Journal of Experimental Psychology

1965, Vol. 70, No. 1, 51-56

PAIRED-ASSOCIATES LEARNING WITH VARYING

RELATIVE PERCENTAGES OF OCCURRENCE
OF ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE MEMBERS:
INFLUENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS 1
ALBERT E. GOSS
University of Massachusetts

Acquisition and performance with divergent PA units were determined

for 4 relative percentages of occurrence of alternative response members
(RP) combined with 4 list conditions under matching, regular, and
maximizing instructions. Under all 3 instructions and irrespective of
RP, percentages of anticipations and actual occurrences of more frequent
response members were essentially the same for a single unit presented at
constant, short, and at variable, long interunit intervals. With RP of
70-30, 80-20, and 90-10, for a single unit presented with randomly
paired intervening stimuli and for 4 units, matching instructions reduced
differences between anticipations and actual occurrences. Maximizing
instructions increased those differences but did not occasion 100%
anticipation.

Considered together, the three ex- was empirical: to determine direction

periments reported here provide in-
formation about effects of different
sets of instructions on acquisition and
performance with divergent paired-
associates (PA) units. These units
were each constituted of a stimulus
member and two response members,
one of which accompanied the stim-
ulus member on P% of its occurrences,
the other of which accompanied the
stimulus member on (1 — P)% of its
occurrences. Relative percentages of
occurrence of alternative response
members (RP) were varied as were
list conditions which represented dif-
ferences in number of units and
manner of presentation of single units.
One reason for varying instructions
1
Supported by Contract 2691 (00) be-
tween the Office of Naval Research, Training
and Personnel Branch, and the University of
Massachusetts. Marilyn E. Sugerman col-
laborated on one experiment. Nancy C.
Farrick was responsible for running half of
the 5s of that experiment and all of those of
the other two. She and Helen L. Rowell
contributed to analyses of the data of the
latter experiments and of all three experiments
combined as well as to preparation of the
manuscript.
51
and extent of effects of different sets
of instructions on acquisition and
performance both across RP and list
conditions and for different RP and
list conditions alone and in combina-
tion. Another reason for varying
instructions was theoretical: to deter-
mine whether or not theories to ex-
plain acquisition and performance
with divergent PA units need be
elaborated to allow for effects of
instructional variables. The w-choice
or probability-learning task (Estes,
1964) can be considered a special case
of divergent PA units. Therefore,
findings of effects of instructional
variables on acquisition and perform-
ance with divergent PA units might
have interesting and important rami-
fications for theories of probability
learning.
METHOD
Design.—Three different sets of instruc-
tions were combined orthogonally with RP
of 60-40, 70-30, 80-20, and 90-10 and with
list conditions of 4 units or 1 unit and three
different manners of presentation of the
single unit. The three different manners
were with a constant 2-sec. interval between
52 ALBERT E. GOSS
each presentation of the single unit; with
intervals from 2 to 38 sec. between pres-
entations about a mean of 20 sec.; and with
intervals from 2 to 38 sec. between pres-
entations about a mean of 20 sec., but with
the intervals filled by presentations of ran-
domly paired stimulus and response members.
These different manners of presentation are
described in greater detail by Goss and
Sugerman (1961). Coded by them as 1 unit,
1 unit spaced, and 1 unit random, they are,
henceforth, coded here as 1, IS, and 1R,
respectively. The 4-unit list is coded here
as 4.
The three different sets of instructions are
referred to as regular, matching, and maximiz-
ing. The regular instructions were those
employed for acquisition with conventional
PA units of each stimulus member accom-
panied by but one response member. The
5s were not informed that each stimulus
member would be accompanied by two
alternating response members. Nor were
they told the manner in which they should
anticipate those members except to spell out
the stimulus they expected to occur before
the response member was exposed.
The matching instructions involved in-
forming 5s that each stimulus member would
be accompanied by two response members
which would alternate. The 5s were told
further to anticipate the response members
with frequencies which were the same as the
actual frequencies of occurrence of those
members. The maximizing instructions also
involved informing 5s that each stimulus
member would be accompanied by response
members which would alternate. They were
told further, however, to always anticipate
the more frequent response member of a unit.
The design was accomplished in three
successive experiments. The first experiment,
with regular instructions, has been described
previously (Goss & Sugerman, 1961). Once
acquisition and performance with divergent
PA units under regular instructions had been
determined for RP and list conditions alone
and in combination, comparisons with ac-
quisition and performance under other sets
of instructions were warranted and desirable.
The second experiment was with matching
instructions and the third experiment was
with maximizing instructions.
Goss and Sugerman varied RP from 50-50
to 100-0 in successive changes of 10%. Since
instructions to match or to maximize are of
little or no consequence for RP of 50-50 or
100-0, these levels were omitted in the two
later experiments. Except for the omission
of RP of 50-50 and 90-10, the only known
differences between the first experiment and
the two later experiments were in the times
the experiments were run and in Es. The
former experiment was run during the spring
of one year, the experiment with matching
instructions was run in the fall of that year,
and the experiment with maximizing instruc-
tions was run in the spring of the next year.
There is no reason to believe that 5s of the
three experiments, who were drawn from
among undergraduates enrolled in the course
in introductory psychology during those
semesters, differed in any ways related to
acquisition with divergent PA units.
The 5s in the Goss and Sugerman experi-
ment were run by two female Es. No differ-
ences attributable to Es were observed. In
the two later experiments, one of these Es ran
all of the 5s.
Lists.—The divergent PA units were con-
stituted of CVCs of high meaningfulness and
low formal similarity to each other. The
units were WOM accompanied by TEX or
LIK, RUF by CEN or DOL, FES by vie or BAL,
and NAV by HOB or SUR. When presented as
four units, TEX, DOL, Vic, and HOB all occurred
on 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90% and LIK, CEN,
BAL, and SUR all occurred on 40%, 30%, 20%,
or 10% of the presentations of their stimulus
members, or the converse. When presented
as 1 unit, which response member was the
more frequent was also counterbalanced.
Goss and Sugerman (1961) describe other
details of the lists and of the semirandom
orders of presentation of the units.
Apparatus and procedure.-—A Hunter card-
master was employed to present the units;
the rate was 2:2 sec. There were 120 trials
with the 4-unit lists with all units presented
on each trial; there were 120 presentations
of the single units under the 1, IS, or 1R list
conditions.
Subjects.—Within each experiment there
were 16 combinations of RP and list condi-
tions. These combinations were administered
in counterbalanced cycles until the requisite
number of 8 5s within each had been reached.
Assignment to each combination was in order
of 5s' appearance within a constraint of equal
numbers of males and females within each
combination. There were 128 5s within each
experiment, for a total of 384. All 5s were
naive with respect to exposure to lists of
divergent PA units. Some 5s within each
experiment, however, had served previously
in other experiments with conventional PA
units.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As previously, the response measure
was percentage of anticipations of the
 INSTRUCTIONS AND RESPONSE FREQUENCY IN PAs 53

