l
a

‘|H|'l|\ut|m|||\lfi|

—
.—
_,_—._ <-
—

QNHIBITQRY EFFECTS OF POSITIVE
TRANfiFER 1N PROBLEM SQLVENG

 

Thesb for “'09 Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSETY

Bradiey August Bremer
1963

TH £3 '1 S

WM“\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\h »

3 1293 10392 7384

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

INHIBITORY EFFECTS ON POSITIVE
TRANSFER IN PROBLEM SOLVING

By

Bradley August Bremer

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1963

ABSTRACT

INHIBITORY EFFECTS ON POSITIVE
TRANSFER IN PROBLEM SOLVING

By Bradley August Bremer

This study was designed to investigate the effects of
prior exposure to anagram solution words on subsequent
anagram solving performance. An increment in performance,
due to positive transfer,was proposed. This increment,
however, was hypothesized to be subject to two inhibitory
factors. One of these factors was verbal embedding. This
concept was generalized from the embedding of geometric
figures. A word was considered to be embedded if responded
to as a part of a meaningful whole, non-embedded if responded
to in isolation. The second inhibitory factor proposed was
an increase in the amount of material in which the solution
appeared;

Two tasks were presented to five groups of college
students. In the first task anagram solution words were
presented to four of the five groups, with the presence of
embedding and amount of material in different combinations.
The first group received non-embedded words; in the second
the words were embedded, while the amount of material re-
mained constant; in the third the amount of material was
increased without embedding the words; and the fourth

received words embedded in an increased amount of material.

Bradley August Bremer
The fifth group, the control group, was not exposed to the
solution words. Task II provided the independent variable.
It consisted of fifty anagram problems. Performance on this
task was hypothesized to vary with the variation of exposure
in Task I.

Mean performance scores between similar groups with
and without exposure to the solution words were signifi-
cantly different, supporting the transfer hypothesis. The
differences between all other groups were in the predicted
direction, but were not statistically significant. The
group which combined both inhibitory effects fell below
the groups with only one. Both of these groups fell below
the group with neither.

A second experiment was designed as a more direct test
of embedding. It determined the ability to recognize words
previously exposed under embedded and non-embedded conditions.
It was hypothesized that fewer embedded words would be
identified as having been seen in the prior exposure.

The results of the recognition test supported the

hypothesis. Fewer words were recognized by the group exposed
to the words under embedded conditions than non-embedded.

The presence of the embedding effect was verified, but was
not considered strong enough to influence the complex anagram

solving task.

INHIBITORY EFFECTS ON POSITIVE
TRANSFER IN PROBLEM SOLVING

By

Bradley August Bremer

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1963

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author extends sincere thanks for guidance and
assistance in the planning and execution of the research,
and the development of this manuscript to his committee
chairman, Dr. Donald M. Johnson. In addition, he wishes
to thank Dr. M. Ray Denny and Dr. Hans Tech for their

criticism and advice.

11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .

INTRODUCTION. .
EXPERIMENT I .
Subjects .

Design and Materials
Instructions and Procedure

Results. .
EXPERIMENT II .
Subjects .

TABLE OF

Design and Materials .

Instructions

Results. .
DISCUSSION. . .
SUMMARY . . . .
APPENDIX I . .
APPENDIX II . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY .

and

CONTENTS

Page

0 O O O O O O O O O O O C 11
O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIB
0.00.00.00.012
0.00.00.00.00000015
0.00.00.00.00000023
0.0.0.00000000023
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO2#
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 26
00.0.00000000000027
0.00.00.00.00000033
oeoeeeeeeeeeeeeoeas
0.00.00.00.00000038
0.0.0.0000000000046

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Basic transfer design in problem solving . . . . . 9
2. Anagrams and solutions used in Task II . . . . . . 13
3. Summary of experimental design for Experiment I. . 14

4. Coefficients of correlation between number of
critical and non-critical anagrams solved. . . . 16

5. Analysis of variance of performance scores . . . . 18

6. Means and variances of performance scores for
each group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7. Individual comparisons of differences between
means. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 19

8. Significance test for differences between means
in recognition test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

INTRODUCTION

Duncan (4), in a review of the literature, attempts to
classify all studies of problem solving on a methodological
basis. He organizes most of the studies into three major
classes which are defined in terms of the independent
variables used to influence problem-solving performance.
The independent variable may be introduced (a) prior to
testing, (b) in the problem itself, and (c) in the charac-
teristics of the subjects used.

The present study falls into the first of these three
general classes. In Duncan's words, this is "essentially
a training and transfer design" and methodologically the
"independent variables were introduced prior to testing on
the final task, which task was the same for, and presented
under constant conditions to all subjects." A further
possible breakdown, within this category, dichotomizes the
relevant literature into a group of studies in which prior
experience is detrimental to problem solving (negative trans-
fer), and a second.group in which prior experience aids
problem solving (positive transfer).

The greater portion of the research on the positive
effects of prior experience has been concerned with the
transfer of problem-solving method or technique from one
problem situation to another. In this type of study, the

1

2
previous experience usually consists of solving problems

similar to the test problem or being given information on
"how to solve problems."

Experiments designed to investigate the effects of
prior exposure to the problem solution or solution-related
materials are less common. Judson, Cofer, and Gelfand (8)
show the value of previous exposure to solution-related
cues. Their subjects learned five-word lists which included
words relevant to solution of the problem, which was pre-
sented later. For example, the words 2223, filing, and 22222?
lug were learned before attempting the two-string problem;
and prop, ceiling, and giggg before the Maier hat rack
problem. Although they found a general tendency for the
group that learned all three key words to be better at solv-
ing the subsequent problem than other experimental and
control groups, not all differences were statistically sig-
nificant and their findings were limited to men. Koler
(10) found some evidence that subliminal presentation of
cues just before presentation of the problem aided solution.

Large and Solomon (12) investigated the relationship of
prior exposure to the solution of the complex "Tartaglia
transportation problem." The problem was shown to the sub-
jects and they were asked a series of six questions about
their previous experience with it. These questions included:
Have you seen this problem before? Have you attempted to

solve it before? Have you solved it before? They report

3
that "there does not appear to be a definite relation between
prior exposure and successful solution," but add that "there
may be a slight tendency that individuals with much prior
exposure do somewhat better."

Using anagram problems Wiggens (19) produced more sig-
nificant results. His subjects were given seven minutes to
solve 100 anagrams. Included in the series were forty two-
solution anagrams, each of which had one frequently given
solution, and one infrequently given solution. Following
this task, each of his two groups of subjects were given a
list of twenty words composed of the infrequently given ana-
gram solutions. Their instructions were as follows: "Here
is a list of words which are solutions to the anagrams.
Memorize them the best you can in the next three minutes. I
want to see if they will help improve your score on the next
trial on the anagram list." Following memorization of the
infrequently given solutions all subjects were again given
seven minutes to solve the same list of 100 anagrams. The
results were summarized as follows: "The clues to the in-
frequent solution effectively increase the number of shifts
from frequent to infrequent responses for both groups."

The present study is also designed to investigate the
effects of exposure to correct responses or solution words
on subsequent solving of anagram problems. An increment
in the number of anagram solutions following experience with
the correct response is proposed. This, then, is a study of

positive transfer in problem solving.

