‭1‬

‭PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING‬

‭Experimenter’s Name: S.P Experiment Number: 5‬

‭Subject: S.R Date of Experiment: 31.10.23‬

‭INTRODUCTION‬
‭Paired‬ ‭associate‬ ‭learning‬ ‭is‬ ‭another‬ ‭method‬ ‭to‬ ‭study‬ ‭learning‬ ‭and‬ ‭memory,‬ ‭parallel‬ ‭to‬ ‭serial‬
‭learning.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭used‬ ‭as‬ ‭early‬ ‭as‬ ‭1894‬ ‭by‬ ‭Calkins,‬ ‭1897‬ ‭by‬ ‭Jost,‬ ‭1900‬ ‭by‬ ‭Muller‬ ‭and‬
‭Pizecker‬ ‭and‬ ‭1908‬ ‭by‬ ‭Thorndike.‬ ‭Usually‬ ‭in‬‭paired‬‭associate‬‭learning,‬‭the‬‭order‬‭of‬‭pairs‬‭is‬‭not‬
‭important.‬‭The‬‭pairs‬‭are‬‭presented‬‭on‬‭individual‬‭cards‬‭and‬‭the‬‭packs‬‭are‬‭shuffled‬‭between‬‭trials.‬
‭The‬ ‭criteria‬ ‭measured‬ ‭are‬ ‭the‬ ‭number‬ ‭of‬ ‭correctly‬ ‭recalled‬ ‭responses‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬ ‭stimuli‬ ‭are‬
‭presented‬‭at‬‭random‬‭or‬‭the‬‭number‬‭of‬‭trials‬‭taken‬‭to‬‭learn‬‭all‬‭the‬‭pairs.‬‭The‬‭method‬‭is‬‭particularly‬
‭useful‬‭when‬‭we‬‭want‬‭clear-cut‬‭and‬‭isolated‬‭connections‬‭within‬‭pairs‬‭of‬‭items.‬‭In‬‭the‬‭formation‬‭of‬
‭associations,‬ ‭meaning‬ ‭has‬ ‭a‬ ‭major‬ ‭role‬ ‭to‬ ‭play.‬ ‭An‬ ‭item‬‭may‬‭be‬‭regarded‬‭as‬‭meaningful‬‭to‬‭the‬
‭extent‬ ‭to‬ ‭which‬‭it‬‭gives‬‭rise‬‭to‬‭associations.‬‭There‬‭is‬‭a‬‭very‬‭close‬‭positive‬‭relationship‬‭between‬
‭meaningfulness‬ ‭and‬ ‭speed‬ ‭and‬ ‭ease‬ ‭of‬ ‭learning‬ ‭over‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭range‬ ‭of‬ ‭meaningfulness.‬ ‭The‬
‭larger the association value or meaningfulness of verbal units, the faster and easier the learning.‬
‭Recent‬‭analyses‬‭of‬‭verbal‬‭learning‬‭make‬‭a‬‭distinction‬‭between‬‭response‬‭learning‬‭and‬‭the‬
‭associative‬ ‭stage.‬ ‭Response‬ ‭learning‬ ‭involves‬ ‭learning‬ ‭to‬ ‭identify‬ ‭and‬ ‭get‬ ‭a‬ ‭proper‬ ‭hold‬ ‭of‬
‭complex‬ ‭responses‬ ‭so‬ ‭that‬ ‭we‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬‭position‬‭to‬‭handle‬‭them‬‭effectively.‬‭If‬‭a‬‭response‬‭is‬
‭compact,‬ ‭internally‬ ‭well‬‭bound‬‭and‬‭well‬‭integrated,‬‭it‬‭becomes‬‭more‬‭readily‬‭available‬‭for‬‭extra‬
‭associative‬‭manipulations.‬‭The‬‭other‬‭phase‬‭in‬‭verbal‬‭learning‬‭is‬‭often‬‭called‬‭the‬‭'Hook-up'‬‭stage‬
‭and‬ ‭comprises‬ ‭of‬ ‭actual‬ ‭joining‬ ‭or‬‭linking‬‭of‬‭the‬‭responses‬‭with‬‭their‬‭appropriate‬‭stimuli.‬‭Here‬
‭we‬ ‭have‬ ‭associative‬ ‭learning‬‭proper.‬‭This‬‭analysis‬‭of‬‭response‬‭integration‬‭or‬‭response‬‭learning,‬
‭as‬ ‭distinguished‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭stage‬ ‭of‬ ‭associative‬ ‭learning‬ ‭is‬ ‭valuable.‬ ‭But‬ ‭the‬ ‭two‬‭phases‬‭are‬‭not‬
‭separate. They may even impenetrate and overlap.‬
‭Meaningful‬ ‭items‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭easily‬ ‭learned‬ ‭because‬ ‭they‬ ‭are‬ ‭already‬ ‭well‬ ‭integrated,‬ ‭and‬
‭thus‬‭are‬‭immediately‬‭available‬‭for‬‭relevant‬‭associative‬‭processing.‬‭Common‬‭words,‬‭being‬‭highly‬
‭learned‬ ‭are‬ ‭unitised‬ ‭and‬ ‭well‬ ‭integrated‬ ‭beforehand,‬ ‭therefore‬ ‭their‬ ‭associative‬ ‭learning‬
‭commences immediately. No learning time is wasted over their response learning.‬
 ‭2‬