95.6*
92

85.2
80.7

1 IS 1R 4 1 IS 1H 1 IS 1R
MATCHING REGULAR MAXIMIZING
FIG. 1. Means of percentages of anticipations of the more frequent response members for
each of the combinations of instructions and lists in relation to actual percentages of occurrence
of the more frequent response members. (Differences significant at p < .05 are indicated by
an asterisk.)
54 ALBERT E. GOSS

TABLE 1
ANALYSES OF VARIANCE ON PERCENTAGES OF ANTICIPATIONS OF THE MORE
FREQUENT RESPONSE MEMBERS DURING ALL Six AND
THE LAST THREE BLOCKS OF TRIALS

All Six Blocks Last Three Blocks

Source
df MS F df MS F
Instructions (I) 2 2,458.08 3.97* 2 2,232.75 7.11**
RP 3 89,733.75 145.09** 3 41,646.13 132.61**
List conditions (L) 3 2,313.34 3.74* 3 4,690.09 14.93**
I X RP 6 1,929.71 3.12** 6 1,302.86 4.15**
I XL 6 1,049.72 2.15 6 581.73 1.85
RPXL 9 767:16 1.57 9 553.78 1.76
I X RP X L 18 488.34 18 334.82 1.07
Error (b) 336 618.47 336 314.04
Trials (T) 5 37,680.46 327.20** 2 360.30 6.17**
TX I 10 197.79 1.72 4 45.41
T X RP 15 161.09 1.40 6 90.05 1.54
T XL 15 3,039.13 26.39** 6 119.23 2.04
T X I X RP 30 86.36 12 42.86
T XIXL 30 158.70 1.38 12 56.32
T X RP X L 45 172.26 1.50* 18 30.04
T X I X RP X L 90 117.05 1.02 36 85.91 1.47*
Error (w) 1672" 115.16 664" 58.38

» 8 estimated values subtracted from df.