4

If the transfer effect exists, a number of questions
follow. What are the Optimal conditions for such transfer?
What variables facilitate transfer? What variables inhibit
transfer? Such variables might be in the prior exposure
of solution, in the presentation of the problem to be facil-
itated, or in the time, activity, etc. between prior exposure
and problem. This suggests a large number of such factors.
Only two will be investigated here. Both involve the prior
exposure and are hypothesized to inhibit transfer.

The first such factor is verbal embedding. This con-
cept is generalized from the embedding of geometric figures
in larger figures, following the work of Gottschaldt (5).

In this study Gottschaldt was trying to determine what
factors influenced the perception of a smaller ”A" figure in
a larger "B" figure. He specified that "These forces are
determined by the intrinsic properties of the stimulus
object.“ Within the Gestalt framework, he explained that

"A" figures were not seen in "B" figures because they "were
psychologically not present in them at all." The "A" figure
then, is changed or altered and is not the same when put in
a certain "B" figure. Such "B" figures Gottschaldt described
as having "figural cohesion" or "internal unity.“ He goes
on to list factors contributing to this unity, such as chang-
ing boundary functions, surface characteristics, etc.

The proposed generalization involves words and meaning-
ful sequences of words. A word is a verbal counterpart of

an "A" figure and a sequence of words of a "B" figure. The

5
perception of a word should be altered by its relationship
to a sequence of words, of which it is a part, if the gener-
alization holds. The sequence gets its cohesion through
its meaning and the word has its meaning only as it con-
tributes to the sequence. The word is not the same out of
sequence, just as Gottschaldt's ”A" figure is not the same
when taken out of the "B" figure. The reason Gottschaldt
said the "A“ figures were not seen was that they were not
"psychologically" present in the "B" figures. In like manner
when a sequence of words is responded to, a component word
is not psychologically perceived as a word, as an isolated
item, but only as a part of a whole. It is the whole that
is responded to.

Verbal embeddedness, then, refers to a part-whole
relationship. If the word we are concerned with is treated
_ as a whole, i.e., is perceived as being a complete unit it-
self, the word is not embedded. If on the other hand, the
word is treated as a mere part of a sequence of words, the
word is embedded. We have then, proposed to define a word
as being embedded if it is included in a meaningful sequence
of words. If the generalization from geometric to verbal
material holds, the whole will dominate the part and the
individual word will not be as readily perceived when in a
sequence. '

An increase in the amount of material exposed is the

second factor proposed to inhibit transfer. The material

to be added is irrelevant to the problem solution. In this

6
way the amount of problem aiding information is held constant,
while the total amount may vary. Similar increases have
been demonstrated to increase the difficulty of a number of
problem solving situations. For example, using information
theory techniques, Archer, Bourne, and Brown (2) and Walker
and Bourne (18) have shown that performance in concept
identification was reduced by increasing the amount of irrele-
vant information in the stimulus situation. Johnson and Hall
(7) varied the ratio of relevant to irrelevant material to
be organized in the process of solving a problem and found
"most of the variance was due to the proportion of irrelevant
words to all words.” As a final example, Shaw (16) varied
the amount of irrelevant information in a small group as
they tried to solve problems. Groups given irrelevant infor-
mation took significantly longer to solve the problems than
groups that were not. It is hypothesized that an increase
of irrelevant information, and thereby total amount of
material, in the prior exposure will have a like effect,
in the present study. It will decrease the amount of trans-
fer to the anagram problem. The three hypotheses to be
tested are presented below:

HYPOTHESIS I: Previous exposure to solution words will
increase the incidence of correct responses to anagram prob-
lems.

HYPOTHESIS II: The amount of increase will be reduced
if the solution words are embedded, by including them in a

7
meaningful sequence of words, in the prior exposure.
HYPOTHESIS III: The amount of increase will be reduced,
by an increase in the amount of material presented in the

prior exposure.

EXPERIMENT I

Subjects:

Subjects for the study were members of five sections
of the introductory psychology course at Michigan State
University. The experiment was conducted during regular
class periods. A total of 224 subjects took part in the
experiment. They were divided into five groups. In order
to have an equal number of subjects in each group, data from
nine subjects were eliminated, by a random procedure, leav-
ing five groups of forty-three subjects each.

Four of the five groups were distributed equally within
four class sections. This was done by presenting the mater-
ial for each group to every fourth person in each row. This
procedure was used to randomize effects of previous class
room experience, etc. The remaining group was run later in
another section, but was treated identically in all other
respects. This group was added after the others had been
run to strengthen the design of the experiment. Specifically,
it provided a more direct test of Hypothesis III. This
group has been designated as Group III. It was analyzed

with the other four.

Design and Materials:
According to Schultz (17) transfer is defined opera-

tionally by Table 1.

9

Table 1.--Basic transfer design in problem solving.
m

 

‘_¥ Task A Task B
Experimental group X X
Control group X

 

Within this basic operational paradigm of transfer, the
second task, or Task B, always consists of the problem situ-
ation. "Transfer is said to have occurred when there is a
reliable difference between the experimental and control
group performance on Task B.”

The design used in the present study was basically an
expansion of the above paradigm. The expansion consisted
of using five experimental groups, rather than one. For
each group, the design involved the administration of two
separate tasks to each subject. Essentially the purpose of
the first task was to expose the subjects in the experimental
groups to anagram solution words, and the purpose of the
second task was to determine the effects of this exposure
on the solving of anagrams.

Task I introduced the independent variable by varying
the exposure to solution words for each of the five groups
used. Each was given a different list of items which they
were asked to evaluate effectively on a five point rating
scale, ranging from very pleasant to very unpleasant. For
Groups I, II, III, and IV, this list of items included the
solution words. The amount of material and presence of

embedding varied from group to group. The items given to

10
Group V did not include any of the solution words, and
thereby provided a non-exposure or control group.

The list of items given Group I consisted of fifty
single word items. Thirty of these fifty words were solution
words to the anagram problems given in Task II. These same
words also appeared in the list of items given to Groups II,
III and Iv and have been designated as "critical words."
The other twenty words were not used again and have been
referred to as "non-critical words." The critical words
given in Group I were non-embedded, i.e., each critical
word was responded to by itself, as a unit, and was not
responded to as a part of a larger sequence of words.

Group II also received a task involving a total of
fifty words, thirty critical and twenty non-critical. In
this task, however, the words were embedded. The subjects
were asked to evaluate ten phrases of five words each con-
'taining the critical words. Thus the total number of words
remained the same as for Group I, while the number of
responses made was reduced, as the response was made to the
meaningful sequence of words rather than each word separ-
ately.

While the task of Group II represented embedding with-
out an increase in amount of material, Group III received
material in which there was no embedding, but an increase
of material. The amount of material was three times as great
as for Group I. There were 150 words,each responded to in

isolation.

11

Group IV received material in which the critical words
were embedded in ten 15-word sentences. This made a total
of 150 words, thirty critical and 120 non-critical. This
task combined the effects of embedding and increasing the
amount of material.

The final group, Group V, served as a control group
and was not exposed to the critical words. The task was
similar to that given Group I with a list of fifty single-
word items, each to be responded to separately. The only
difference between the two was that the task given to Group
I contains thirty critical words, while all fifty words
given to Group IV were non-critical.

Task II consisted of fifty anagram problems. The pur-
pose of this task was to determine what effect the previous
exposure to anagram solution words had on the ability to
solve anagrams. The same series of anagrams was presented
to all subjects, in all groups. It thus provided a basis of
comparison for the different types of exposure, i.e., the
dependent variable.

