Test-Expectancy and Word-Frequency Effects in Recall and Recognition
Test-Expectancy and Word-Frequency Effects in Recall and Recognition
复制标题
回忆和识别中的测试期望和词频效应
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1980
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. H. Neely
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Balota;J. H. Neely
为了确定那些期待回忆（RCL）测试的人对待记住（TBR）单词列表的编码是否与那些期待识别（RON）测试的人不同，人们首先被诱导期待RCL或RON测试，然后被要求记住一个由高频（HF）和低频（LF）单词组成的关键列表。在给出关键列表之后，不同的组接收预期的RCL测试、意外的RCL测试、预期的RON测试或意外的RON测试。主要有两个结果：(a)期望RCL的人在RCL和RON上的表现都比期望RON的人好，但在HF上的表现要比LF好得多；(b)获得了标准词频效应；即高频单词比低频单词更容易被记忆，但识别能力更差。这些数据在安德森和鲍尔的生成认知理论的框架内进行了解释，表明与期望进行RON测试的人相比，期望进行RCL测试的人对TBR单词的语义解释进行了更可变的编码。本文还讨论了这些数据对Glanzer和Bowies的词频效应理论和课堂考试的影响。
To determine if people who expect a recall (RCL) test encode a list of to-beremembered (TBR) words differently than those who expect a recognition (RON) test, people were first induced to expect a RCL or a RON test and then were asked to remember a critical list consisting of both high-frequency (HF) and low-frequency (LF) words. Following presentation of the critical list, different groups received either an expected RCL test, an unexpected RCL test, an expected RON test, or an unexpected RON test. There were two main results: (a) People who expected RCL did better in both RCL and RON than did people who expected RON, but to a much greater degree for HF than LF words, (b) The standard word-frequency effect was obtained; namely, HF words were better recalled but more poorly recognized than LF words. These data were interpreted within the framework of Anderson and Bower's generaterecognize theory as indicating that, compared to people expecting a RON test, people expecting a RCL test more variably encode the semantic interpretations of the TBR word. The implications that these data have for Glanzer and Bowies' theory of the word-frequency effect and for classroom examinations were also discussed.