*p< .05.
**-p < .01.

more frequent response members dur-
ing successive blocks of 20 trials. For
brevity, means of percentages for
successive separate blocks of trials are
not shown. Means of percentages
during the last three blocks of trials
combined are presented at the top of
each rectangle of Fig. 1. Means of
percentages of anticipations are first
examined in terms of differences
among their absolute values through
blocks of trials as functions of in-
structions, RP, and list conditions.
Direction and extent of differences
between anticipations of response
members and their actual occurrence
are then examined.
Absolute values.—Table 1 summa-
rizes analyses of variance on percent-
ages of anticipations during each of
all six and the last three blocks of
trials. In each analysis, the F for
instructions was significant. Both
across all six and the last three blocks
of trials, differences between anticipa-
tions under matching and regular
instructions were slight. Fewer an-
ticipations occurred under both of
these sets of instructions than under
maximizing instructions. Both of the
highly significant Fs for RP reflected
the direct relationship between per-
centages of anticipations and of actual
occurrences of the more frequent
response members found in other
experiments (Brown, Osterhout, &
Voss, 1962; Voss, Thompson, &
Keegan, 1959). The significant Fs
for list conditions are considered
below in connection with effects of
trials.
The Fs for I X RP were also
significant. For all six and for the
last three blocks of trials, percentages
of anticipations were in the order
regular < matching < maximizing
with RP of 60-40 and 70-30, in the
order matching < maximizing < reg-
ular with RP of 80-20, and in the order
maximizing < matching < regular
with RP of 90-10. None of these
orders is the same as the overall order
 INSTRUCTIONS AND RESPONSE FREQUENCY IN PAs
for instructions of matching = regular
< maximizing.
Neither of the Fs for 1 X L was
significant. Across all six blocks of
trials, maximizing instructions pro-
duced more anticipations than did
regular or matching instructions for
all but the 1 list condition. Across
the last three blocks of trials, maxi-
mizing instructions produced more
anticipations than did matching and
regular instructions for all four of the
list conditions. Thus, while the
higher percentages of anticipations
under maximizing than under match-
ing and regular instructions suggested
by the overall Fs for instructions did
not hold at each RP, with the one
exception, the higher percentages did
hold for each list condition.
Examination of the rank orders of
means for each of the 16 combinations
of RP and list conditions under the
different instructions also indicated
that maximizing instructions did, in
general, produce more anticipations
than did regular or matching in-
structions. However, neither of the
Fs for I X RP X L was significant.
The highly significant F for trials
through all six blocks reflected a
typical negatively accelerated increase
in percentage of anticipations of the
more frequent response members.
The F for trials through the last three
blocks was also significant. More
anticipations occurred during Trials
101-120 than during Trials 61-80 for
which the mean was slightly higher
than the mean for Trials 81-100.
However, none of these differences
was sufficient to be of practical im-
portance or to vitiate the subsequent
treatment of the last 60 trials as
essentially homogeneous.
The significant T X L interaction
for all six blocks was attributable to
higher percentages of anticipations
with the 1 and IS list conditions than
with the 1R and 4 list conditions
55
during Trials 1-20, and the converse
during the last four blocks of trials.
The pattern of this interaction sub-
stantially accounts for the difference
between the orders of the list condi-
tions across all six and across the last
three blocks of trials. Across all six
blocks, the initial advantage of the
IS list condition was sufficient to
produce the order 1 < 1R < 4 < IS.
During the last three blocks, however,
the order was 1 < IS < 1R = 4.
Both Fs for list conditions were
significant.
The significant T X RP X L inter-
action reflected a greater reversal in
the advantage of the 1 and IS to the
1R and 4 list conditions between
Trials 1-20 and the last four blocks of
trials with RP of 60-40 and 70-30
than with RP of 80-20 and 90-10.
For the last three blocks of trials,
only one interaction involving trials
was significant. However, the pattern
of changes through trials precluded
meaningful interpretation of this
interaction.