All fifty anagrams used were selected as "one solution"
anagrams from studies reported by other workers: Bees and
Israel (14); Keehn (9); Mayzner and Tresselt (13); and
Sargent (15).* Thirty of these anagrams have as solutions

words presented to Groups I, II, III, and IV in Task I.

 

*Only one anagram used was found to have more than one
solution. One subject produced ”wheal" instead of "whale."

12
These thirty anagrams have been called "critical anagrams."
The remaining twenty anagrams have been referred to as "non-
critical" as they were unrelated to Task I. A complete list
of all critical and non-critical anagrams used can be found
in Table 2 on page 13. Appendix II consists of a complete
set of printed materials for both tasks as used in the

experiment.

Instructions and Procedure:

The subjects assembled for a regular class session and
were unaware, in advance, that an experiment was to be con-
ducted during the class period. The experiment was announced
at the beginning of the hour and the subjects were asked to
remove all books, etc. from their desks, retaining only
pencils.

Instructions were given for both Task I and.Task II
before either task was presented. Instructions for Task I
consisted of presenting a five-point rating scale to be
applied to each item of that task. The scale called for a
rating of +2 for items feund very pleasant, +1 for pleasant,
O for neutral, -1 unpleasant, and -2 very unpleasant. Five
minutes were allowed for Task I.

Instructions for Task II briefly described an anagram
problem, then gave an example and rules to follow in solving

the anagrams. Twenty-five minutes were allowed for Task II.

Complete instructions can be found in Appendix I.

Table 2.--Anagrams and solutions used in Task II.

13

m
Critical

TIFUR'

EIVRR
DENRU
WEHTI
CABEH
DCHLI
NEGRE

LUPCIB

WERAT
DACYN

NUHCL
YEMNO
PHSEE
DEUGJ
NELUC
SEDRS
NIRAT

fruit
river
under
white
beach
child

green

public

water

candy

lunch
money
sheep
judge
uncle
dress

train

RACGI

GORMINN - morning

KURCT

NORFIGE -

WBORN
SRGAS
RASGU

MOSTR

TEMYP

AAVGSE -
Non-Critical

OEWLT

TOCUR -

LACTEMI -
QLDIIU -
MINLAA -'
OEZND -

cigar

truck

foreign

brown
grass
sugar
storm

empty

savage

towel

court

climate
liquid

animal

dozen

CIBKR

TOPLIE -

LAEHW
TARPY
NUROD
SHUEO
NATIG
NEESC

TNRSGO -

RAFSC
RCMAE
IEAGM
WPAMS
CCKOL

IETGWH -
EATLHH -

POCYNAM -

brick
polite
company
whale
party
round
house
giant
scene

strong

scarf
cream
image
swamp
clock
weight
health

 

14

Table 3.--Summary of experimental design for Experiment I.

‘—
-_

Experimental
Group

_ h.»
:—

Task I

:—
;—

Task II

 

I

II

III

IV

50 words--consisting of
50 single-word items; 30
critical and 20 non-
critical.

50 words--consisting of
10 five-word phrases; 30
critical and 20 non-
critical words.

150 words--consisting of
150 single-word items; 30
critical and 120 non-
critical.

150 words--consisting of
10 fifteen-word sentences;
3O critical and 120 non-
critical words.

50 words--consisting of
50 single-word items;
all 50 words are non-
critical.

Same for all
five groups:

50 anagrams, of
which 30 are
critical (pre-
sented in Task I
for Groups I,
II, III, and IV)
and 20 are non-
critical (no
previous exper-
ience for any
group).

15

The instructions were briefly reviewed and an Oppor-
tunity for questions allowed. All questions were answered
by repeating or paraphrasing the instructions. After ques-
tions were answered, Task I was distributed face down and
turned over as a group. Five minutes were allowed for Groups
I, II, IV and V. The larger number of responses to be made
by Group III necessitated additional time. For this group
ten minutes were given. All subjects in all groups com-
pleted Task I in the time allotted. After Task I was re-
trieved, Task II was distributed by the procedure used for
Task I. After twenty-five minutes, Task II was collected

and the group was dismissed.

Results:

Prior to statistical analysis, a performance score
was determined for every subject used in the experiment.
This score was produced in the following manner. For each
subject, the number of non-critical anagrams solved cor-
rectly was subtracted from the number of correct critical
anagram solutions. A constant of five was added to the
resulting difference. The reason for these two steps
follows. A

The subtraction of the number of non-critical anagrams
solved was an attempt to eliminate effects of individual
differences in anagram solving ability, i.e., sampling

error. If the number of critical anagrams solved was the

16
sole criterion of performance, an accidental incidence of
either unusually poor or proficient anagram solvers in any
particular group would have had an undesirable bias on the
group. By using the number of non-critical anagrams solved
as an indication of anagram solving ability, much of the
difference in ability can be “subtracted out" of that cri-
terion. The resulting score emphasizes the effects of prior
exposure to the anagram solution words, which is the variable
of interest. The same non-critical anagrams were given to
all subjects, in all groups, thus providing an equal standard,
or reference score, for all subjects.

The appropriateness of this standard, i.e., the number
of non-critical solutions, as an indication of individual
adeptness at solving anagrams in this experiment is supported
by the data in Table 4.

Table 4.--Coefficients of correlation

between number of critical and non-
critical anagrams solved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group
I .64
II .80
III .86
IV .83
V .94
All Groups Combined .76

 

In this table coefficients are recorded for correlations
between number of critical and non-critical anagram solutions.
Separate coefficients are given for subjects within each

group. In addition, a correlation coefficient for all

17
subjects, disregarding groups, is recorded. Of special
interest here is the correlation coefficient for Group V.
This group, the control group, had no prior exposure to the
solution words. The high correlation coefficient of .94
indicates that the number of non-critical anagrams solved
is highly related to the number of critical solutions when
there is no transfer involved. This relationship demon-
strates the appropriateness of the number of non-critical
solutions as an index of individual differences in anagram
solving ability in this experiment. As shown by Table 4
above, the correlation between number of critical and non-
critical solution words is lower for Group I than the other
experimental groups, all of which are lower than the control
group.

The second step in obtaining the performance score
involved adding a constant of five to the difference ob-
tained from the subtraction discussed above. The purpose
of adding the constant was to eliminate negative numbers, and
thus facilitate further calculation.

An analysis of variance was performed on the performance
scores as an over-all test of differences between means of
the groups. Table 5 summarizes this analysis of variance.
An.F-ratio of 5.55 was obtained, which is significant at
the .01 level, with degrees of freedom of 4 and 210 for
numerator and denominator respectively. The significant

F-ratio indicates that the means for all groups were not

18

Table 5.--Analysis of variance of performance scores.

 

 

Source of Sum of Mean
Variance d.f. Squares Squares F
Between groups 4 247.46 61.87 5.55
(p<.01)
Within groups 210 2340.75 11.15
Total 214 2588.21

 

equal. From this we can conclude that the various prior
exposures to anagram solution words have resulted in differ-
ent levels of anagram-solving performances.

In order to evaluate the data in respect to homogeneity
of variance, variances were calculated for each group.

These are recorded in Table 6.