‭With‬‭the‬‭above‬‭theoretical‬‭background,‬‭the‬‭following‬‭experiment‬‭aims‬‭to‬‭study‬‭the‬‭effect‬
‭of‬‭Stimulus-Response‬‭meaningfulness‬‭on‬‭the‬‭formation‬‭of‬‭associations.‬‭The‬‭method‬‭used‬‭for‬‭the‬
‭study is "Paired - Associate Learning."‬

‭METHODOLOGY‬
‭Problem:‬ ‭To‬ ‭study‬ ‭the‬ ‭effect‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭meaningfulness‬ ‭of‬ ‭stimulus-response‬ ‭relationship‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬
‭formation of associations.‬

‭Hypothesis:‬ ‭Stimulus‬ ‭-‬ ‭Response‬ ‭meaningfulness‬ ‭has‬ ‭a‬ ‭positive‬ ‭effect‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭formation‬ ‭of‬
‭associations, and consequently, on recall.‬

‭Plan:‬
‭1.‬ ‭To conduct the experiment in two series:‬
‭a.‬ ‭With no specific meaningful relationship between stimuli and responses.‬
‭b.‬ ‭With logical or meaningful connections between stimuli and responses.‬
‭2.‬ ‭To test recall of response words separately in both the series and compare.‬
‭3.‬ ‭To‬ ‭study‬ ‭the‬ ‭effect‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭meaningfulness‬ ‭of‬ ‭responses‬ ‭in‬‭the‬‭formation‬‭of‬‭associations‬
‭with the stimuli.‬

‭Variables:‬
‭-‬ ‭I‬‭ndependent Variable:‬‭-‬‭Meaningfulness of stimulus-response‬‭connection.‬
‭-‬ ‭Dependent Variable:-‬‭Number of response words correctly‬‭recalled.‬

‭Controls:‬
‭1.‬ ‭Time of exposure is limited to 2 seconds per pair for both lists.‬
‭2.‬ ‭The difficulty level of words used is held constant in both series.‬
‭3.‬ ‭The time to respond to each stimulus is limited to three seconds.‬

‭Materials:‬
‭1.‬ ‭Two‬‭lists‬‭of‬‭paired‬‭associates,‬‭each‬‭pair‬‭written‬‭on‬‭a‬‭card.‬‭The‬‭stimulus‬‭word‬‭from‬‭each‬
‭pair is also written on the back of the corresponding card.‬
‭a.‬ ‭List A - Ten pairs of words with no specific meaningful relationship.‬
 ‭3‬

‭b.‬ ‭List‬ ‭B‬ ‭-‬ ‭Ten‬ ‭pairs‬ ‭of‬ ‭words‬ ‭with‬ ‭logical‬ ‭or‬ ‭meaningful‬ ‭connections‬ ‭between‬
‭stimuli and responses.‬
‭2.‬ ‭Stop Clock‬

