RECALL OF RELATED AND UNRELATED WORD PAIRS: TEST OF SINGLE-CONTINUUM THEORY OF MEMORY

Sumna~y.-79 Ss processed semantically related and unrelated pairs of once-exposed concrete nouns, finding either a similarity or difference in the meanings of the paired items. Ss' recall of the second item of each pair when cued with the first was significantly influenced by both pair relationship and the processing task. The findings are interpreted within the framework of Craik and Lockhart's (1972) "level of processing" analysis of memory. Craik and Lockhart (1972) have proposed that memory can be understood as a continuum in which a particular memory trace is seen as a product of perceptual analysis. The persistence of the trace depends upon the depth to which the stimulus has been analyzed. Simply stated, Craik and Lockhart hypothesize that the persistence of the memory trace is a positive function of the level or amount of processing required by the learning task. This single-continuum theory of memory, while similar in many respects to the dominant multi-store theory (Atkinson & Schiffrin, 1968; Waugh & Norman, 1965), is different from the latter in that the memory trace in the multi-store theory is thought to be transferred from one discrete "storage b~n" to another, each bin having its own distinguishing characteristics, e.g., perceptual buffer, short-term memory, long-term memory. The present experiment was designed to test the single-continuum theory of memory proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972) by presenting Ss with tasks of differing difficulty followed by a retention test for the "processed" items. Method.-Seventy-nine introductory psychology students were instructed to process visually presented word pairs by finding a semantic similarity between items for each of 30 pairs of concrete nouns and a semantic difference between each of a like number of word pairs. Each pair of items was projected upon a movie screen once for a 15-sec. interval. During this interval, Ss recorded the similarity (Sim) or difference (Diff) between items on a sheet of paper. Within each processing task, one half of the pairs consisted of semantically related items (Rel), e.g., shoe: boot, and half consisted of unrelated items (Un), e.g., fence: helicopter. Hence, four cells were formed with 15 pairs in each cell (Rel-Sim, Rel-Diff, Un-Sim, Un-Diff). All 60 word pairs were presented in a single session with the o?set of a new pair contiguous with the offset of the previous pair. Ss were not instructed to try to learn the pairs. It was assumed that finding a similarity between unrelated items or finding a difference between related items required a deeper or more thorough analysis of the semantic features of the words than that required in finding a similarity between related items or a difference between unrelated items. Following presentation of the last pair of items, Ss were given another sheet of paper and instructed to attempt to recall the second member of a pair when shown the first. Each word was projected for eight seconds during which time Ss had to recall and write its paired associate. The onset of each cue was contiguous with the offset of the previous one.