Discriminative and associative aspects of retroactive inhibition

Original learning of paired drawings of meaningful objects or of modified Chinese characters was followed by interpolated learning in which details of drawings were changed in one of two degrees with or without rearrangement of the original pairings. Subjects were tested for accuracy of identification of the original drawings and for associative matching of the original pairs. Identification errors were attributed jointly to confusion between original and interpolated drawings, and to unlearning of those features of original drawings which were in conflict with comparable features of interpolated drawings. Rearrangement of pairs during interpolated learning produced not only associative interference on the matching test, but also additional discriminatory interference on the identification test. Effects of associative and discriminative interference upon individual drawings were uncorrelated for meaningful material and only slightly correlated for meaningless material.     

Adolescents: A Suppressed Minority Group

The recent antagonistic but equally meritorious arguments concerning the nature of the adolescent necessitates a new framework of analysis which would incorporate these apparent antagonisms. Cursory observations indicate that more fruitful results may be obtained if the adolescent is equated to a member of a suppressed minority group. A comparison of the characteristics of the adolescent peer group to those of a suppressed minority group reveals some striking similarities.     

Relational perception and modes of perceiver operation

Judgments were made of the size of a small, luminous (inner) square appearing in the center of a somewhat larger, variable (outer) square, the whole pattern appearing in the dark. Accuracy of judgment was greatest when the outer square was constant from trial to trial but deteriorated when the outer square also varied in size, reaching a lower limit less than the accuracy produced under the absolute judgment condition (no outer square presented). An application of multiple discriminant analysis and the use of a maximum likelihood observer model provided estimates of the extent to which Os responded to inner and outer size variation as separate aspects of stimulation. Although Os differed markedly in this respect, their ability to identify inner square size under the various conditions did not reflect this difference.     

Geometrical representation of two methods of linear least squares multiple correlation

Geometrical properties and relationships of the Doolittle and square root methods of multiple correlation, as represented in the variable subspace of an orthogonal person space, are shown. The method of representation is also useful for depicting zero-order and partial correlations, as well as for the more general problem of the combination of variables.     

Some multiple correlation and predictor selection methods

The Doolittle, Wherry-Doolittle, and Summerfield-Lubin methods of multiple correlation are compared theoretically as well as by an application in which a set of predictors is selected. Wherry's method and the Summerfield-Lubin method are shown to be equivalent; the relationship of these methods to the Doolittle method is indicated. The Summerfield-Lubin method, because of its compactness and ease of computation, and because of the meaningfulness of the interim computational values, is recommended as a convenient least squares method of multiple correlation and predictor selection.     

Factor analysis by minimizing residuals (minres)

This paper is addressed to the classical problem of estimating factor loadings under the condition that the sum of squares of off-diagonal residuals be minimized. Communalities consistent with this criterion are produced as a by-product. The experimental work included several alternative algorithms before a highly efficient method was developed. The final procedure is illustrated with a numerical example. Some relationships of minres to principal-factor analysis and maximum-likelihood factor estimates are discussed, and several unresolved problems are pointed out.The authors wish to thank the Factor Analysis Work Group (supported, in part, by ONR) for valuable criticisms and suggestions made in the course of a discussion of the present work in April, 1965.