Table 6.--Means and variances of performance scores for each

 

group.
W
Group Mean Variance
I 10.44 14.9
II 10.00 12.1
III 10.09 12.3
IV 8.51 8.7
V 7.65 7.8

Although there appear to be definite and systematic differ-
ences in variance between groups, an F-max. test for heter-
ogeneity is not significant at the .01 level. Also, the
analysis of variance is extremely insensitive to hetero-
geneity of variance when all N's are equal and large, as is
the case in the present design (11). Thus the assumption

of homogeneity of variance appears to be adequately met.

19
The significant F-ratio obtained from the analysis of
variance indicates non-specific differences among means of
the five groups. 0f more interest in testing the hypotheses
submitted are the individual comparisons possible between
the groups. Table 6 lists the mean scores for each of the
five groups. Table 7 consists of differences between mean

scores for every possible comparison.

Table 7.--Individual comparisons of differences between means.

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

__— w“
“_

 

 

 

 

 

Group I 7* II III IV v
I .44 .35 1.93 *2.79
II .09 1.49 *2.35
III 1.58 *2.44
IV .86
v

 

*Significant at p<5.05 by means of Q-test (1, 2):

Since all comparisons have meaning in this study, the multi-
ple comparison Q test, using the "Studentized Range," as
described by Dixon and Massey (1, 3) was employed. The
least significant difference between means was calculated
at the .05 level and all differences which exceed it have
been marked with an asterisk in the table to indicate sigé
nificance.

The order of mean scores is as would be predicted from
the three hypotheses. Group I included all 30 critical words
in Task I, none of which were embedded. As expected, this
resulted in the greatest transfer to Task II and thus the

highest mean score.

20

Mean performance scores for Groups II and III were both
slightly lower than for Group I, indicating a possible re-
duction in amount of transfer. Group II represented an
"embedding only" group, as the amount of material was held
constant. This comparison with Group I is in agreement with
Hypothesis II. Group III had an increase in material, but
the critical words were not embedded. The lower mean per-
formance score follows Hypothesis III.

Group IV fell below all other experimental groups in
mean performance scores, but was higher than the control
group. This group represented a combination of the two
inhibitory factors, i.e., embedding and increase in amount
of material. This combination retarded transfer morethan
either taken separately, but did not eliminate transfer
completely.

Funally, Hypothesis I is supported as Group V, which
included only non-critical words in Task I, fell below all
other groups. The exclusion of critical words eliminated
all transfer. In comparison all other groups contained the
critical words, embedded or non-embedded, and with larger
or smaller amounts of material. All these groups involved
some transfer, which resulted in higher mean scores for all
four groups.

Although the scores fell in the predicted order and
direction, most of the differences between groups were not

statistically significant. The smallest significant

21
difference between mean scores of the groups, as determined
by the Q-test, is 1.96. As shown on Table 7 above, the
difference between Groups I and II is not of this magnitude.
Thus Hypothesis II which predicted inhibitory effects due
to embedding is not supported by significant results. The
difference was in the predicted direction, but too slight
to meet the statistical standard.

Hypothesis III received the same degree of support as
Hypothesis II. Although the direction was as predicted,
the difference was too slight to reach statistical signifi-
cance.

Group IV combined the inhibitory effects of embedding,
as preposed in Hypothesis II, and increasing the amount of
material as proposed in Hypothesis III. These combined
effects produced a difference, in mean performance score,
as compared to Group I, of 1.93. This is extremely close
to the required 1.96 needed for statistical significance.
It is interesting to note that a standard EftOBt for differ-
ences between two means would have produced significance,
while the more conservative Q-test used does not.

The only hypothesis to receive strong support was
Hypothesis I. The significant difference between Groups I
and V is as would have been predicted. Differences between
Group V and Groups II and III are also significant. The
transfer from prior exposure to anagram solution words was

effective, with or without the inhibitory effects of either

22
embedding or increasing the amount of material, taken

separately.

EXPERIMENT II

In Experiment I, the critical words were considered
embedded, by definition, if they were included in a meaning-
ful sequence of words. The derivation of the definition
consisted of a generalization from the embedding of geometric
forms. The adequacy of this generalization may be questioned.
The purpose of the following experiment was to provide a
more direct test of embedding. This was done to illustrate
the appropriateness of the generalization, and therefore the
terminology and materials used.

A recognition test is presented here as a more direct
test of embedding. That perception is personal and cannot
be directly observed in another is unquestioned. It is
necessary to ask the individual, or get him to indicate in
some other way, what he has perceived. A recognition test
simply asks the subject to indicate which words in a larger
list of words he has perceived.

It is proposed that words presented in isolation will
be more frequently recognized than words presented in a

meaningful sequence of words.

Subjects;
A total of 59 subjects participated in the experiment.

They were divided into two groups, one of 29 and one of 30.
The subjects were members of two introductory psychology

23

24
classes at Michigan State University. The groups were evenly
distributed in both class sections. Each group was com-
posed of every other student according to the classroom

seating arrangement.

Design and Materials:

The design involved the presentation of the same
critical words used in the first task of Experiment I under
embedded and non-embedded conditions. This was followed by
a recognition test which provided an independent evaluation
of the impact of that exposure.

One group, designated as Group VI, received the same
material as Group I, in Experiment I, i.e., fifty single-
word items, thirty of which were critical and twenty non-
critical. These words were not considered to be embedded
as each was responded to in isolation.

The same materials which had been presented to Group II
in Experiment I were given to the other group, Group VII.
This consisted of fifty words in the form of ten five-word
phrases. Each phrase, not individual words, was responded
to as a unit, so the words were considered to be embedded
in the sequence of words, according to our definition. The
fifty words contained the same thirty critical words, plus
twenty non-critical.

In the second phase of the experiment, all subjects
were given a list of one hundred words, in four typewritten

columns, on a single sheet of paper. Thirty of these words

25

were the same critical words which had appeared on the
previous material given to both Group VI and Group VII.
These thirty words were randomly dispersed among seventy
new words, to which the subjects had not been previously
exposed. The form can be found in Appendix II.

The experiment was designed to determine if the differ-
ence in material, i.e., whether the words were embedded or
non-embedded, influenced the ability of the subjects to

recognize those words in the 100-word list.

Instructions and Procedure:

The groups were run during a regularly scheduled class
period. The subjects were informed that they were partici-
pating in an experiment before any instructions were given.

Both groups received identical instructions. The same
five-point rating scale that was used in Experiment I was
presented, with instructions to apply it to each item. Five
minutes were allowed for the task, after which the papers
were collected.

All subjects were then given the list of 100 words. They
were told that the list contained some of the same words that
had appeared on the task which they had just completed, but
were not told how many such words there were. The subjects
were instructed to circle all those words which were common
to both sets of material. No time limit was imposed, and all

papers were collected when everyone had finished.

26

Results:

The mean number of words recognized by subjects in Group
I, the single-word group, was 26.41. In Group II, which was
given phrases in the first task, a mean number of 22.27
words was recognized by each subject. There was heterogen-
eity of variance between groups. The appropriate trtest
for differences between means was significant at the .01
level. Information on the statistical analysis is given in
Table 8.

Table 8.--Significance test for difference between means in
recognition test.

 

Group Variances Means t
VI 14.14 22.27 5.3
VII 3.96 26.41

 

The mean number of errors made, i.e., words circled
that did not actually appear on the first task, was 2.5 for
Group I and 2.2 for Group II. This difference is not sta-
tistically significant.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that previous experience with a
problem solution facilitates problem solving. More specif-
ically, when exposure to anagram solution words preceded
anagram problems, performance was improved. Speaking in
terms of the experiment, for the experimental groups,
participation in Task I improved performance in Task II.

