Abstract
Two predictions from Houston’s (1965) repaired transfer surface were tested using 30 Ss in a within subject design. Three two-list paired associate paradigms (AB—BAr, AB—B’Ar, AB—BA’r) were compared with the control condition AB—CD. In accordance with the predictions, it was found that the three experimental paradigms produced significant negative transfer, with the AB—BAr paradigm producing the most and the AB—B’Ar and AB—BA’r paradigms producing intermediate levels of negative transfer.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
HAAGEN, C. H. Synonymity, vividness, familiarity, and association value ratings of 400 common pairs of adjectives. J. Psychol., 1949, 27, 453–463.
HOUSTON, J. P. A repaired S1—R2 and S2—R1 transfer surface. Psychon. Sci., 1965, 3, 343–344.
HOUSTON, J. P., & MORONY, L. D. Transfer in repaired S1—R2 and S2—R1 paradigms. Psychon. Sci., 1966, 4, 83–84.
TWEDT, H. M., & UNDERWOOD, B. J. Mixed vs. unmixed lists in transfer studies. J. exp. Psychol., 1959, 58, 2, 111–116.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shouldis, R.F. Verbal transfer in repaired paradigms as a function of S1 — R2 and S2 — R1 similarity. Psychon Sci 11, 281–282 (1968). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328192
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328192