A STUDY OP CONCEPT FORMATION AS A FUNCTION

OF MEASURABLE INTELLIGENCE

APPROVED:

if\, Jor Professor /

Sinor Professor

Dean of the Stehqfcl At Education Dean of the 3c hotel ̂ f Education

fiean of the Graduate School ^

A STUDY OF CONCEPT FORMATION AS A FUNCTION

OF MEASURABLE INTELLIGENCE

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Glyn Warren Ridge, B. S,

Denton, Texas

January, 1967

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES i"v

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1 Theoretical Background and Related Studies Statement of Problem Procedure

II. ANALYSIS OF DATA 18

Statistical Treatment Results Discussion Summary

APPENDIX A ... 24

APPENDIX B AO

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . 43

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Rank Order Correlation between I. Q. and Number cf Trials to Criterion in Phase One * 18

II. Variance of Effects of Complexity upon Speed of Performance to Criterion 22

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Until recently the area of concept forest ion has been

more closely bound to philosophy than to psychology. Since

it has been linked to experimentally intangible terras such

as "abstraction," "cognitive processes," etc., this area of

study has yet to be completely disentangled from epistemology

and formal logic, and this situation has led to a limited

amount of psychological knowledge concerning the dynamics

involved in concept formation.

Theoretical Background and Belated Studies

Since a concept must necessarily be indirectly Inferred,

the definition of a concept has varied greatly from writer

to writer, and this variation has occurred to such an extent

that it is difficult to determine if all studies are dis-

cussing the same process. Vinacke defines concept formation

as involving

. . . processes of perception and learning by means of which the individual develops an organised and coherent relation to the outside world. The consequences of these processes is the establishment of concepts, the cognitive structures which link the individual's pre-sent perceptions and learning to his previous experiences.*

^•William Edgar Vinacke, The Psychology of Thinking (New York, 1952), p. 98.

?

He thfit a d 1st.ire* ion must be made between the proc-

ess of concept format-on and the contents of the concepts

forrred. He does not atterrpt to define concepts but rather

attempts to define their DJ; ra meters, The characteristics

.which must be taken into conslderatIon, according to Vinacke,

are

1. Concepts are not direct sensory data but something resulting1 fror the elaboration, combination, etc., thereof . . . 2. A corollary of the first property therefore is that concepts depend on the previous experience of the organism, 3. Concepts are systems within the mental organization which tie together, link, or combine discrete sensory experiences » . . 4. It xay be inferred that such ties cr links are sym-bolic In nature; that is, the same concept nay be invoked by a variety of stimuli. In the human organism, words usually fulfill this symbolic function: a word ties together different experiences with the san;e object, experiences with different objects sorrehov related to each other, the emotional processes aroused in these experiences, etc. 5. Cn the aide of the internal processes of the organise, concepts represent selective factors. An external stimulus arouses a symbolic response, on the one hand, or a symbolic response.guides perceptual activity, whichever comes first.

3 Rhine and Silun define an attitude as a concept with

an evaluative dimension. For PiVesta

A concept 1B defined by some principle or common dimen-sion that perfflits the classification of objects. The principle is abstracted aa a feature of a class of stimulus patterns through recurrent experiences . . . .

2Ibid., pp. 100-101.

^Ranon J. Rhine and Betsy A. Silun, "Acquisition and Change of a Concept Attitude as a Func11on of Consistency of Reinforcement," Joumal of Experimental Psychology. LV (1958), p. 525.

For all objects and experiences an essential condition for concept formation Is associations betvaon a common response and a variety of stimuli.

Soa«what in opposition to DiVesta's emphasis on associations,

is Vyaotsky who was certain that previous investigations had

disproved the view that concept formation is based on asso-

ciative connections.

Ach'a experiments showed that concept formation is a creative, not a mechanical passive, process: that a concept emerges and takes shape in the course of a complex operation aimed at the solution of some problem; and that the mere presence of external conditions favor-ing & mechanical linking of word and object does not suffice to produce a concept . . . Memorizing words and connecting them with objects does not in itself lead to concept formation; for the process to begin, a problem must arise that cannot be solved otherwise than through the formation of new concepts.5

Concepts are generally thought to vary along dimensions

of concretenees and abstractness, and as with concepts, defi-

nitions of concreteness and abstractness vary. In the forma-

tion of concrete concepts, perceptual elements of a stimulus

situation are grouped as a singular category of an event.

Thlh proceas is thought to be a sufficient organization of

experience for the formation of & concrete concept. The for-

mation of abstract concepts requires mora th&n the grouping

of perceptual elements. Some form of classification of ex-

perience la Involved in the formation of abstract concepts,

^Francis J. DiVest®, "Contrast Effects In Verbal Condi-tioning of Meaning," Journal of Experimental Psychology. IAII (June, 1961), pp. 535-5357

^L» S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language (Cambridge, 1962), p. 98.

but sensory experience alone is not a sufficient basis of

categorization.

In human maturational development it can be logically

expected that concrete concepts will be formed earlier than

.abstract concepts. As Vinacke stated,

Although it is true that experimenters have striven to devise conditions under which the subject is confronted with new experiences out of which new concepts are sup-posed to be evolved, it should now be apparent that the adult does not usually (if ever) learn new concepts in the same sense as a child does. Rather, the adult uti-lizes his repertory of concepts in new ways and In rela-tion to new stimuli, or reorganizes the components of concept systems.6

The level of difficulty in learning concepts is related

to language, at least where language is a factor in learning.

Whorf suggested that higher levels of thinking are dependent

on language with the structure of the language influencing

the manner In which a subject organizes and understands his

environment. Within this framework, the probability that a

subject develops a concept depends on the number of available

words (and therefore, symbolic components) bearing on the con-

cept. If no word or only a few words are available to denote

a possible dimension of experience, the probability Is In-

creased that these objects or events will be categorized in

some other fashion. The availability of a very large number

of words, however, to denote objects falling within one

^Vinacke, op. clt.. pp. 100-101.

^B. L. Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality (Cambridge, 1956), ,p. 27.

potential class or category also appears to decrease the prob-

ability of forming a higher-level concept which would include

the whole class. This is seen, for example, in the Lapps'

having no generic name for snow.® A Lapp has access to forty

separate words for snow which are individually descriptive of

separate physical characteristics of snow. He has a word for

falling snow, for melting snow, for hard-frozen snow, and for

any physical state of snow which he can experience. He does

not, however, consider these forty words as belonging to a

single class of events. Snow 1ms forty different states of

being, and these forty states of being do not relate to each

other directly. The relation between the number of words

available to denote objects that are similar along some dimen-

sion of experience may be curvilinear* A concept is somewhat

more likely to be formed within the broad range from very few

words to very many words.