‭Procedure:‬
‭Series‬‭-‬‭1‬‭:‬‭Instruct‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭to‬‭observe‬‭carefully,‬‭the‬‭exposed‬‭stimulus-response‬‭pairs.‬‭Clarify‬
‭to‬‭him/her‬‭that‬‭in‬‭each‬‭pair‬‭the‬‭first‬‭word‬‭is‬‭the‬‭stimulus‬‭and‬‭the‬‭second‬‭word‬‭is‬‭the‬‭response‬‭(an‬
‭example‬ ‭may‬‭be‬‭given‬‭using‬‭a‬‭pair‬‭other‬‭than‬‭the‬‭ones‬‭in‬‭the‬‭two‬‭lists).‬‭Inform‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭that‬
‭recall‬ ‭will‬ ‭be‬ ‭tested‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭response‬ ‭words‬ ‭paired‬ ‭with‬‭each‬‭stimulus.‬‭With‬‭these‬‭instructions,‬
‭present‬‭the‬‭first‬‭pair,‬‭from‬‭list‬‭‘A’‬‭for‬‭two‬‭seconds‬‭then‬‭the‬‭second‬‭and‬‭so‬‭on‬‭till‬‭all‬‭the‬‭ten‬‭pairs‬
‭in‬‭list‬‭A‬‭are‬‭exposed.‬‭Now‬‭expose‬‭the‬‭stimulus‬‭words‬‭printed‬‭on‬‭the‬‭back‬‭of‬‭the‬‭cards‬‭one‬‭by‬‭one‬
‭at‬ ‭random‬ ‭and‬ ‭obtain‬ ‭responses.‬ ‭Note‬ ‭down‬ ‭the‬ ‭responses‬ ‭given‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭subject.‬ ‭Allow‬ ‭three‬
‭seconds for the subject to respond to each stimulus word.‬
‭Give a five-minute rest period to avoid interference before starting the second series.‬
‭Series 2‬‭: Follow the same procedure as in the first‬‭series using list B.‬

‭Instructions:‬
‭1.‬ ‭"With‬‭the‬‭signal‬‭‘ready’‬‭I‬‭will‬‭expose‬‭a‬‭series‬‭of‬‭cards‬‭with‬‭pairs‬‭of‬‭words,‬‭in‬‭which‬‭the‬
‭first‬‭word‬‭is‬‭the‬‭stimulus‬‭and‬‭second‬‭word‬‭is‬‭a‬‭response,‬‭observe‬‭carefully‬‭as‬‭you‬‭have‬‭to‬
‭recall the response words later".‬
‭2.‬ ‭"Now‬‭I‬‭will‬‭present‬‭only‬‭the‬‭stimulus‬‭words,‬‭you‬‭write‬‭down‬‭the‬‭corresponding‬‭response‬
‭words".‬

‭Analysis of the Data:‬

‭1.‬ ‭Count the number of response words correctly recalled in each list.‬
‭2.‬ ‭Find out the difference in the number of words correctly recalled in each series‬
‭Difference = Score in series 2 - Score in series 1‬
‭3.‬ ‭Calculate group Mean and Standard Deviation.‬
 ‭4‬

‭Table 1:‬

‭Number of Response Words Correctly Recalled in Each List by the Subject.‬

‭Number of Response Words correctly recalled‬

‭Sl. No‬ ‭Name‬ ‭Difference‬

‭List ‘A’‬ ‭List ‘B’‬
‭(B-A)‬

‭1‬ ‭S.R‬ ‭5‬ ‭8‬ ‭3‬

‭Table 2:‬

‭Showing the Number of Words Correctly Recalled by the Group.‬

‭Number of Response Words correctly recalled‬

‭Sl. No‬ ‭Name‬
‭List ‘A’‬ ‭List ‘B’‬ ‭Difference (B-A)‬

‭1‬ ‭Y.D‬ ‭10‬ ‭10‬ ‭0‬

‭2‬ ‭A.R.M‬ ‭7‬ ‭9‬ ‭2‬

‭3‬ ‭D.S‬ ‭9‬ ‭10‬ ‭1‬

‭4‬ ‭V.K‬ ‭7‬ ‭8‬ ‭1‬

‭5‬ ‭N.B‬ ‭8‬ ‭10‬ ‭2‬

‭6‬ ‭V.N‬ ‭8‬ ‭10‬ ‭2‬

‭7‬ ‭N.P‬ ‭2‬ ‭10‬ ‭8‬

‭8‬ ‭N.S‬ ‭7‬ ‭9‬ ‭2‬

‭9‬ ‭B.R.C‬ ‭9‬ ‭10‬ ‭1‬

‭10‬ ‭I.S‬ ‭8‬ ‭9‬ ‭1‬

‭Total‬ ‭75‬ ‭95‬ ‭20‬

‭Mean‬ ‭7.5‬ ‭9.5‬ ‭2‬

 ‭5‬

‭Points for Discussion:‬

‭a.‬ ‭Discuss‬ ‭whether‬ ‭the‬ ‭meaningfulness‬ ‭of‬‭the‬‭stimulus-response‬‭relationship‬‭has‬‭increased‬
‭recall for the Subject as well as the group.‬
‭b.‬ ‭Discuss the individual differences if any.‬