We have referred to this as transfer from Task I to Task II.
At what stage of the problem solving process does the facil-
itation take place, and what happens?

In an attempt to answer these questions, we will sub-
ject this study to the problem solving analysis of Johnson
(6). His three-phase analysis of problem solving is com-
prised of preparation, production, and judgment processes.
In the problem solving task of this experiment, preparation
consisted of understanding the instructions when faced with
the anagram problems. Judgment was relatively easy, as the
subjects had only to identify, as a word, any produced
arrangement of letters. It is the production process, i.e.,
the turning out of possible solutions, that is of most inter-
est. It is proposed that the superior performance of the
groups with previous exposure to the anagram solution words
originates in this phase. Apparently the prior exposure to
the critical words made those words more arailable for pro-
duction. The subject, as he attempts to solve the anagram,

27

28
uses whatever cues are available and produces as many possible
solutions as are suggested by the letters before him. The
recent exposure to the solution word, in some way, increases
the probability of producing that word.

This positive transfer, from the previous eXposure to
the solution words, to the problem-solving task supports the
findings of Wiggens (19). One notable difference between
his study and the present one should be considered, however.
Wiggens' subjects were told that they were to be shown the
solution words, and that they would be asked to solve anagrams
later. In this study the subjects were not aware of the rela-
tionship of the words in the prior exposure to the anagram-
solving task while being exposed to the solutions. The
exposure to the solution of the problem transferred to the
problem-solving task even though the subjects were not aware
that the words seen in Task I were solutions to anagrams
in Task II, when exposed to them.

In Experiment I embedding was hypothesized to inhibit
transfer. The results indicate that this inhibitory effect
was, at the most, very slight. Experiment II, however,
indicates that significantly fewer words were recognized,
as having been seen, when the words were embedded during the
prior exposure. This supports the idea that putting the word
in a meaningful sequence does limit the perception of the
single word. When the whole phrase is responded to as a

unit, the single word is lost in the meaning of the whole

29
phrase. The generalization from geometric forms apparently
holds, and a word is not perceived as readily when it is a
mere part of a dominant whole.

The recognition test was an attempt to provide a more
direct test of the verbal embedding effects. There is a
time span between the first exposure of the words, in the
rating task, and the attempt at recognition. This brings in
a question of the memory factor. However, the time span
was relatively short, about ten or fifteen minutes. Also
it seems unlikely that the words in the sequence were for-
gotten more quickly than those in isolation, assuming equal
perception for both. The evidence seems to indicate that
the words defined as embedded were not as readily perceived.

If the words were not as readily perceived, why didn't
embedding inhibit transfer? A possible answer lies in the
complexity and difficulty of the anagram task. Presumably
a great number of factors influence anagram solution. It
is quite possible that embedding would be but a minor factor
contributing to performance. As such, it was not possible
to show great differences between groups on a test of thirty
answers. Perhaps embedding had a strong enough effect to
influence the recognition test, but not strong enough to
significantly change the more complex problem solving task.

At first glance the finding of the effects of verbal
embedding, in the recognition test, seems to run contrary

to the idea that meaningful material is easier to acquire.

30
This is a principle which has been frequently demonstrated.
The difference in the present finding is that we are con-
sidering the part only. We have removed it from the mean-
ingful whole, the whole in which the word had its meaning,
as a contributor. We have not really asked the subject to
recognize what he "picked up." He presumably perceived the
meaning of the whole phrase. We asked him to recognize
something else. This type of part-whole relationship should
be studied further.

Increasing the amount of material in which the critical
word was presented also produced a very small inhibitory
effect. An explanation similar to that given for embedding
seems feasible. That is, the complex anagram task involves
so many factors that the effect was not strong enough to pro-
duce significant change. It is also possible that the
increase of material simply was not great enough.

The argument that both inhibitory effects were present,
but not strong enough to significantly influence the complex
anagram task, gains strength from the near significance ob-
tained when both factors were presented in the same task.
The mean performance score for Group IV, representing the
combined effects, is actually closer to that of the control
group than it is to any of the other experimental groups.
This indicates that the transfer effect was almost completely
eliminated. The influence of each individual factor was

slight. Together they had a considerable inhibitory effect
on the ability to solve the anagram problem.

31

Two explanations of the combined effect are possible.
One, the factors are simply additive. Two, there are inter-
action effects from the combination. The combined effect was
more than twice as large as the summed effects of the factors
taken separately. This provides a rough indication that
they were not simply additive. However, there is insufficient
evidence to provide conclusive support for either premise.

A.possible limitation of the design centers around
variation in total number of responses made. More specifi-
cally, Groups I and V made a total of fifty responses to
the material in Task I, Group III made 150, while Groups II
and IV made only 10. This difference in number of responses
can be considered as an uncontrolled variable which might
have influenced performance in Task II.

This variation, however, can also be viewed as intrinsic
to the study of verbal embedding. Embedding as defined in-
volves responding to the critical word as a part of a mean-
ingful sequence. If we are to embed a word, we must use
words in addition to the particular word being embedded.

To keep the total number of responses constant for embedded
and non-embedded words, new material must be added to the
critical word. That this would increase inhibition is pre-
dicted by Hypothesis III. If we want to test the effects

of embedding without added material, however, we are limited
to those words used by the group exposed to non-embedded

material. Under such conditions the total number of responses

must be reduced if we are to embed any given word.

32

In either case, whether 10, 50, or 150 responses are
made, each critical word is responded to once and only once.
The critical question remains the same: Was the critical
word embedded or not when it was responded to? we may add
to total responding time by responding to 50 rather than 10
phrases, but each phrase would still only be responded to
once. Thus each critical word is followed by the same
response, i.e., that response which is given to a part of
the whole sequence. So it is suggested that the response
given to each critical word may remain the same regardless

of the total number of responses made.

SUMMARY

This study was designed to investigate the effects of
prior eXposure to anagram solution words on subsequent
anagram solving performance. An increment in performance
due to positive transfer was prOposed. This increment,
however, was hypothesized to be subject to two inhibitory
factors. One of these factors was verbal embedding. This
concept was generalized from the embedding of geometric
figures. A word was considered to be embedded if responded
to as a part of a meaningful whole, non-embedded if responded
to in isolation. The second inhibitory factor proposed
was an increase in the amount of material in which the solu-
tion appeared.

Two tasks were presented to five groups of college
students. In the first task anagram solution words were
presented to four of the five groups, with the presence of
embedding and amount of material in different combinations.
The first group received non-embedded words; in the second
the words were embedded, while the amount of material remained
constant; in the third the amount of material was increased
without embedding the words; and the fourth received words
embedded in an increased amount of material. The fifth
group, the control group, was not exposed to the solution
words. Task II provided the independent variable. It con—
sisted of fifty anagram problems. Performance on this task

33

34
was hypothesized to vary with the variation of exposure in
Task I.

Mean performance scores between similar groups with
and without exposure to the solution words were significantly
different, supporting the transfer hypothesis. The differ-
ences between all other groups were in the predicted direc-
tion, but were not statistically significant. The group
which combined both inhibitory effects fell below the groups
with only one. Both of these groups fell below the group
with neither.

A second experiment was designed as a more direct test
of embedding. It determined the ability to recognize words
previously exposed under embedded and non-embedded con-
ditions. It was hypothesized that fewer embedded words
would be identified as having been seen in the prior exposure.