Some experimenters have noted that an Increase in rele-

vant dimensions increases difficulty, Wallach^, using three

levels of complexity in an experiment, found that her results

favored the view that the complexity of concept-attainment is

a function of the structure of the concept and the number of

®Helnz Werner, Comparative Psychology of Mental Develop-ment (Chloago, 19^0), pp. 56-57.

^Llse Wallach,"The Complexity of Concept-Attalnment," American Journal of Psychology. LXXV (February, 1962), pp. 277-203.

cognitive units It Involves. Reed*0 found that the consist-

ency of concepts or correctness was related to complexity.

As complexity Increased, the proportion of correct responses

defining a concept decreased markedly. As complexity In-

creased, the proportion of Inconsistent or Incorrect responses

Increased correspondingly. He stated, M . . . as the com-

plexity of the stimuli Is Increased there is a definite trend

to shift from logical to illogical learning, or to base con-

cepts on such factors as the primacy and frequency, and

sensory similarity of contiguous stimuli."

Staats and Staats**, considering meaning as a response,

attempted an experiment to show that the same expectations

should apply to meaning as to other reaponses. They attempted

to show that meaning could be classically conditioned. In-

telligence, for example, can be Inferred from responses on

validated measures of intelligence. It Is Inferred from data,

for It cannot be directly observed. Meaning can also be In-

ferred from a response, and thus, it can only be measured

Indirectly, as with many other such Intangible contingencies*

Operating under the assumption that total word meaning is

composed of response components which can be separately con-

ditioned, they presented nonsense syllables contiguously with

*®Homer B. Reed, "IV: The Influence of the Complexity of the Stimuli." Journal of Experimental Psychology. XXXVI / » k i n"i ilium m i m ' i • i mftiiiH w

(19*6), p. 506.

**Arthur W. Staats and Carolyn K. Staats, "Meaning Established by Classical Conditioning," Journal of Experi-mental Psychology. LIV (1957), pp. 74-80.

different words. The nonsense syllables were visually pre-

sented and the test words were given by auditory presentation.

The results of three such experiments were that there was

significant evidence that meaning responses had been condi-

tioned to nonsense syllables.

12

Rhine and Sllun , In an experiment designed to explore

the possibility that reinforcement theory could explain and

predict concept-attitude development, found support for their

assumption. They stated, "It is commonly found that the ratio

of correct total responses corresponds approximately with

consistency of r e i n f o r c e m e n t I n another study by Grant, 1*5

Hake, and Hornseth , groups were trained with 100 per cent,

75 P«r cent, and 50 per cent reinforcement schedules to de-

termine the effects of such reinforcement contingencies upon

acquisition and extinction of verbal conditioned responses.

The 75 per cent and 50 per cent groups were essentially alike

and showed greater resistance to change than the 100 per cent

group. These writers chose to tie the field of concept forma-

tion to the already prevalent data relating to stimulus-

response and reinforcement theories. Two other theoretical

backgrounds will allow objective evaluation of the process

of concept formation. 12 Rhine and Silun, op. clt.. pp. 524-529.

^David A. Grant, Herold W. Hake and Jerome P. Hornseth, "Acquisition and Extinction of a Verbal Conditioned Response with Differing Percentages of Reinforcement," Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology. XLV (1953), pp. 64-74.

8

14 Osgood stated ,

The greater the discriminatory capacity of an organism, the more reduced and implicit can become the detachable reactions finally Included in the stable mediation proc-ess. The higher the organism, in the evolutionary scale, the finer the discriminations it can make and the less gross Its representing processes. Similarly, the more mature and intelligent the human individual, the less overt his symbolic processes. The hosts of fine discriminations that characterize language behavior are nature's farthest step in this direction.

The study of linguistically involved behavior should, there-

fore, represent the most complex level of behavior in any

organism.

Experimental evidence points to an association between

the specific learning process characteristic of a subject

and his intelligence. In a study of discrimination by Kendler

and K e n d l e r * i t was found that fast learners achieved a

reversal shift more readily than a non-reversal shift, while

the opposite was true of slow learners. From this result it

was inferred that fast learners utilized mediators in the

original discrimination, while the slow learners achieved the

discrimination through a stimulus-response association.

In a study by Osier and Trautman1^ it was demonstrated

that the effect of Increasing the number of irrelevant

14 Charles Egerton Osgood, Method and Theory In Experi-

mental Psychology (Hew York, 1953), p. 110.

15T. S. Kendler and Howard H. Kendler, "Reversal and Nonreversal Shifts in Kindergarten Children," Journal of Experimental Psychology. LVIII (1959), 56-60.

•^Sonia F. Osier and George E. Trautmen, "Concept Attain-ment: II Effects of Stimulus Complexity upon Concept Attain-ment at Two Levels of Intelligence." Journal of Experimental Psychology. DC 11 (1961), 9-13.

stimulus dimensions was to slow down the subjects of superior

intelligence without affecting those of normal intelligence.

These findings are consistent with the interpretation that

in concept-attainment high intelligence is associated with

hypothesis testing, while normal intelligence is characterized

by associative learning.

In the typical concept formation experiment, instances

of what a concept is and/or what it is not are presented to

subjects, and the subjects are asked to determine the defin-

ing attributes of the concept. The subjects may be required

to make a response after each instance, indicating whether

or not the Instance represented the concept. In some studies

no responses are made among a series of possible responses

that are definitively related to a particular concept. At

the conclusion of the series the subjects attempt to define

the concept.

It might be expected that choice of responses related

to a particular concept would aid in the discrimination of

the attributes that define the concepts, that responding

would increase the efficiency of learning. More importantly,

perhaps selection of responses which define the concept In

question is different from other responses used in rote

learning and concept formation studies in that it allows sub-

jects to regulate the flow of information they receive. It

might also be expected that subjects would be optimally set

to use information which they had sought. Experiments on

10

observing or orienting responses*^ and on vigilance^"® suggest

that responses that control presentation of discriminative

stimuli may increase the efficiency of performance.

On the other hand, the manipulation of attributes by a

subject may be seen as increasing the complexity of the in-

tellectual problem of attaining a concept. His problem Is

twofold. He must decide on the manipulations necessary for

gaining information relevant to the concept, and he must

interpret the results of attribute manipulations; in other

words, he must determine what information has been gained

about the concept he is attempting to define.

