Content deleted Content added
DrewBlundell (talk | contribs) Posting plan for Davidson College APA Initiative |
→Introduction confusion: new section |
||
Line 5:
[[User:DrewBlundell|DrewBlundell]] ([[User talk:DrewBlundell|talk]]) 14:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
== Introduction confusion ==
At first glance, these two sentences in the introduction appear to contradict each other: "The principle explains why a subject is able to recall a target word as part of an unrelated word pair at retrieval with much more accuracy when prompted with the unrelated word than if presented with a semantically related word that was not available during encoding. In addition, people benefit equally from a weakly related cue word as from a strongly related cue word during a recall task, provided the weakly related word was present at encoding."
The first sentence seems to say that people benefit more from a weakly related cue. The second sentence says that people benefit equally well from a weakly or strongly related cue. I'm guessing that the early, and thus fundamental, papers in this area did not directly contradict each other. My point is simply that these sentences should be re-written to better represent their underlying research as, at the moment, they may be confusing to some: 1) Are unrelated/weak and semantically related/strong the same thing? 2) In the second sentence, was the strongly related cue present during encoding? etc... [[User:A.real.human.being|A.real.human.being]] ([[User talk:A.real.human.being|talk]]) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
| |||