The results of the recognition test supported the
hypothesis. Fewer words were recognized by the group ex-
posed to the words under embedded conditions than non-embedded.
The presence of the embedding effect was verified, but was
not considered strong enough to influence the complex

anagram solving task.

APPENDIX I

INSTRUCTIONS

I have two separate tasks for you to do. The second
will follow the first, with no instructions, or other inter-
ruptions in between, so you must understand both tasks
before we begin.

Task I consists of a list of items which you are to
evaluate. The basis for your evaluation will be entirely
subjective. Judge each item, pleasant or unpleasant,
according to the following scale; +2 very pleasant, +1
pleasant, 0 neutral, -1 unpleasant, and -2 very unpleasant.
The type of items you receive will vary; some will be sen-
tences, others words, phrases, etc. Whichever type you
get, respond to it by the five point scale just given. You
will have only five minutes to do this task, so time your-
selves accordingly.

The second task is quite different; it consists of
anagrams or mixed up letters, out of which you are to form
a word. So if you are given the letters‘g ENS 2, you will
unscramble them, or rearrange them to make the word "desk."
You must use every letter given once, and only once. All
words must be English words; you may not use words from
another language. Ybu will not need to use words with
prefixes or suffixes or any proper nouns. The words may
be any part of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc. Do

36

37

not spend too much time on any single item; if you cannot
get one anagram, go on to the next. You will have twenty-
five minutes for this task.

Just a quick review. First respond on the five point
scale to the first list of items. You will have five min-
utes, and then hand them in and be given the mixed up words.
Put your name on both tasks. Please do not look at your

neighbor's paper. Are there any questions?

APPENDIX I I

.Je

.Je

[MW W

.. rmm‘

“.9*

w \J .

flami—

L'LL‘uI :11 0,1
“m

I“ '1 "1 ‘1". ‘1"

' U

~-.m~ ""

C (”l-1“ 1"
w t

S I I‘Qilfj

Ifativc
"fin“.

under
w.-fl_‘r

(3“ "f‘" F1 (’0
0-0;“..("3‘ \ . ' l L” ' .1“

color
m‘m

0 017173 ’1 D "
‘ ”In 302‘“.‘— A

“’7'.“ 'r" ‘

“mm-ens.»

“A-..

H may! eel 7

- .u. -

“we”

no M’l.“

‘I‘- “0.0.-

Mm.”

o own“

"i ‘w—gfln-

.4“..."

at. .“I‘W-

I so we“: 1""-

' 1 '---.~

5'. 6-": uni-e.

e M-m- l

m-w‘ ‘

_r' . . . .
v; ,5 .1 ' ": rm
.x - J $ ‘ 1 .4- 3...».
~
(.1 “ , l
.1
-q A .- -.
J ‘0 LL

'4
k ‘t
L“:
Fe
C‘.

loam

house

public

1" 3V ‘.__.‘ A."

trunk

at 0 377.1

.wa—ow at

»—o- «new we.

O-‘~‘JJ-

-I:-.z—..I.

m’fifi'm-Iu-

r~--- "9

“Wu”

"w“.

‘1 *‘mfl

. at..."

_-1 l- as—e. 1w

- —- r-maa Inn.

V4LUA ~cll e.

moru-n3

LC
7;.)
H

fivngm‘g m"1fi+ T

T"periment II

a J‘s-"RD

MAI:

c-iMIIOU

molwm

1*.5'1}.

Crown TT
rim/'31 '11", TIT I

".. .i . - .'. .‘7 .’-.. "', ', .
U.» 'LIL. J. .1. an. my C(.

V . uf‘ '
‘1 q I": ,Arn.‘ ‘, ‘ (
r« 11? ’ ‘_VL.L .1 1 J- Ll-vu' 9
l u

1'17"} s“ Q “i 1” ‘ ".' “’iaf 1 E"
e)’ .1. (4.1. .. v: 11"“ L' A M31 .i --. “

gate

U "-

‘-

H3

. ..
' .1 r .. v1: «117,, 7, 7 an 1 "I"; ‘. ';q, A f"

in . ' '— ck \« \\ , I.) ~.-'. )‘ '.e4 \1 \s I:

v\

“1 2‘“, (1 I” n“; I" ‘T 5‘1"“. ‘ \r' ".'I "-

'.__'_ (.15) ! 1 ‘M- "J A J. ‘4 1,3. ’ .'. '

\a

A .-'~ ’ -. r '\- I '1 rs r3 '_-';1

\v‘f L112’...AL,' 7.:‘AJ’JL-JCA. i (9...

I I y I
. 1‘1: )1 .‘ .r1‘1'l'7‘
"'1- A 1).-.-Luv \ ..... . 'v ,

f: n ‘_‘-‘H Ts
L) ‘J L- ALL

(“z 3‘3"]

x)

?*99“i“n”t I — Crown III

, . 5 .l . - _ , . ..
n 11...“. ~i‘ ‘ 1 , " ' .5" s 1 3
1‘0.“ fi“ "‘1' .‘ ”7'41’7‘1'1 , , A}: L) . :(2’ ,Ho-x Ff]... ‘.‘
'4! 1"” "' J -'--:_ "*1 v-9 4rv'-‘{ -'-l 2.. ~4- 9- . ,. m- - " ‘ ““‘ ' U 0;," ”'1 ' I ’ "I A. \klsu - - A 4
4.
.. g ‘ !, . _ a _ '-
"'3 (‘F‘Ih‘rj ”2“."- ' ”)1'2' 'J‘” M ; (‘1: 2': L) M"!
V ’ 2
‘3 an... \ e. L.) gAU 4 w‘~.~-.-.I " J ‘ J“ —' I... "‘ J L Heme-I'm- " L" " “ ram-v 0‘: L- 0’ \' ‘- .stlzrz‘ “ \-
~ . ~
Irv-1 "I: 2 ("’1“) 1‘11‘ '“W'”"-’ ‘ -‘.. l I 1"“ "’4-
’.an—u m 2 J- '114 kl 1- A-A eve-a- " 1 ' J " "‘O ' ’ - :(I‘P‘I-tvl “ " 4:” " H‘ ‘ :Jthvf‘h‘ I‘ 'h 'A' '1}; ‘11-.» “J M‘
. .' L up. u . ~- -.~ “ ‘ V“, ‘
(“7""17‘48 1'12 «'1 .1: : :12- r; 2*: r- .21
“a... '1 - ‘.M~L - lid-.1- __' \- "" “l A; ~noe «“9: "‘ ‘ “‘ r‘ L‘ =- i," ,- I .‘ a runnff I

g_,
a. . - fi esp ' .. <f- ' " - ‘4} I 7"“ ’ ‘t' '
" J I 1 " 1-2' "
»u~~'” (30135;) thc -.,. a... J‘:“ L, “wen-ow ' V, 15.11.. avl,- \ 'k' 1" " “' L i=3-t.hn' “‘5'

x . m. «1 :~e .2 e. .
mq‘ as C U0 I‘a a . 5;.- l‘ I“ I" ‘3 8 “my“ '1 1' ‘1‘ f: " 0 " 227v: :w: K) ‘2'!“ r" ' J‘ vm‘v". ~.- J. J”

. n .‘
"fl f1J‘ ‘" fl.) ‘ t ".1. T;- ‘ ’3’; 1". ‘ f: . 5 E ’1 1
l 113.;- 9 -° IJ 01-; A) [e - ,_. q ‘ ’ \A ,‘1 ‘.‘- -—".'f"1 th "’ "‘ ' ' “‘ ' ‘.7 a. . ~. .. . L) .‘A' "fl " " “ssh: - _ k J
' 3 ‘ .. ,2. 1, T- ‘1" . . ‘1' h». ,- a e ,g , a ' l' ' 1- >o
’- “ r , l , . . )4 I E .- ‘ H. I . 1 ,
.‘__,. S .2- $11 > ..,....;.-4. “"r‘ bl) 222:2? 14“.“ '13“! -_ -- .1, “' £1 "' C' "" 9;: w... 3');

_. s .- . 1- .. _ «all . . -1. - .9.
. n. I 5 , 1(_ f“ “ ."e 4", t l , , Ft 1 .
E J ‘¢I ,, ."‘..10 -Ol kl r.:3.'::;_: IU "» '*!\~Il - A; 1.1 . "a’ L.!{; Li 3 , ,1 (JV Jr.