Among the complex behavioral processes, the naming

response is the most important basis for common responses.

A simple example Is that a common name can be attached to a

series of objects, all of which have different physical

characteristics to form a class. The name, or verbal re-

sponse, provides the basis for the common mediating process.

As mediators, they produce stimuli which may then become

conditioned to other mediating, Instrumental, or attitudinal

responses. Thereby, they permit the facilitation of new

learning whether cognitive or affective.

There is little reason to assume that an Individual

deliberates upon his actions prior to a response, but there

B. Wycoff, Jr., "The Role of Observing Responses in Discrimination Learning," Psychological Review, LDC (1952), pp. 431-442.

18 Janes Gordon Holland, "Human Vigilance," Science,

XXVIII (1958), 61-63.

11

is sufficient reason to assume that responses to cues, situa-

tion, or stimulus complexes reflect concepts held by the

responding individuals. To the rat in a maze a cue will

eventually become relevant to the direction of its goal be-

havior and the relationship of that relevant cue to the goal

will represent a concrete concept. The complexity of the

concepts it can attain will be limited to a very basic, con-

crete level.

Statement of Problems

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate several

areas of agreement and disagreement as outlined by or sug-

gested by the preceding data. For the purpose of this study,

a concept was operationally defined as a response to a stim-

ulus whereby that stimulus is defined as having a discernible

parameter of meaning. For example, the present study used

associative pairing of numbers and colors. A concept was de-

fined by a subject's response to a color as if it had the

manipulative properties of the number with which it was asso-

ciated .

The present study was also designed to investigate the

probability that a concept is formed mechanically, as a func-

tion of an individual's ability to utilize his experience.

While it has not been shown that conditioning, of itself, is

a necessary and sufficient condition for the formation of

concepts, subjects quite possibly vary along a dimension, or

12

dimensions, of concreteness and abstractness upon which they

are proportionately susceptible to the formation of concepts

through contiguous pairing of stimuli with the discernible

properties of those stimuli.

Intelligence can be measured Indirectly at best and any

measurement of intelligence must necessarily include in its

results some combination of one's past experience and his

ability to utilize that experience. The question arises

whether the process of concept formation is functionally re-

lated to ability plus experience.

It has previously been suggested^ that adults do not

and probably cannot form new concepts, but rather re-arrange

conceptual elements of past experience in new ways. However,

since concepts can logically be built only from elements of

a subject's experience, the question is raised whether the

re-arrangement of conceptual elements of past experience in

new ways is not the formation of a new concept. The present *

study attempted an indirect evaluation of the above suggestion.

If a subject can respond to a color as if it had the proper-

ties of the number with which it has been associated, he has

in effect transcended his past experience with that color and

has at least temporarily conceived a new dimension of meaning

to be associated with that color.

It can be expected that complex learning will be con-

tingent upon degree of intelligence. Associative learning,

19Vinacke, pp. 100-101.

13

however, Is more probably a function of normal intelligence,

and subjects of superior intelligence may not necessarily

have an advantage over those of normal intelligence in asso-

ciate learning tasks.

For the purpose of this study, the following were

hypothesized:

1. The ability to condition a concept in a subject by

contiguous pairing of stimulus with a statement or demonstra-

tion of meaning or property to be associated with that stimulus

is a function of the subject's measurable intelligence.

2. Adult subjects, ranging in age from 18 to 40, can

form new concepts.

3. The formation of a concept will vary in difficulty

as subjects are required to use fewer elements of previous

experience.

4. Subjects of lower measurable intelligence will per-

form equally well or better than subjects of higher measurable

intelligence on a paired-associates learning task.

5. Subjects of higher measurable intelligence will form

concepts more quickly than subjects of lower measurable in-

telligence.

Procedure

Twenty-five subjects were chosen from volunteers. Educa-

tional range of subjects was from high school graduates to

master's degree students in arts and sciences. Ages were from

nineteen to forty. The subjects included nine females and

sixteen males.

14

Nine color cards were prepared for pre-training presenta-

tion to all subjects. In order to avoid the complication of

color-blindness, the name of each color was printed on each

card. An additional nine cards with the numbers one through

nine were prepared and placed above the appropriate color

cards. All cards were four inches by six inches in size ,

and the color cards were prepared by pasting colored paper

to the face of each color card. The colors and number were

paired as follows: one-red, two-green, three-yellow, four-

purple, five-pink, six-orange, seven-white, eight-blue, and

nine-brown. All subjects were allowed to study the cards

until they were certain of them and ready to begin phase one

of this study.

After studying the cards, each subject was given six

pages of arithmetic problems to work which consisted of

arbitrarily-chosen combinations of single digit manipulations.

On three of the pages of problems, consisting of sets of

twenty problems each, the subjects were asked to spell out

the answer as quickly as possible, and on the remaining three

pages the subjects were to print the answers as quickly as

possible in the conventional manner. These six pages of

problems were used to establish latency measures for perform-

ance criteria in this study. The three pages of written

problems provided a mean of the epeed of writing out the cor-

rect answers. Performance on these six pages with all subse-

quent pages was timed with a stop-watch. The mean of the

15

performance on the three printed answer sheets for the pre-

liminary problems was taken for each subject. The mean of

the performance on all six pages of the preliminary problems

was taken for each subject. This mean was used as the per-

formance criterion during phase one of this study which

constituted a paired-associates learning task. The mean of

the performance of the first three pages of preliminary

problems for all subjects was used as the performance criterion

for phase two of this study.

In phase one of this study, each subject was given sets

of color consisting of various combinations of the nine colors

used for the pre-training presentation. Each set consisted

of twenty units. Thirteen separate sets of twenty each were

prepared. Each subject was instructed to respond as quickly

as possible, and each performance was timed. The task in

this instance was to write the appropriate number beside

each color as quickly as possible. If a subject had not

performed at a speed equal to or faster than the previously

established criterion latency for phase one, he was again

given set one, and he continued again with set one through

thirteen until the criterion latency was equalled or sur-

passed. The criterion for success was one correct performance

at the criterion latency.

Subjects were divided into five groups of five each In

the order in which they were tested. The criterion for suc-

cessful completion of the final phase of this study was In

16

each case one correct performance at the criterion latency.

The criterion latency was established from the mean of per-

formance on the first three paces of the preliminary problems,

This latency measure represented a combination of the time

necessary to arrive at an answer and then to write it out.

