Home

Footer

DeepDyve Logo
FacebookTwitter

Features

  • Search and discover articles on DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar
  • Read the full-text of open access and premium content
  • Organize articles with folders and bookmarks
  • Collaborate on and share articles and folders

Info

  • Pricing
  • Enterprise Plans
  • Browse Journals & Topics
  • About DeepDyve

Help

  • Help
  • Publishers
  • Contact Us

Popular Topics

  • COVID-19
  • Climate Change
  • Biopharmaceuticals
Terms |
Privacy |
Security |
Help |
Enterprise Plans |
Contact Us

Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2023 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Subject:
Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Publisher:
American Psychological Association —
American Psychological Association
ISSN:
0278-7393
Scimago Journal Rank:
164

2023

Volume OnlineFirst
SeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarch
Volume 49
Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2022

Volume OnlineFirst
DecemberNovemberOctober
Volume 48
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2021

Volume OnlineFirst
OctoberSeptemberMarch
Volume 47
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2020

Volume OnlineFirst
April
Volume 46
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2019

Volume OnlineFirst
NovemberOctober
Volume 45
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2018

Volume 44
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2017

Volume 43
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2016

Volume 42
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2015

Volume 41
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2014

Volume 40
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2013

Volume 39
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2012

Volume 38
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2011

Volume 37
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2010

Volume 36
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2009

Volume 35
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2008

Volume 34
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2007

Volume 33
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2006

Volume 32
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2005

Volume 31
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2004

Volume 30
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2003

Volume 29
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2002

Volume 28
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2001

Volume 27
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2000

Volume 26
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1999

Volume 25
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1998

Volume 24
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1997

Volume 23
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1996

Volume 22
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1995

Volume 21
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1994

Volume 20
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1993

Volume 19
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1992

Volume 18
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1991

Volume 17
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1990

Volume 16
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1989

Volume 15
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1988

Volume 14
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

1987

Volume 13
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

1986

Volume 12
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

1985

Volume 11
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

1984

Volume 10
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

1983

Volume 9
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

1982

Volume 8
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1981

Volume 7
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1980

Volume 6
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1979

Volume 5
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1978

Volume 4
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1977

Volume 3
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1976

Volume 2
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1975

Volume 1
Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Processing probabilistic multidimensional information for decisions

Wallsten, Thomas S.; Barton, Curtis

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.361

Various theories of probabilistic inference and stimulus classification predict that for stimuli with separable dimensions (Ds) (a) Ds are utilized sequentially from most to least salient; (b) equating for likelihood ratio, the more salient a D is, the greater its effect on opinion; (c) the number of Ds processed varies systematically with costs, payoffs, and available time; and (d) interdimensional additivity is increasingly violated as dimensional salience decreases. The predictions were tested in 2 probabilistic inference experiments. Exp I (13 college students) utilized stimuli with 1 or 3 binary Ds, and Exp II (36 Ss) utilized stimuli with 5 binary dimensions. Ss in Exp II were either under time pressure or not and were paid according to either an extreme or a moderate payoff rule. The predictions were generally sustained, but there were specific violations in terms of sequential effects and systematic patterns of D dependence, such that restructure of the basic theory is necessary. It is suggested that processing occurs in 2 stages, one leading to a tentative binary decision and the other to a degree of confidence in the choice. In the 2nd stage, Ds are processed sequentially and configurally with the bias toward the choice already made. (38 ref)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Source of inhibition in experiments on the effect of sentence context on word recognition

West, Richard F.; Stanovich, Keith E.

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.385

Previous research on the effect of sentence context on word recognition has yielded ambiguous results regarding the relative magnitudes of the facilitation and inhibition effects produced by congruous and incongruous contexts. A review of the literature indicates that the pattern of results was task correlated. Experiments in which a lexical-decision (LD) task was used have produced larger inhibition effects than have experiments in which a naming task was employed. In the present article, 2 experiments were conducted in which the different tasks were directly compared using the same Ss (86 undergraduates), stimuli, and experimental methodology. Results indicate that the LD task did produce greater inhibition effects. It is argued that the reason for this is that the responses in the LD task are affected by postlexical message-level processes that detect incongruity. The inhibition was not due to a mismatch between the stimulus word and lexical-level expectations. If the goal of an investigation is to study sentence context effects on the process of word recognition, then the naming task is probably preferable. (51 ref)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Cognitive processes in skimming stories

Masson, Michael E.

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.400

Investigated comprehension processes and memory representations associated with normal reading and skimming in 4 experiments with 330 undergraduates. Recognition of important and unimportant information contained in narratives and newspaper stories that were read for gist information declined by about the same amount as reading rate increased from 225 to 600 words/minute. A similar result was obtained when Ss read for information relevant to a specific topic. Findings indicate that when skimming, readers apparently found it very difficult to perceptually select from a passage information that was relevant to their goal in skimming. There was an RT advantage for verification of gist-relevant information as opposed to details, however, which tended to increase with reading rate. This was interpreted as evidence for conceptually selective processing of information sampled by readers. Recall protocols taken from Ss who read stories at normal and skimming rates provided further evidence for conceptually selective processing, which generally favored information relevant to a passage's gist. (23 ref)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Can automatic picture processing influence word judgments?