. ’ - . ‘
" b1 1 311:”: 1 ‘3 "H’h )[L‘J‘1r7 ..~..~, .
I: \1 c ‘ ~ . . own. n-4 «1.214;; 3:3"; .' ‘. \i a - ‘4. _ I" > -5 \ - -| A ( g y”: » I K . - .

vote... a.

i”: ’ v. "m4 ‘7'”) .s n: ‘ -'~ 7 -<-.-
5“; \j (.1 C? .L n ’- 'o-‘E ‘4’ J.‘ ‘1 Fl, 1." ‘\.‘ i .. 1 J {:1 l. I.) {J a . ‘ «I.

1. . offl‘. ;.'1._- I*"~'.1.';l" A . odsaar‘. _

-3 ‘9 “u r 'ratm x1»..- 0- . r _. r’gm‘.

«axxvaa :v ,1 3' ‘i u) f—‘Nu-11-: ' ' vi" ‘ .‘x‘rv ‘ " v- “’3.

‘ . " '1 . . .. ., ’ -_ 2'- ' . -
('11: 1 e l~1r2d , ‘ s f't,‘\. ‘ "of, ( j ‘ 7
D—s.uf'. IJ "* i ‘ w» .--. 0: " L" I“ ‘3 2:; ‘-" .‘.' "" \" \, J' " > I mu?‘ .' W ‘3 “ 1'“ '0 " nun-pa» '"

‘4' ‘0 .7. . . ‘ yficIJe a L .1 .'4e.
.oweer ..d“ inst gfigzpainy _”W,etcr; ml

at-CI' '.

ext—‘11...- ” In.- a my". 1.1")

C?
I
J
J
«1
f3

:1
-1
11
E :1
(I?
C)
O
:1
0.;
o
.J
r—0
{-1-
G)
.g' .
(7.)
,1

.lo- ,‘JC '5 ’ ‘ -:‘.‘M!’

ii

' P: P...

e ’I- 0.: “_-v a” we It! ~ . r."'1.~
rust-r": 9" \j Cf‘L-t a .7 «I 3 {:0 I; nah-2"; 1) C): A 't- 8 _-..92a J ‘J C 'f)r cm. ,‘L

hinrtv f::nknjr* OIT'

1., '1'» ‘— -" * «now-Ivy.

339’” " round

. "V .. .. '7 - .. L ‘ I- . 3"
I212» '\ “a ware-W: t-zwx. . u“."’(" ’1 (
11“ - )J “4 ‘1'. -.£“1~ LJ 1.! '2). \J"Il J...
'1' P1 ' ff) ‘ w " ,. ' a2bfl- ‘ ’ ‘ U ”Kane-An " ‘ ’ cuss-:9-» “' " "' a.,'\n~fl
‘ pl 7 ‘1‘ [‘9 - a, ge- - 1 .' - g - I. N f- 5 - (r!
l 1 E 1 , ‘7 , ‘ t, 1 I , l ‘ t I". J . V 1 L 14
a ‘a: - 1 - v . . a ’- ,1 ‘ "‘ at.“ r. ‘H " ‘ ‘ -,- 1-"!!! "‘ 7 ' ' --m':‘n-x ‘ ’
‘ .‘7 "' “‘m ‘ ‘ (AI‘ ‘ ‘ H “ 1" I ,'\ n“ ' 1‘ ‘ '\
‘ , . 1 . ‘ .. e a
-‘w: I :2 w J I I“ " ‘ u... . » 3' l" I ) t. “ vi 1...: . ‘ ‘- " i" :‘ ;'. - ‘ '” L I ‘ ‘ ‘ .: .«lc've
1- q 2 . 1 J r
.11 8 ”lg ) _u. , _,fi
vac. -.--.- can: ‘L ‘ ‘ 1' u. -...~ ( W. “J J L1 ~—d r302: I. ‘ 'L ‘ U 221-1“: 1 " " '1 "‘ I" r- - n..~.. L”
a - N
str 0* ‘isht “a "u :2 s'*
, l I
(J's-b...» “ _.-—‘. H. " ~.: ‘ J 4'1..m:.' ‘J’ ‘J V‘ J " .I'-'~J.i» V ' M d ' ‘ ...n.m..'o‘.‘., '-
r. r f\ - ‘ s‘ a , ~~ \ “(‘3
n 1ft )1 1 . . v 1“ r 4 1 “ .‘1 - ‘
I 2 o 1 ' v v
2”” 1....3""" V "" 5 , .gr- '1. {" V ‘ :1 k I "’ “:1“ L A ' J .5- u .a-fi-‘r. ' ‘ “"‘ -..m‘ ‘L k'
‘L '. I ~ 7 In 9' ' - -~ 21 o - 0
OI‘T'C"*'& 1 C. Wu ~. = o2
3.313(- 342:) “ “‘- ""4 en ru ‘ " ' ‘ ‘ -' "nevus“ ‘1‘- “ ‘»- ‘ 4’ ‘- 3:st ->-.2 ‘ "‘ ‘ {Y . a: '

. - - ‘ . .‘ J. -
r1have ‘ «I fab seeps "“l“ L”
4'“. ;. kJ._z L4 , I ~ .1 . :52 .L . '_.~ ._, . g”- v .4k.'.. . ~-

- -. .- . ,3. a.” v; “an. ‘1. ~--- It" JVIDnuug-s

' O \ .
A .— ,~, ‘1‘ r‘ A ( ~§ \ Q -‘ [A ,- , x —1 f. ‘ A a. ‘
A. ' 2 . 2 .4 - '
car-”.1: «:1 RI a.» A U k: l. U L “L ‘ .- _ ‘ ' . ‘ , . ’ r A' ‘ ,_. , ,

.. - .C't .- x -; i . . ‘h ... ,4” . . 1.. . - ‘ '1 .. . i .
.- r w; M An 1 . r'- ‘Ln 7'. .c2'.2.
Cl ,‘g'LLi A t 11 K)" .. I'J .‘u it". 6" s - .’ 1 ‘ a \J "3 E la] (”3: ' .

E5

C"

if.“

’3

(D

B

O

1".

a.)

'1,

(“.1

IT
I "
Q;
H:
H
,_2;
H
C -

"1"
<2
C1
6

trer‘roht I — drone TV

Under water plant life the rock Mil coral forwrtiore
formed a beeutiful and colorful scene.

The public boao h rhhg with 3o.y clieerful seinds Iron
iappy throngs, mtending the ornuel part4.