The criterion for phase one, the mean of the performance on

the six pages of preliminary problems, represented a mean of

the time necessary for arriving at an answer and the time to

write it out. The five groups of phase two were in order of

level of complexity. Group one was the least complex and

group five the most complex. In phase two each test sheet

consisted of a list of twenty problems. Thirteen separate

lists were prepared. When a subject had reached list thir-

teen without reaching criterion performance, the subject

began again with list one and continued in numerical sequence

until reaching criterion. At the first level of complexity

the task was to manipulate a number and a color to arrive at

an answer which was a color. At level four, the subjects

were to manipulate two colors to arrive at an answer which

was a number. At level five, the subjects were to manipulate

two colors to arrive at an answer which was a color. All

problems were chosen arbitrarily in an attempt to equalize

the subject's responses over the nine colors. In phase two,

all subjects served in one group only.

All subjects were given an evaluation on three measures

related to intelligence. Two scales were chosen from the

17

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. The vocabulary scale was

chosen because the vocabulary of an individual is recognized

as being the best single Index of his intelligence. The

digit-symbol scale was chosen because it is partly a measure

of hand-eye co-ordination, and because performance in this

study is highly dependent upon hand-eye co-ordination. As a

measure of abstract reasoning, a non-verbal analogies test,

developed by the U. S. Air Force, Figure Analogies RPR04A

(see Appendix B), was chosen because its difficulty allowed

finer discrimination between subjects. The three test scores

were added together and a mean computed for each subject to

represent an intelligence measure. All sets used in phase

one and phase two of this study, along with the preliminary

problems used to establish latency measures, are included in

Appendix A.

A correlation was computed between the intelligence meas-

ure and performance on phase one of this study for the twenty-

five subjects. A rank-order correlation was computed for

each group between performance measures and intelligence meas-

ures. A trend analysis was performed to establish the effect

of level of complexity upon mean performance and the function

computed.

CHAPTER II

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Statistical Treatment

A Pearson correlation and rank-order correlation were

computed from the data gained in this study between the per-

formance measure In phase one and the intelligence measures.

A rank-order correlation was computed for each group between

performance measures and intelligence measures. A trend

analysis was performed to establish the effect of level of

complexity upon mean performance and the function computed.

Results

The Pearson correlation was .51» and the rank-order

correlation was .46 for phase one of this study. For phase

two the rank-order correlations are shown in Table I.

TABLE I

RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN I. Q. AND NUMBER OF TRIALS TO CRITERION IN PHASE ONE

Task Correlation

1 80 I 90 J 4 90 5 80

18

19

A trend analysis over the five groups in phase two

yielded an F value of 11.83. In order to be significant at

the .01 level of chance, an F value of 4.43 was required.

The results were highly significant.

The means of the group performances were plotted for

phase two, and the function was determined as being linear

with 75 per cent of the variation in performance accounted

for by the linear function. F values for quadratic and cubic

functions were respectively 3.89 and 3.18.

Discussion

The first hypothesis tended to be supported by the results

of the statistical analysis of the study data. All subjects

were able to reach criterion in both phases of this study

which indicated that all subjects were able to form the

operationally defined concept. Rank order correlations were

relatively high for all groups except group three. The issue

of concept formation being a creative versus a mechanical

process may be merely an issue of semantics. This study

consisted of a mechanical process of contiguous pairing of

stimulus and response. The above statistical analysis shows

that learning is a function of intelligence. This study in-

dicates that it can be a mechanical process, and whether or

not It is a creative process may be contingent upon the de-

finitive relationship of Intelligence to creativity.

20

The second hypothesis gained support by the fact that

all subjects did reach their respective criteria in phase two

of this study. However, Inspection of mean latencies of per-

formance for each group suggested that, as a group, the

subjects tended not to form concepts. Although all subjects

did reach criteria, post-criteria performance in all cases

tended to level off at less than criteria yielding in groups

three through five, a mean of performance less than the mean

of the criteria. Subjects, after reaching their respective

criteria, tended to be unable to continue performance at

such a latency.

The third hypothesis gained support by the above trend

analysis. Levels of complexity were determined in part by

the amount of Information gained from phase one that had to

be utilized in establishing a correct response. The tasks

became more complex as the subjects were required to by-pass

prior experience with numbers and colors. There was a highly

significant Increase In performance difficulty as complexity

Increased.

The fourth hypothesis was supported by the Pearson cor-

relation of .51 between number of trials to criterion and

measurable intelligence. In effect, higher intelligence

offers no advantage In an associative learning task. The

advantage of higher Intelligence must bear upon the utiliza-

tion of the Information gained rather than upon the gaining

21

The fifth hypothesis was supported by the rank-order

correlation for the five groups. The subjects of higher

measurable intelligence did form concepts more quickly than

subjects of lower measurable intelligence. The sudden drop

to a correlation of .50 in group three, although still sup-

porting the hypothesis, was not presently explainable.

Whether or not the operationally defined concept for

this study is a concrete or an abstract concept has not been

determined and was conaidered Immaterial for the purposes of

this study. It was, however, a relatively simple concept

having a minimum number of components. Concepts are generally

considered to be a classification of experience. Whether or

not there is a functional relationship between the number of

concept components and ease of concept formation has yet to

be determined. However, it might be expected from the results

of this study, that, as the number of concept components in-

creases, the level of difficulty will increase the more con-

cept formation relates to degree of intelligence. In this

same sense, there is & certain amount of redundancy, for

measurable intelligence may very well be a measure of the

number of concepts the Individual has already formed.

Concept formation as indicated by this study is related

to conditioning. It was a function of the contiguous pairing

of stimulus and response. In that sense, it was a mechanical

rather than a creative process. However, no attempt was made

to hold the effects of several possible variables constant.

22

There are many variables other than measurable intelligence

which might have significant effects upon concept formation,

but measurable intelligence was believed to have contained

the cumulative effects of all variables.

That there is an association between the specific learn-

ing process characteristic of a subject and his intelligence

was demonstrated by the present study. As the learning proc-

ess involves greater complexity, there is a positive correla-

tion between superior performance and superior Intelligence.

As the learning process involves associative learning, the

subjects of superior intelligence tend not to have an advan-

tage and may have a disadvantage in that they attempt to

utilize the information they are gaining by relating it to

previously gained information. The superior subject has an

advantage In the utilization of information, but not in the

gaining of Information. This suggests that any emphasis upon

rote learning will discriminate against Individuals of supe-

rior Intelligence. Table II shows the results of a simple

analysis of variance of effects of complexity upon speed of

performance criterion.

