A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Experimental Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Journal
ol
Experimental Psychology
1971,
Vol.
91, No. 1,
47-53
EFFECT
OF
CHOICE
ON
PAIRED-ASSOCIATE
LEARNING1
LAWRENCE
C.
PERLMUTER
2
RICHARD
A.
MONTY
Bawdoin
College
United
States
Army
Human
Engineering
Laboratories,
Aberdeen
Proving
Ground, Maryland
AND
GREGORY
A.
KIMBLE
University
of
Colorado
One
experiment revealed that
under
some
conditions,
A-B
learning
is
facilitated
when
5s
choose responses
to be
learned
on a
subsequent
A-B
list.
There
is
also
some
evidence
that
Ss who
choose
their
A-B
responses
and are
subsequently
forced
to
learn
a
competing
set of
material
(A-C)
show
a
rela-
tively
greater
disruption
of
learning
than
5s who did not
have
the
opportunity
to
choose
either
A-B or
A-C.
All of
these
effects
require
that
when
5s
choose
their
responses, this choosing occurs
in the
presence
of
their respective stimuli.
Simply
choosing responses
in the
absence
of the
stimuli
produces
performance
which
is not
different
from
that
resulting
when
5s are
denied
the
opportunity
to
choose
their
responses.
The
effect
of
giving
5s
the
opportunity
to
choose
the
materials they
wish
to
learn
in
a
paired-associates (PA) paradigm
is a
complex, relatively unexplored area.
Nu-
merous
questions arise
in
this context, only
a few of
which
will
be
examined here.
First,
it
seems intuitively reasonable
to
assume
that
if 5s are
permitted
to
choose
the
response
items
to be
learned
in an A-B
list,
their
performance should
be
superior
to
those
5s who
have been similarly exposed
to
alternative
materials
but
required
to
learn
"forced"
S-R
pairs
(i.e.,
S-R
pairs
not of
their
own
choosing), either
because
of
the
opportunity
for
5 to
form
associations
particularly
suited
to him or as a
result
of
a
general enhancement
of the
motivational
state
of the
organism.
While
no
unambiguous
tests
have been
made
of
this
question,
Postman's
(1968)
1
This
research
was
supported
in
part
by
Grant
MH
15315
from
the
National
Institute
of
Mental
Health
to the
senior
author
and by
Grant
8-9-1502
75-
4005(010)
from
the
Office
of
Education
to the
third
author. Reproduction
for any
purpose
of the
United
States
Government
is
permitted.
Experi-
ment
I was
conducted
while
the
senior
author
served
as
visiting
professor
at the
Behavioral
Re-
search
Laboratory
of the
Human
Engineering
Laboratories. Special thanks
to
Susan
Luek
for
running
5s of
Exp.
I and to
Margie Rosenberger
for
running
5s of
Exp.
II and
III. Thanks also
to
Frank
Keefe
for his
assistnce
in
data
reduction.
2
Requests
for
reprints
should
be
sent
to
Lawrence
C.
Perlmuter,
Department
of
Psychology,
Bowdoin
College,
Brunswick, Maine
04011.
review
of
related work suggests
the
evi-
dence
to
date seems
to be
contrary
to
this
intuitive
reasoning.
For
example, Under-
wood,
Ham,
and
Ekstrand (1962) revealed
that
learning
of
preferred
and
nonpreferred
materials proceeded
at the
same
rate.
In
a
more direct
test,
Brown
and
Read
(1970)
found
no
difference between
free
(choice)
and
yoked (forced)
5s
with
either
total
trials
or
total
errors
to a
learning
criterion.
However,
the
free
5s
were allowed
to
select
and
change their pairings throughout
the
learning
of the
list
while
the
yoked
5s
learned only
the two final
lists
selected
by
the
free
5s.
The
main purpose
of the
present
study,
then,
is to
directly
assess
the
effect
of
choos-
ing
the A-B
responses prior
to
learning
the
A-B
list.
Will
5s who
choose responses
to be
learned
on A-B and who are
subsequently
forced
to
learn
an A-C
list perform
as
well
on
A-C as
those
who
choose neither
A-B
nor
A-C,
but
rather
are
forced
to
learn both
sets
of
materials?
If A-B
bonds
are
stronger
in the
choice condition,
it
seems
reasonable
to
predict
they
might produce
greater interference
later.
This
is the
second major question examined
in the
present article.
Third,
if 5s are
permitted
to
choose
their
responses
for the A-B
list,
but
choose
in
the
absence
of the
stimulus, will
the
pre-
47