‭Individual Discussion:‬
‭Table‬‭-‬‭1‬‭shows‬‭the‬‭number‬‭of‬‭responses‬‭correctly‬‭recalled‬‭in‬‭each‬‭list‬‭by‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭S.R.‬‭Under‬
‭list‬ ‭‘A’‬ ‭the‬ ‭subject‬ ‭has‬ ‭recalled‬ ‭5‬ ‭responses‬ ‭and‬‭in‬‭list‬‭‘B’‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭has‬‭recalled‬‭8‬‭responses‬
‭and the difference is‬‭3‬‭.‬
‭Hence‬ ‭we‬ ‭can‬ ‭say‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭result‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭subject‬ ‭is‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭hypothesis‬ ‭that‬ ‭is‬
‭meaningfulness‬‭of‬‭a‬‭stimulus-response‬‭relationship‬‭has‬‭a‬‭positive‬‭effect‬‭on‬‭the‬‭formation‬‭of‬‭the‬
‭association and on recall.‬

‭Individual Conclusion:‬
‭1.‬ ‭The result of the subject is according to the hypothetical expectation.‬
‭2.‬ ‭Stimulus-response‬ ‭meaningfulness‬ ‭has‬‭a‬‭positive‬‭effect‬‭on‬‭the‬‭formation‬‭of‬‭associations‬
‭on recall.‬

‭Group Discussion:‬
‭Table‬ ‭-‬‭2‬‭shows‬‭the‬‭number‬‭of‬‭responses‬‭correctly‬‭recalled‬‭in‬‭each‬‭list‬‭by‬‭the‬‭group.‬‭Under‬‭the‬
‭list‬‭‘A’‬‭the‬‭total‬‭is‬‭75‬‭and‬‭the‬‭mean‬‭is‬‭7.5‬‭.‬‭Under‬‭the‬‭list‬‭‘B’‬‭the‬‭total‬‭is‬‭95‬‭and‬‭the‬‭mean‬‭is‬‭9.5‬
‭and‬‭the‬‭total‬‭difference‬‭is‬‭20‬‭with‬‭a‬‭mean‬‭of‬‭2‬‭.‬‭On‬‭the‬‭whole,‬‭the‬‭group‬‭result‬‭is‬‭according‬‭to‬‭the‬
‭hypothetical‬ ‭expectation.‬ ‭As‬ ‭the‬ ‭scores‬ ‭say‬ ‭performance‬ ‭is‬ ‭better‬ ‭under‬ ‭list‬ ‭‘B’‬ ‭than‬ ‭list‬ ‭‘A’.‬
‭Therefore‬ ‭we‬ ‭can‬ ‭say‬‭that‬‭stimulus-response‬‭meaningfulness‬‭has‬‭a‬‭positive‬‭effect‬‭on‬‭the‬‭recall.‬
‭There‬ ‭are‬ ‭individual‬ ‭differences‬ ‭in‬ ‭recalling‬ ‭and‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭no‬‭subject‬‭whose‬‭result‬‭is‬‭against‬‭the‬
‭hypothetical expectation.‬

‭Group Conclusion:‬
‭The group result is according to the hypothetical expectation. There are individual differences.‬
 ‭6‬

‭REFERENCES‬
‭Arndt,‬ ‭J.‬ ‭(2012).‬ ‭Paired-Associate‬ ‭Learning.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Springer‬ ‭eBooks‬ ‭(pp.‬ ‭2551–2552).‬
‭https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1038‬

‭Mourgues,‬‭C.,‬‭Tan,‬‭M.,‬‭Hein,‬‭S.,‬‭Ojanen,‬‭E.,‬‭Reich,‬‭J.,‬‭Lyytinen,‬‭H.,‬‭&‬‭Grigorenko,‬‭E.‬‭L.‬‭(2016).‬
‭Paired‬‭Associate‬‭Learning‬‭Tasks‬‭and‬‭their‬‭Contribution‬‭to‬‭Reading‬‭Skills.‬‭Learning‬‭and‬
‭individual differences, 46‬‭, 54–63.‬‭https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.003‬