TABLE II

VARIANCE OF EFFECTS OF COMPLEXITY UPON SPEED OF PERFORMANCE TO CRITERION

lource of Variance s s df MS F

Complexity 804.16 4 201 .44 1 1 . 8 3 Error 340 .00 20 1 7 . 0 0

1144.16 24

23

Summary

An investigation to determine several variables In the

process of concept formation In adults resulted in the follow-

ing findings:

1. Subjects with lower measurable intelligence were

shown to be superior in performance to subjects of higher

measurable intelligence on a paired-associated learning task.

2. All subjects were shown to be capable of forming a

new concept by rearranging the meaning components of prior

experience with colors and numbers.

3. The process of concept formation was shown to be

explainable under known principles of contiguity in stimulus-

response learning.

4. Subjects of higher measurable Intelligence were

shown to be superior in performance on a concept formation

task.

5. It was indicated that the group tendency for adults

in this investigation was to form no new concepts, even though

individual subjects were capable of forming new concepts.

Concepts are formed by processes of perception and

learning by means of which the individual meaningfully or-

ganizes elements of experience to form a coherent relation-

ship to his view of reality. They are formed through the

association of elements of experience. In this study subjects

were conditioned to respond to a stimulus, a color, as if it

had the properties of the response, a number, to which it

had been associatlvely paired.

APPENDIX A

Preliminary Problems

These three sets of problems were given twice. The

first time required a conventional answer; the second time

required the answers be written out.

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

1 + 4 2 + 3 - 9 + 5 =

7 + 3 = 8 • 2 = 2 + 3 =

6 + 1 = 7 + 0 — 5 + 8 = 2 + 7 3 + 6 — 8 + 2 —

1 + 8 = 2 + 7 — 7 • 0 = 2 + 3 — + 2 6 + 8 -

3 + 1 = 2 + 0 = 3 + 6 =

7 + 2 - 8 + 1 - 4 + 9 —

9 + 5 8 + 6 =• 2 + 7 =

5 + 2 rr 4 + 4 = 9 + 6 —

4 • 9 = 5 -f 8 = 3 + 2 —

9 + 3 - 8 + 2 = 8 + 4 = 4 + 1 - 5 + 0 = 2 + 0 —

2 + 9 3 + 8 2 + 9 -

8 + 4 =r 7 + 3 — 8 + 1 =

9 + 6 8 + 7 = 4 + 1 4 + 9 = 5 + 8 — 8 + 6 = 6 + 8 7 + 6 9 + 3 —

5 + 8 - 4 + 9 4 + 4 =

9 + 5 s 8 + 6 = 4 + 9 =

25

Phase One

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set h Set 5

Red = Yellow = Green = White = Brown =

Green = Purple = Yellow - Blue - Red =

Yellow = Pink = Purple = Brown = Green =

Purple = Orange = Pink = Red = Yellow =

Pink = White = Orange = Green = Purple =

Orange = Blue = White = Yellow = Pink =

White = Brown = Blue = Purple = Orange =

Blue = Red = Brown = Pink = White =

Brown = Green = Red = Orange = Blue =

Red = Green = Yellow = Red = Red =

Blue = White = Purple = Yellow = Brown =

Yellow = Purple = Blue = Pink = Green =

Orange = Brown = Brown = White = Blue =

Pink = Orange = Red = Brown = Yellow =

Purple = Pink = Green = Green = White =•

White = Blue = Orange = Purple = Purple =

Green = Yellow = White = Orange = Orange =

Brown = Brown = Blue = Blue = Pink =

Blue = White = Orange = Brown = Red =

Red = Green = Yellow = Green = Pink =

26

Set 6 Set 7 Set 8 Set 9 Set 10

Greerv = Purple = Orange = Blue = Red =

Yellow = Pink = White = Brown = Yellow =

Purple = Orange = Blue - Red = Pink =

Pink = White = Brown = Green = White =

Orange = Blue = Red = Yellow = Brown =

White = Brown = Green = Purple = Green =

Blue - Red = Yellow = Pink = Purple =

Brown = Green = Purpie = Orange = Orange =

Red = Yellow = Pink = White = Blue =

Green = Red = Blue = Yellow = Green =

Purpie = Yellow = Brown = Purple = Yellow =

Orange = Pink = Red = Pink = Purple =

Blue = White = Green = Orange = Pink =

Red = Brown = Yellow = White = Orange =

Yellow = Green = Purple = Blue = White =

Pink = Purple = Pink = Brown = Blue =

White = Orange = Orange = Red = Brown =

Brown = Blue = White = Green = Red =

Blue = Green = Pink = Orange = Brown =

Purpie = Yellow = Yellow s Pink = Orange =

27

Set 11 Set 12 Set 13

Green = Red = Red =

Purple = Brown = Yellow =

Orange = Green = Pink =

Blue = Blue - White =

Red = Yellow = Brown =

Yellow = White = Green =

Pink = Purple = Purple =

White = Orange = Orange =

Brown = Pink = Blue =

White = Blue = Red =

Blue = Brown = Green =

Brown = Red = Yellow =

Red = Green = Purple =

Green = Yellow = Pink =

Yellow = Purple = Orange =r

Purple = Pink = White =

Pink = Orange = Blue =

Orange = White s Brown =

White = Blue ss Red =

Green = Yellow = Purple =

28

Phase 2, Group 1

The answer is a color

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5

1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 0 + 1 = 1 + 1 = 6 + 3 =

6 + 3 = 6 + 2 = 0 + 3 = 2 + 1 = 2 + 6 =

2 + 1 = 3 + 1 = 0 + 5 = 3 + 3 = 4 + 1 =

2 + 6 = 7 + 1 = 0 + 2 = 5 + 1 = 3 + 1 =

3 + 3 = 5 + 1 = 0 + 4 = 1 + 2 = 2 + 2 =

4 + 1 = 2 + 4 = 1 + 7 = 3 + 3 = 4 + 4 =

5 + 1 = 3 + 5 = 3 * 3 = 5 + 2 = 6 + 3 =

3 + 1 = 6 + 1 = 4 + 1 = 2 + 5 = 3 + 6 =

1 + 2 = 1 + 2 = 3 + 1 = 1 + 5 = 1 + 4 =

It

CM

+

CM

3 + 1 = 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 = 6 + 2 =

3 + 3 = 4 + 1 = 9 + 0 = 3 + 1 = 7 + 1 =

4 + 4 = 3 + 3 = 3 + 6 = 5 * 1 = 2 + 4 =

5 + 5 = 2 + 5 = 2 + 4 = 3 + 5 = 6 + 1 =

6 + 3 = 3 + 6 = 5 + 2 = 1 + 2 = 3 + 1 =

2 + 5 = 1 + 4 = 6 + 3 = 4 + 1 = 3 + 3 =

3 + 6 s 5 + 2 = 1 + 2 = 2 + 5 = 3 + 6 =

1 + 5 = 5 «• 1 = 4 + 0 = 1 + 4 = 5 + 2 s

1 + 4 = 4 + 1 = 5 + 1 = 5 + 1 = 4 + 1 s

1 + 0 = 4 + 0 = 1 + 1 = 2 + 0 = 2 + 0 =

1!

