Department of Psychology, Millersville State College, Byerly Hall, 17551, Millersville, Pennsylvania.
Mem Cognit. 1976 Sep;4(5):476-82. doi: 10.3758/BF03213207.
Immediate and delayed free recall of unstructured verbal materials were assessed for alphabetizers and categorizers after varying study times. Alphabetizers and categorizers did not differ in immediate recall, but retention following a 6-day interval was consistently higher for categorizers than for alphabetizers. Both immediate and delayed recall increased with study time, which did not interact with learning strategy. In the next experiment alphabetizers and categorizers learned two lists, the second of which was categorically structured or unstructured. No retroactive interference on first-list recall was produced by the learning of the structured list, but the learning of the unstructured list produced retroactive interference for the alphabetizers only. It was suggested that, although both alphabetizers and categorizers probably use their respective strategies for other verbal tasks, the categoric strategy should create less interference because specific 'categories are rarely encountered in successive tasks.
在不同的学习时间后,评估了字母排序者和分类者对非结构化口头材料的即时和延迟自由回忆。字母排序者和分类者在即时回忆方面没有差异,但在 6 天间隔后的保留率,分类者始终高于字母排序者。无论是即时回忆还是延迟回忆,随着学习时间的增加而增加,而学习策略与学习时间没有相互作用。在接下来的实验中,字母排序者和分类者学习了两个列表,第二个列表是按类别结构或非结构化的。学习结构化列表不会对第一列表的回忆产生回溯干扰,但学习非结构化列表仅会对字母排序者产生回溯干扰。这表明,尽管字母排序者和分类者可能都将他们各自的策略用于其他口头任务,但分类策略应该会产生较少的干扰,因为在连续的任务中很少遇到特定的“类别”。