individual items for active reproduction without support from reexposure to the original learning materials" (p. 217).Third, the X0 hypothesis could help explain why recognition is often
much better than recall. To take a specific example, Hollingworth ( 1913)
repeatedly presented a list of 50 adjectives with instructions to give the
opposite adjective. Then, after 60 to 75 presentations, he tested for the
retention of these pairs of adjectives, first by recall and then by recognition. The median recall was 27 out of 50, yet half the subjects were able
to recognize all 50 when shown a total of 100 pairs of adjectives. Why
was the difference so large? Simply because the subject would identify
the pairs not on the list even though he could only produce slightly
more than half the pairs himself.For such an explanation to be correct it is necessary that knowledge
of list membership develop at a more rapid rate than recall. Indirect evidence is provided by studies of free recall ( Deese, 1959b; Murdock, 1960); the incidence of extra-list intrusions seems to be quite low even
when recall is far from perfect. (Such intrusions apparently are a function of interitem associative strength; see Deese, 1959a). More direct
evidence is provided in a study by Cofer ( 1961). In one variation of the
experiment he read a list of 15 words once, had subjects match list
length in free recall, then for each item recalled had the subject indicate
whether he was sure the item had been on the list, was sure it had not
been on the list, or was uncertain. Over-all, subjects were more than 80
per cent accurate in assessing list membership. For the lists of unrelated
words the subjects were 97.5 per cent accurate when they checked a
word recalled as having been on the list (personal communication).
If subjects are this accurate with a list of 15 words presented once, it
does not seem unreasonable to assume that they would have a fairly accurate idea of list membership of a list of 50 adjective pairs presented
some 60 to 75 times.In conclusion, it is readily admitted that the X0 hypothesis is a rather
simple and unsophisticated hypothesis about recognition as a method of
measuring retention. Also, it is not in perfect accordance with all the
facts. However, it does show how performance on a recognition test
should vary as a function of the number of alternatives and the probability of eliminating distractors. There are undoubtedly other implications of the X0 hypothesis beyond those suggested in this paper; the
quantitative formulation should be of benefit both in finding these implications and in testing them empirically.
REFERENCES
| Binder A., & Feldman, S. E. ( 1960) The effects of experimentally controlled experience upon recognition responses. Psychol. Monogr., 74, No. 9, 1-43. |
-21-
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information:
Book title: Verbal Behavior and Learning: Problems and Processes:Proceedings.
Contributors: Charles N. Cofer - Editor, Barbara S. Musgrave - Editor.
Publisher: McGraw-Hill.
Place of publication: New York.
Publication year: 1963.
Page number: 21.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.
One moment ...
- Georgia
- Arial
- Times New Roman
- Verdana
- Courier/monospaced
Reset