VO

1 + 1 = 6 + 2 = 1 + 2 = 1 + 6 =

29

Set 6

2 + 1 =

4 + 1 -

3 + 1 =

3 + 3 =

5 + 2 =

2 + 5 =

1 + 4 =

4 + 1 =

4 + 4 =

1 + 4 =

2 + 4 =

3 + 3 =

4 + 1 =

3 + 1 =

2 + 4 =

1 + 2 =

3 + 3 =

1 + 4 =

8 + 0 s

3 + 1 =

Set 7

0 + 1 =

9 + 0 =

1 4 1 =

7 + 2 =

2 + 1 =

7 + 1 =

3 + 1 =

6 1 =

3 + 4 =

4 + 2 =

2 + 2 =

1 + 7 =

5 + 2 =

4 + 1 =

3 + 2 =

0 + 2 =

5 + 3 =

2 + 2 s

1 + 1 =

3 + 0 =

4 =

Set S

1 + 1

2 + 2

3 + 3

4 +

4 + 3

3 + 2

2 + 1

5 + 0

7 + 2

6 + 1

3 + 1

2 + 3

1 + 2

1 + 5

2 + 2

4 + 1

5 + 3

1 + 1

1 + 0

5 + 1

Set 9

0 + 1 =

0 + 5 =

1 + 0 =

1 + 4 =

1 + 8 =

2 + 4 =

3 + 1 =

3 + 6 :

4 + 4 =

5 + 3 =

6 + 3 =

8 + 1 =

0 + 3 =

1 + 4 =

1 + 8 a

2 + 3 =

1 + 4 =

3 + 5 =

3 + 1 s

7 + 1 =

Set 10

1 + 3 =

2 + 3 =

3 + 3 =

7 + 1 =

1 + 1 =

6 + 1 =

2 + 1 =

4 + 4 =

2 + 0 =

1 + 3 =

1 + 8 =

4 + 2 =

3 + 5 =

2 + 5 =

2 + 1 =

7 + 1 =

3 + 0 =

3 + 4 s

1 + 3 =

1 + 1 s

30

Set 11 Set 12 Set 13

1 + 1 = 1 + 3 = 2 + 1 =

6 + 3 = 2 + 3 = 6 + 2 =

2 + 1 - 3 + 3 = 3 + 1 =

2 + 6 — 7 + 1 - 7 + 1 =

3 + 3 = 1 + 1 = 5 + 1 =

4 + 1 S 6 + 1 = 2 + 4 =

5 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3 + 5 =

3 + 1 4 + 4 = 6 + 1 -

1 + 2 - 2 + 0 = 1 + 2 -

2 + 2 1 + 3 = 3 + 1 =

1 + 8 = 3 + 3 = 6 + 2 =

4 + 2 = 4 + 4 = 8 + 1 =

3 + 5 = 5 + 2 = 0 + 3 =

2 + 5 6 + 3 = 1 + 4 =

2 + 1 = 2 + 5 = 1 + 8 =

7 + 1 = 3 + 6 = 2 + 3 =

3 + 0 = 1 + 5 = 1 + 4 -

3 + 4 ss 1 + 4 = 3 + 5 =

1 + 3 - 1 + 0 = 3 + 1 =

1 + 1 = 6 + 2 = 7 + 1 =

31

Phase 2 t

The answer for Group

color.

Set 1

Red + 1 =

Orange • J r

Green + 1 =

Green + 6 =

Yellow + 3 =

Purple + 1 =•

Pink + 1 =

Yellow + 1 =

Red + 2 sr

Green + 2 =

Yellow + 3 =

Purple + 4 =

Pink + 2 =

Orange + 3 =

Green + 5 =

Yellow + 6 =

Red + 5 =

Red + 4 s

Red + 0 =

Orange + 3 =

Set 2

2 + Red =

6 + Green :