The erltire r3 on filled i; th 810k from the lotilj
gentlemane lon n7, brown cigam

In the early morning, the storm struck with savage
winds and literally tone of rain.

Although quiz t, the small child 3, from the for eign
land, .33 extremely polite and well menn3red.

The toll house, built of glazed brick, featured a
round roof and huge picture windowsa

The candy was coated with 3113teqin3 sugar and
available in a variety of fruit fleJors.

The banks of the 310 :13 winding river were covered
with grass and va~ri3ue green shruoe

The truck, presently empty, but ordinarily filled
with gar 333 was preperty of a local companyc

The legendary wh9.le was white in col.or giant in size,
and repute d1; 3 wanton killer

IT"! 5“ n “a n1 aw i- T

”‘1 'f‘fl‘V‘" TT

W“ ‘w

j“. “ed ”a” 2:: J53 m
1 .7 1...... 1““ .,,.‘«
C.uC.LO m". “a Cu
mi. ,,.. . ,, y. .3 . 1"-
Laupiflf ‘flxlCLl
m -r -m ‘
cz~ * ‘ 7 1- c“"r!f\ {‘2
m k' ‘ I. la .va —A-o.c¢uo.o \.}”' .4 " n
" J.
L L“ {lo
M

“a. I"-

uh
1mm 'T'vz- w-
\ L . _ _5 $ ‘ ’4“
"nib-“I . «tum-dung
r, . n ,. .1.
J ~
“w

a.“

mu.-

III-0‘“

o ‘n t
'I .v P‘U‘
' {:14 01'. K3 b
-.-.-c-om¢o I.-
77 "1‘ ‘r- V*'r 5-.-
,wLijn VTEU-uL
*.m&“ b \r’ -I'fl-IIJ.“
. -‘ r.
' .(
gm an“

fiflPifih
,,....,....,. - mm...
“mm :301’1:-= " ....-....... 1; 3 ,"i .2“ "mm“
__m__ C'rn) crwufii y
.~u*. heirhfi _w 'tribe
_ shlny *

”I'm

“11"“

~u— ".0

was... an

2*

----~ ., 0 1‘0. :i'i’;
WQ'V 0
......
'---- 2']? 1 1'1?" :2 1%
“0“,... Hi 3%, (:11: G
W h 0131 c
—~«~,.- C11 (11:. w w;

%

‘L ,

r: p r.) 1*:

erupt

. f1

—o-l

d o 3

' . J.
"1’70"“1 m an ..

IWI‘ICL

amt-tr...

Tlmi
WEETZ
£4 ,..'-.A.T
1311333
sanas
C.) T"ZS-H

Hf?“ V?
unb-

mesa:
LU? c213
0mm:
TO OUR
ma '2
mass
LAC mm
1631:
6-0112“?
. macs
seams};
moan

”3’19 “'quw‘q

(43‘3“- #5 32:
5.3.1. “3,435.!

" rr'i r: 1'3

9.1.33- ms
2'13. 4.. 1305A

P3r'"""r-'fi 1"?

\ '0 ‘ vi
duty In}. u-uuuv‘.
”‘M. I,
Ila h" f; “2
“w—L'
g 3" h'. iii-u. -
.uu- 1

Pasta“?

XV 4."..3 «ad‘-

. . 3 F‘“?
14332-353.
W” “ ""'

é. 3.3-6.35'
CCVO"
.\ a .
‘- h
“7““ 3'3““; '
$11!: :0‘1’ x J‘ H

7;"??? :9

fi‘ .ss.

an“?
DJ;- 4.:

IRATE-EE-

A :5};- $2.34.;

tupflpyfiyvnv+

place
acorn
giant
letter
candy
empty
music
river
whale
earth
party
infant
onion
storm
winfiow
QWCVT

‘ ~4~1-~
1:2 I; t;

,J

HQ 1’ 17(11)::

foroirn

square

thi FE}
stuffy
cloud

flower

savage
chord
lnrztc
anchor
Sweet
motor

~( I m
“(71 'k‘} 0:

biodi
l

tTOAC

ACAJXSI

Fond «u-A—a "I- 4 0"“

timid
child
office
brick
march
range
duty
stone

guilt

instant

honest

morning

I
. \ .
I)» k' -.
‘ V
1
*' "2: ‘n ‘
VJ. ~ £~
7’ .‘f‘t-o
. - \a‘
n
a. x :‘.’v~
t.’ - [u 1.”
up”
. V" ‘-
L.

t'1n1r

round
point
circle
strong
exact
thorn
vault
legion
green
jungle
wealth

scene

Jubllfi
Itufi~saa
White

beztzch

10.

11.

12.

13.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, T. Individual comparisons. Unpublished paper.

Archer, E. J., Bourne, L. E., and Brown, R. G., Concept
identification as a function of irrelevant information
and instructions. J, sap. Pszchol., 1955. £2. 153-16A,

Dixon, W. J., and Massey, F. J. An introduction to
statistical analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

.1951.

Duncan, G. P. Recent research on human problem solving.
Psxchol, Bull., 1959. 26.. 397-429.

Ellis, W. D. A source book of Gestalt pgzchologx. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 193 .

Johnson, D. M. The pszchologx of thought and Judgmen .
New York: Harper, 1955.

 

Johnson, D. M., Hall, E. R. Organization of relevant
and irrelevant words in the solution of verbal problems.,
J. of Psychol., 1962, fig, 99-104.

Judson, A. J., Cofer, C. N., and Gelfand, S. Reasoning
as an associative process: II. ”Direction" in problem
solving as a function of prior reinforcement of relevant
responses. Psychol. Rep., 1956, g, 501-507.

Keehn, J. D. Increase in perceptual sensitivity as a
function of learning in the test situation. Brit J.

of Psychol., 1959. 59. 37-40.

Koler, P. Subliminal stimulation in problem solving.
Am. J. Psychol., 1957,1_, #37-441.

Lindquist, E. F. Design and analzsis of egperiments.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1953.

Large, 1., and Solomon, H. Group and individual per-
formance in problem solving, related to previous exposure
to problem, level of aspiration, and group size.
Behavioral Sci., 1960, 5, 28-38.

Mayzner, M. 3., and Tresselt, M. E. Anagram solution:
A.function of letter order and word frequency. '1.
Exp. Psychol., 1958, 2_.3 376- 379.

45

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

47

Rees, N. J. and Israel, H. E. An investigation of
the establishment and operation of mental sets.
Psychol. Mono., 1935. fig, 1-36.

Sargent, S. S. Thinking processes at various levels
of difficulty. Arch. of Psychol., 1940, No. 249.

Shaw, M. E. Some effects of irrelevant information
upon problem-solving by small groups. J; Soc. Psychol.,
1958. 47. 33-37.

Shultz, R. W. Problem solving behavior and transfer.
Harvard Ed. Rev., 1960, 0, 61-77.

Walker, C. M., Bourne, L. E. The identification of
concepts as a function of amounts of relevant and
irrelevant information. gm, J. Psychol., 1961, 12,
410'4170 '

Wiggens, J. G. Some relationships between stimulus
structure and ambiguity in the solution of anagrams.
J. Clin. Psychq;., 1956, g1, 332-337.

2.2.”: uszs

:1

Hi

LY

 

 

 

 

I to
13. .

a...

"711111 1111111111131 @111 \Eflfiflfifi

 

312