Lupker, Stephen J.; Katz, Albert N.

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.418

Evaluated the influence of automatic semantic processing of pictures on word judgments in 2 experiments with 100 undergraduates. Picture-word analogs of the Stroop task were employed. In Exp I, Ss were required to make a semantic category judgment about the word; in Exp II, they were simply to respond yes or no to whether the word was "dog." Taken together, results indicate that (a) perceptual factors such as lateral masking influenced responding in these types of tasks and their contributions must be partialed out from the effects of semantic factors, (b) picture processing facilitated word processing but only in a restricted set of circumstances, and (c) background pictures incompatible with the correct response interfered with word judgments. The facilitation observed was attributed to the effects automatic picture processing had on an initial input process, while the interference appeared to arise at a response selection and execution stage. Results suggest that the semantic nature of automatic picture processing is at least somewhat different from that of automatic word processing. (42 ref)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Adult age differences in reasoning from new information

Light, Leah L.; Zelinski, Elizabeth M.; Moore, Martha

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.435

Exps I (63 17–26 yr old and 52 50–81 yr old Ss) and II (72 19–36 yr old and 72 56–86 yr old Ss) explored the hypotheses that older adults have trouble in drawing inferences from newly presented information due to inability to reason, failure to understand task demands, or inadequate semantic processing; no support was obtained for these hypotheses. In Exp III (24 20–36 yr old and 24 63–73 yr old Ss), it was found that older Ss performed more poorly than younger ones in a linear ordering task when premises were presented in orders that taxed working memory capacity. Older Ss also recognized facts less accurately than younger ones. Findings suggest at least 2 sources for age-related differences in reasoning from new information: poorer fact memory and reduced capacity in working memory. (23 ref)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Different problem-solving strategies for algebra word and equation problems

Mayer, Richard E.

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.448

In Exp I, 42 college students solved algebra problems in either word or equation format. The pattern of response latencies, by problem length, was different for the treatment groups. Performance is best described by assuming that equation problems elicited a strategy in which the S attempted to isolate the X variables on one side of the equation, whereas word problems elicited a strategy in which the S attempted to reduce the expression. In Exp II, 42 Ss solved or simply translated word problems into equations. The pattern of response latencies, by problem length, is again best described by assuming that different strategies were used. Results suggest that problem format influences the type of strategy that Ss use to solve algebra problems. (10 ref)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Effects of goal specificity on means–ends analysis and learning

Sweller, John; Levine, Marvin

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.463

Means–ends analysis is a mechanism that is assumed to operate when people solve transformation problems. Its use is affected by the extent to which the goal is clearly specified to the problem solver as a problem state and by the extent to which learning occurs during a problem-solving episode. Five maze-tracing experiments were conducted with 116 undergraduates in which the finish point of the maze could be presented either as a specific location or in more general terms. The latter prevented the use of conventional means–ends analysis. Results indicate that on the particular maze configuration used, the nonspecific goal resulted in fewer errors and more rapid learning of the structure of the problem. Under conditions that facilitated the use of means–ends analyses, knowledge of the goal location rendered the problem insoluble. General results were replicated with the use of numerical problems. Implications for the generality of means–ends analysis as a problem-solving mechanism are discussed. (11 ref)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Selection strategies for \"Mastermind\" problems

Laughlin, Patrick R.; Lange, Rense; Adamopoulos, John

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.475

The popular problem-solving game of Mastermind may be considered a complex concept-learning problem with a selection paradigm and an unusual set of feedback rules. Analysis of the game tree for a simplified version of Mastermind suggested 2 selection strategies––focusing and tactical––analogous to those identified in previous research (e.g., J. S. Bruner et al, 1956; and E. S. Johnson, on other concept-learning problems. It was predicted that performance would be better for Ss who used these 2 strategies than for those who did not. This prediction was supported in 2 experiments with 256 college students, both for Ss who freely chose the 2 strategies and for those who were induced to use them. It is proposed that Mastermind is an interesting and useful addition to standard tasks for concept-learning research. (10 ref)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers

Schoenfeld, Alan H.; Herrmann, Douglas J.

1982 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.484

Evidence regarding the relationships between problem perception and expertise has customarily been obtained indirectly, through contrasting-group studies such as expert–novice comparisons. Differences in perception have been attributed to differences in expertise, although the groups compared generally differ on a number of other major attributes (e.g., aptitude). This study explored the relationship between perception and proficiency directly. 19 college students' perceptions of the structure of mathematical problems were examined before and after an intensive 1-mo course on mathematical problem solving. These perceptions were compared with experts' perceptions. Ss sorted problems on the basis of similarity. Hierarchical clustering analysis of the sorting data indicated that novices perceived problems on the basis of "surface structure" (i.e., words or objects described in the problem statement). After the course Ss perceived problem relatedness more like the experts, that is, according to principles or methods relevant for problem solution. Thus, criteria for problem perception shift as a person's knowledge bases become more richly structured. (21 ref)
Browse All Journals

Related Journals:

Journal of Experimental Psychology: AppliedJournal of Cognitive PsychologyInternational Journal of Cognitive Therapy