3 + RecJ =

7 + Red =

5 + Red =

2 + Purple

3 + Pink =

6 + Red =

1 + Green =

3 + Red =

4 + Red =

3 + Yellow

2 + Pink =

3 + Orange

1 + Purple

5 • Green =

5 + Red =

4 + Red =

0 + Purple

1 + Red =

Groups 2 and 3

2 i s a nurrber and

Set 3

0 + Red =

r Yellow + 0 =

0 + Pink =

Green 4- 0 =

0 + Purple =

= Red + 7 =

3 + Yellow =

Purple + 1 =

r 3 + Red =

Green + 2 =

0 + Brown =

= Yellow + 6 =

2 + Purple =

= Pink + 2 =

= 6 + Green =

: Red + 2 =

0 + Purple =

Pink • 1 =

= 1 + Red =

Orange + 3 =

for Group 3 a

Set 4

Red + 1 =

Green + 1 =

3 + Yellow =

5 + Red =

Red 4 2 s

Yellow + 3 =

5 + Green =

2 + Pink =

Red + 5 =

Green + 1 =

3 + Red =

5 + Red =

Yellow + 5 =

Red + 2 =

4 + Red =

2 • Pink =

Red + 4 =

Pink + 1 =

0 + Green =

1 + Green =

32

Set 5 Set 6 Set ? Set 8

6 + Yellow = 2 + Red = 0 + Red = 1 4 Red =

2 + Orange = 4 + Red = Brown + 0 = 2 4 Green =

Purple 4 1 = 3 + Red = 1 4 Red = 3 4 Yellow =

Yellow + 1 = Yellow 4 3 = White 4 2 = Purple 4 4 =

2 + Green = Pink + 2 = Green 4 1 = 4 4 Yellow =

4 4 Purple = Green + 5 = White 4 1 = Yellow 4 2 =

Orange + 3 = 1 + Purple = Yellow 4 1 = Green 4 1 =

Yellow 4 6 = 4 + Red = Orange 4 1 = Pink 4 0 =

1 + Purple = 4 + Purple = 3 4 Purple = White 4 2 =

6 + Green = Red 4 4 = Purple 4 2 = Orange 4 1 =

White + 1 = Green + 4 = Green 4 2 = Yellow 4 1 =

Green + 4 = Yellow + 3 = 1 4 White = 2 4 Yellow =

6 4 Red = 4 4 Red = Pink + 2 = 1 4 Green =

3 4 Red = 3 4 Red = Purple 4 1 = 1 4 Orange =

Yellow + 3 = 2 4 Purple = Yellow 4 2 = 2 4 Green =

Yellow 4 6 = Red + 2 = 0 4 Green = Purple 4 1 =

5 + Green = Yellow 4 3 = Pink 4 3 = Pink 4 3 =

4 + Red = Red 4 4 = 2 4 Green = 1 4 Red =

Green + 0 = 0 4 Blue = 1 4 Red = Red 4 0 =

Red + 6 = 3 4 Red = Yellow 4 0 = Pink 4 1 =

33

Set 9 Set 10 Set 11 Set 12

0 + Red = 1 + Yellow = 1 + Red = Red 4 3 =

0 + Pink = Green + 3 = Cranue + 3 = Green 4 3 ;

Red + 0 = Yellow + 3 - 2 + Red = Yellow 4 3

1 + Purple = White + 1 = 2 + Orange = Red 4 7 =

1 + Blue = Red + 1 = = 3 + Yellow = Red 4 1 =

2 + Purple = 6 + Red = Purple + 1 = Orange 4 1 =

Yellow + 1 = Green + 1 = Pink 4 1 = Green 4 1 :

3 + Orange = Purple + A = 3 + Red = Purple 4 4 =

Purple + 4 = Green 4 0 = Red 4 2 = Green 4 0 :

Pink + 3 = Red 4 3 = 2 4 Green = 1 4 Yellow =

Orange + 3 = 1 4 Blue = 1 4 Blue = Yellow 4 3 =

Blue 4 1 = 4 + Green = 4 4 Green = Purple 4 4 =

0 4 Yellow = 3 4 Pink = 3 4 Pink = Pink 4 2 =

1 • Purple sr Green 4 5 = Green 4 5 = Orange 4 3 =

1 4 Blue = 2 4 Red = Green 4 1 = 2 4 Pink =

2 + Yellow = White + 1 = White 4 1 = 3 4 Orange S

1 4 Purple sr Yellow 4 0 = Yellow 4 0 = 1 4 Pink =

3 + Pink = 3 4 Purple = 3 4 Purple = 1 4 Purple =

Yellow + 1 = 1 4 Yellow = Red 4 3 = Red 4 0 =

White + 1 = 1 4 Red = 1 4 Red = Orange 4 3

34

Set 13

Green + 1 =

Orange + 2 -

Yellow + 1 =

White • 1 =

Pink + 1 =

2 + Purple =

3 + Pink =

Orange + 1 =

1 + Green =

3 + Red =

Orange + 3 =

Blue • 1 =

0 + Yellow =

1 + Purple =

Red + 8 =

Green + 3 =

Red + 4 =

Yellow + 5 =

Red + 3 =

White + 1 =

35

The answer

color.

