of paired-associate lists.
FriedmanM. P.TrabassoT. R.MosbergL.Tests of a mixed model for paired-associates learning with overlapping stimuli. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1967, 4, 316–334.
3.
FunkW.LewisN.30 days to a more powerful vocabulary. New York: Washington Square Press, 1964.
4.
GlazeJ. A.The association value of nonsense-syllables. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1928, 35, 255–267.
5.
GouletL. R.Verbal learning in children: Implications for developmental research. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 359–376.
6.
GruberE. C.2300 steps to word power. New York: Arco Books, 1963.
7.
KauslerD. H.GotwayM. A.R-S learning in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1969, 8, 190–194.
8.
KintschW.Learning, memory and conceptual processes. New York: Wiley, 1970.
9.
MaccobyE. E.HagenJ. W.Effects of distraction upon central versus incidental recall: Developmental trends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1965, 2, 280–289.