Anticipations and actual occurrences.
—Figure 1 indicates the direction and
extent of differences between percent-
ages of anticipations of response
members and their actual occurrences.
The heterogeneity of the variances
among the combinations of instruc-
tions, RP, and list conditions was not
considered an important limitation on
interpretation of the outcomes of the
analyses of variance. But such heter-
ogeneity seemed an important limita-
tion on assessment of differences
between percentages of anticipations
and of actual occurrences. Accord-
ingly, a two-tailed t (7) was computed
for each of the 48 combinations with
an error term based on the SD for
that particular combination. Differ-
ences significant at p < .05 are noted
in Fig. 1.
Under all three sets of instructions,
only 2 of the 24 fa for RP combined
56 ALBERT E. GOSS
with 1 and IS list conditions were
significant. Under matching instruc-
tions, 2 of the 8 t's for RP combined
with 1R and 4 list conditions were
significant. In contrast, under regular
and maximizing instructions, respec-
tively, 5 and 6 of the 8 t'a for RP com-
bined with 1R and 4 were significant.
The pattern of nonsignificant and
significant t's, in conjunction with the
outcome of the analysis of variance for
the last three blocks of trials, supports
four conclusions. First, regardless of
instructions, during the last three blocks
of trials percentages of anticipations for
combinations of RP with 1 and IS list
conditions matched actual percentages of
occurrence. Two significant t's among
24 are best interpreted as due to chance.
Second, regardless of instructions, per-
centages of anticipations for RP of 60-40
combined with 1R and 4 list conditions
also matched actual percentages of
occurrence. Because of the extent of the
increase in the percentage of anticipa-
tions over 60%, the combination of RP
of 60-40 and the 4 list condition under
maximizing instructions may be an
exception.
Third, instructions to match may have
reduced differences between anticipa-
tions and actual occurrences for RP of
70-30, 80-20, and 90-10 combined with
the 1R and 4 list conditions. Instruc-
tions to maximize may have increased
those differences for the same combina-
tions. The largest absolute differences
were under instructions to maximize for
RP of 60-40 combined with the 4 and of
70-30 combined with the 1R and 4 list
conditions. Thus, theories of learning
and performance with divergent PA
um°ts, including theories of probability
learning, may have to be elaborated to
allow for effects of different sets of
instructions.
The Group 2 and Group 6 instructions
employed by McCracken, Osterhout,
and Voss (1962) resembled the matching
and maximizing instructions of the
present experiments, respectively. Their
task approximated the 1 list condition
of the present experiments; the RP was
70-30. Under Group 2 instructions,
percentages of anticipations of the more
frequent stimulus were close to 70%.
Under Group 6 instructions, percentages
of anticipations rose to about 90%. In
contrast, with 1 and IS list conditions
under maximizing instructions, anticipa-
tions matched actual occurrences at each
level of RP. One or more of many
differences between the McCracken et al.
and the present experiments in lists and
procedures might underlie the discrepant
outcomes. Thus, for example, main-
tenance of instructions-induced sets may
have been less difficult with their simple
nonmechanical arrangement for present-
ing the stimuli than with the complicated,
noisy cardmaster of the present ex-
periments.
Fourth, regardless of any differences
in effects of regular and maximizing
instructions, under these instructions
anticipations tend to exceed actual occur-
rences for RP for 70-30, 80-20, and 90-10
combined with the 1R and 4 list
conditions.
REFERENCES
BROWN, A., OSTERHOUT, C., & Voss, J. F.
The effect of one probabilistic verbal
association upon the concomitant acquisi-
tion of a second association. J. verbal
Learn, verbal Behav., 1962, 1, 48-53.
ESTES, W. K. Probability learning. In A. W.
Melton (Ed.), Categories of human learning.
New York: Academic Press, 1964.
Goss, A. E., & SUGERMAN, M. Paired-
associates learning with varying relative
percentages of occurrence of alternative
response members. /. exp. Psychol., 1961,
62, 24-34.
MCCRACKEN, J., OSTERHOUT, C., & Voss,
J. F. Effects of instructions in probability
learning. /. exp. Psychol., 1962, 64, 267-
271.
Voss, J. F., THOMPSON, C. P., & KEEGAN,
J. H. Acquisition of probabilistic paired
associates as a function of S-Ri, S-R2
probability. /. exp. Psychol., 1959, 58,
390-399.
(Received April 6, 1964)