Lab 3.1.IntroductionThe topic of this lab is the effect of “category set” on solution times for anagram puzzles.You can watch an overview video here (Links to an external site.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlJBqHhv1cIDeese (1959) found that an important factor in free recall of verbal materials is the inter-item associative strength (IIAS) within the list to be recalled. IIAS is a measure of the interrelationships among units of a list. High IIAS exists if the units comprising a list tend to evoke each other frequently as associates, whereas IIAS is low if the units of the list seldom elicit one another as associates. When the items within a list are highly inter-associated, free recall is enhanced. The recall of a given word tends to increase total recall by eliciting other related words in the list of high IIAS.Some investigators (Mayzner & Tresselt, 1958; Safren, 1962) saw a similarity between such verbal recall situations and anagram solution, and as such, they expected similar principles to operate in both situations. Safren (1962) attempted to exhibit this similarity by showing that a “category set” exists in anagram solution as well as in verbal recall (Deese, 1959). A category set may be viewed as a readiness to respond to words belonging to a common class or category (i.e., a group of words with high inter-item associative strength). Thus, a list of anagrams whose solutions belong to a common category might be expected to be solved more readily than a list comprised of unrelated word solutions. For example, all of the solutions to the anagrams in List 4 below (Table 1) are related to “beverages”, “breakfast”, “food”, and “taste”. If a category set comes into play during the course of solving a list, the solution time for the anagrams should be shorter than that for a control group which receives a list of equal length, but made up of unrelated words. Moreover, there should be a decrease in solution time for successive anagrams when subjects solve anagrams made from associatively related words since associations called up by previously solved anagrams will aid the participant in the solution of later problems in the list.The participants in one group of Safren’s experiment received one of six different lists of six anagrams each. All word solutions (words from which anagrams were constructed) within any given list were highly interrelated. The control group subjects received one of 36 different lists of six anagrams each. However, the word solutions within each of these lists were unrelated.The results of Safren’s experiment supported two main predictions: (a) that time for solution would be shorter for anagrams from organized lists where anagrams belonged to a common category, and (b) that the group with the organized lists would show a greater decrease in solution time over successive anagrams in the list.This study is a partial replication of Safren’s experiment. A comparison of solution times and improvement within a given list of six anagrams will be made between two types of lists, organized and unrelated.Phase 1 — Collecting DataParticipants: You will need to obtain 4 participants (preferably other college students, but not necessarily psychology majors). Two of them will assigned to the organized list condition, and the other two will be assigned to the unrelated list condition.Materials: Table 1 below contains a total of 36 anagrams arranged in six lists of six anagrams each. The arrangements are such that the solutions in each list form a common category (e.g., List 1 solutions are words related to “military”). From these organized lists, different lists of six unrelated words can be obtained by taking one word from each of the six organized lists. It is possible to form 36 different unrelated lists of six words with each word appearing six times as Safren did, but it will be sufficient for this experiment to use ONE unrelated list. Construct your list by using all words from any given row of Table 1 (across categories) as the unrelated list.After you choose your related list (choose ONE column of Table 1) and your unrelated list (choose ONE row of Table 1), prepare your stimuli by printing each anagram (not solved!) on a single index card. You should have two sets of six cards (six anagrams that are related, and six anagrams that are unrelated).You will also need a data summary sheet, which may be downloaded here (Links to an external site.) https://rawgit.com/tomfaulkenberry/courses/master/canvas/3435/lab3dataSummary.pdfProcedure.
- Discuss Ethics in Financial Responsibilities.
- Would you do anything differently in a future collaborative project?
- Contemporary theory related to the guidance of children’s behaviour in the early childhood setting.
- Discuss Over under and through by Tana Hoban.
- Discuss The best contract law regime for the commercial contracts formed online.
- Marketing mix analysis.
- Managing Xerox’s Multinational Development Center.
- Write a Spireslack field report.
- The Danger of a Single Story.
- Discuss “Gates of Paradise” by Lorenzo Ghiberti.
- Describe International Organizational Behavior.
- Describe International Organizational Behavior.