Set 1

Red + Red =

Orange + Yellow

Green + Red =

Green + Orange =

Yellow + Yellow

Purple + Red =

Pink + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Red • Green =

Green • Green =

Yellow + Yellow

Purple + Purple

Pink + Green =

Orange + Yellow

Green + Pink =

Yellow + Orange

Red + Pink =

Red • Purple =

Red • Red =

Orange + Yellow

Phase 2, Groups b and 5

for Group 4 Is a number, and for Group 5 a

Set 2

Green + Red =

Orange + Green =

Yellow + Red =

White + Red =

Pink + Red =

Green + Purple =

Yellow + Pink =

Orange + Red =

Red + Green =

Yellow * Red =

Purp le + Red =

Yellow + Yellow =

Greeh • Pink =

Yellow + Orange =

Red + Purple =

Pink + Green =

Pink • Red =

Purple • Red =

Red + Purple =

Red • Red =

Set 3

Red + Red =•

Yellow + Red =

Red + Purple =

Green + Red =

Red + Purple =

Red + White =

Yellow + Yellow =

Purple + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Green + Green =

Red + Blue =

Yellow + Orange =

Green + Purple =

Pink + Green =

Orange + Green =

Red + Green =

Red • Purple =

Pink • Red =

Red + Red =

Orange + Yellow

36

Set 4

Red + Red =

Green + Red =

Yellow + Yellow =

Pink + Red =

Red + Green =

Yellow + Yellow =

Pink + Green =

Green + Pink =

Red + Pink =

Green + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Pink + Red =

Yellow + Pink =

Red + Green =

Purple + Red =

Green + Pink =

Red 4- Purple =

Pink + Red =

White -f Green =

Red + Green =

Set 5

Crance + Yellow =

Green + Cranse -

Purple + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Green + Green =

Purple + Purple =

Orange + Yellow =

Yellow + Orange =

Red + Purple =

Orange + Green =

White + Red =

Green + Purple =

Orange + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Yellow + Yellow =

Yellow • Orange =

Pink + Green =

Purple 4 Red =

Green + White =

Red + Orange =

Set 6

Green + Red =

Purple + Red =•

Yellow + Yellow =

Pink + Green =

Green + Pink =

Red + Purple =

Purple + Purple =

Purple + Red =

Green + Purple =

Yellow + Yellow =

Purple + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Green + Purple =

Red + Green =

Yellow + Yellow =

Red + Purple =

Red + Blue =

Yellow + Red =

Orange + Yellow =

Green + Orange =

37

Set 7

Blue + Red =

Pink + Purple =

Red * Red =

White + Green =

Green + Red =

White + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Orange + Red =

Yellow + Purple =

Purple + Green =

Green + Green =

Red * White s

Pink + Green =

Purple + Red =

Yellow + Green =

White + Green =

Pink * Yellow =

Green + Green =

Red + Red =

Yellow + Orange s

Set e

Red + Red =

Green + Green =

Yellow + Yellow =

Purple * Purple =

Purple + Yellow =

Yellow + Green =

Green + Red =

Pink + Red =

White + Green =

Orange + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Green + Yellow =

Red + Green =

Red • Orange =

Green * Green =

Purple + Red =•

Pink + Yellow =

Red + Red =

Red + White =

Pink • Red =

Set 9

White + Red =

Green + Orange =

Red + Purple =

Red + Blue =

Green + Purple =

Yellow + Red =

Yellow + Orange =

Purple + Purple =

Pink + Yellow s

Orange + Yellow =

Blue + Red =

Orange + Yellow =

Red + Purple =

Red + Blue =

Green + Yellow =

Red • Purple =

Yellow + Pink =

Yellow + Red =

White + Red =

Red + Orange =

38

Set 10

Red + Yellow =

Green + Yellow =

White • Red =

Red + Red =

Orange + Red =

Green + Red =

Purple + Purple =

Green + Pink =

Red + Yellow =

Red + Blue =

Purple • Green =

Yellow + Pink =

Green + Pink =

Green + Red =

White + Red =

Yellow + Pink =

Yellow + Purple =

Red + Yellow =

Red + Red =

Yellow + Yellow =

Set 11

Red + Red =•

Orange + Yellow =

Green + Red =r

Green + Grange =

Yellow • Yellow =

Purple + Red =

Pink + Red =

Yellow + Red =

Red + Green =

Green + Green =

Red + Blue =

Purple + Green =

Yellow + Pink =

Green + Pink =

Green + Red =

White + Red =

Yellow + Purple =

Red + Yellow =

Red + Red =

Yellow + Pink =

Set 12

Red + Yellow =

Green • Yellow =

Yellow + Yellow =

Red + White =

Red + Red =

Orange + Red =

Green + Red =

Purple + Purple =

Green + White =

Red + Yellow =

Yellow + Yellow =

Purple + Purple =

Pink + Green =

Orange + Yellow =

Green + Pink =

Yellow + Orange =

Red + Purple =

Red + White =

Orange + Yellow =

Red + Pink =

39

Set 13

Green + Red =

Orange + Green =

Yellow + Red =

White + Red =

Pink + Red =

Green + Purple =

Yellow + Pink =

Orange + Red =

Red + Green =

Yellow + Red =

Orange + Yellow =

Blue • Red =

Pink + Yellow =

Red + Purple =

Red + Blue =

Green + Yellow =

Red + Purple =

Yellow + Pink =

Red + Yellow =

White + Red =

APPENDIX B

FIGURE ANALOGIES — RPR04A

NAME (Print)

Last F irs t V.iddle

TESTING NUMBER

GROUP D A T E

In this test your task will be to sc lect a f igure that b e a r s the same relation to the third figure as the second figure b e a r s to the f irst . For example:

B D

You are to find which one of the five f igures at the right has the same relation to Z as Y has to X. Figure X is a c irc le and figure Y is a c ircle divided into 4 equal parts. Figure Z i s a square so the figure which you are looking for i s a square divided into four equal parts. Of the five choices, figure A is the only one which i s divided into four equal parts. The space under A would be blackened on your answer sheet. Now look at the second example:

X Y Z A B C D E

O 0® 0 Figure X i s a square; f igure Y i s a s imilar square, but the solid lines have been

changed to dotted l ines and the quarter in the upper right has been blackened. The relationship of Y to X is : "Change the solid outline to a dotted one and blacken the upper right quarter of the f igure ." D i s the correct answer for it i s related to Z the same way Y i s related to X. The space under D would be marked on your answei sheet .

The remaining i tems are of s imilar type. You are to find a f igure which i s re -lated to Z the same way Y i s related to X and blacken the appropriate space on the answer sheet.

This tes t cons is ts of two parts each containing 15 i tems , minutes for each part. A r e there any quest ions?

You wil l have 5

STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.

(Adapted by permiss ion f rom an Air Force Test of the same name.)

PART t A B

4 1

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

rwr

R j

l

&

f ' l

< 2 >

\

O i c\>

&

I rzs

r O H

AAA

VCA;/

/ /I

C O

--f

Z l 17!

W L

©

Av/ / A

i -»-i t

w N

m

r

u

L \

A

I \ ' . v E

d m

'V

W

i

m

/ \ /

AA

— r i l _

B

STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.

PART I A B

*2

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

o

o o o

o o

o [

o

o k a

I Q

© •

Z7

1

L

GD A a

\ /

O,

~0

I n l I V j ,U!

/ \ U

V O

• LJ

3

3 d

a !

n

• \\

•

€C -k r-

13

ID

/ l | \

• •

" 7 1

3

• V

A

L3| •

L\

u

rj

N/ \ / \ /

8 A

L M

Q

B

STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Osgood, Charles Egerton, Method and Theory In Experimental Psychology. New York, Oxford University Press, 1953.

Vinacke, William Edgar, The Psychology of Thinking, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1952.

Vygotsky, L. S., Thought and Language, Cambridge, Mass., M. I. T. Press, 1962.

Werner, Heinz, Comparative Psychology of Mental Development. Chicago, Foliett, 19*8.

Whorf, B. L., Language. Thought. and Reality, Cambridge, Mass., M. I. T• Press, 1956.

Articles

DlVesta, Francis J.f "Contrast Effects in Verbal Conditioning of Meaning," Journal of Experimental Psychology, LXII {June, 1961), 535-544-; K *

Grant, David A., Harold W. Hake and Jerome P. Horaseth, "Acquisition and Extinction of a Verbal Conditioned Response with Differing Percentages of Reinforcement," Journal of Experimental Psychology. XLV (1953), 64-74.

Holland, James Gordon, "Human Vigilance," Science, XXVIII (1958), 61-63.

Kendler, Tracy S. and Howard H. Kendler, "Reversal and Non-reversal Shifts in Kindergarten Children," Journal of Experimental Psychology. LVIII (1959), 56-60.

Osier, Sonia F. and George E. Trautman, "Concept Attainment: II Effects of Stimulus Complexity upon Concept Attain-ment at Two Levels of Intelligence," Journal of Experi-mental Psychology, LXII (1961), 9-13.

Reed, Homer B., "IV: The Influence of the Complexity of the Stimuli," Journal of Experimental Psychology. XXXVI (1946), 504-511.

4^

kL

Rhine, Ranon J. and Betsy A. Sllun, "Acquisition and Change of a Concept Attitude as a Function of Consistency of Reinforcement," Journal of Experimental Psychology, LV (1958), 524-529.

Staats, Arthur W. and Carolyn K. Staate, "Meaning Established by Classical Conditioning," Journal of Experimental Psychology. LIV (1957), 74-80.

Wallach, Llse, "The Complexity of Concept-Attainment," American Journal of Psychology. LXXV (February, 1962), 277-283.

Wycoff, L. B., Jr., "The Role of Observing Responses In Dis-crimination Learning," Psychological Review, LIX (1952), 431-442.