Irene M. Hulicka

AGE‐RELATED RETENTION DEFICIT AS A FUNCTION OF LEARNING*

A large number of studies have demonstrated that elderly subjects (Ss) tend to learn less efficiently than younger Ss, a t least in laboratory situations. However, a number of studies which have been interpreted as demonstrating an age-related deficit in memory retention have not been controlled for possible age-related differences in level of learning. Thus, much of what is referred to as a deficit in retention with increased age may be based, a t least in part, on a deficit in learning. A study by Gilbert (1) is quoted frequently as a demonstration of a significant loss in memory retention with increased age. However, this conclusion is warranted only if acquisition indices are ignored. Elderly (60-69 years) and young (20-29 years) 8 s were given immediate and delayed recall tests on a paired associate list and the reproduction of a paragraph. The elderly Ss had a 58.7 per cent deficit relative to the young Ss for the immediate recall of the paired associate list and a 54.6 per cent deficit for the delayed recall. The deficits for the immediate and delayed recall for the reproduction of the paragraph were 41.8 per cent and 39.7 per cent respectively. Thus, if the scores for the immediate recall test are taken as acquisition measures, i t may be concluded that the elderly Ss learned less, but relative to what they did learn, their recall was very slightly superior to that of the young 8s. Wimer and Wigdor (2) reported no difference in retention over a fifteen-minute interval for elderly (mean age, 72.6) and young (mean age, 21.4) Ss who had learned 4 pairs of words, according to the same criterion. Hulicka and Weiss (3) had elderly (mean age, 68) and young (mean age, 38) Ss learn 9 pairs composed of geometrical designs and mend names, according to the same criterion of one errorless trial. The 2 age groups did not differ for recall scores a t twenty minutes and one week. However, Wimer (4) reported an age-associated deficit in retention over a 24-hour interval for elderly (mean age, 71.9) and young (mean age, 20.3) Ss who had learned 7 pairs of nonsense products, according to the same criterion. These studies suggest that when different age groups learn material on the basis of the same criterion, there is no age-related deficit in retention over a short interval (up to twenty minutes), a measurable deficit by twenty-four hours, but no deficit over a one-week period. Such a trend does not seem reasonable, since if elderly Ss recall material as well as young Ss after a oneweek interval, there should be no difference between the groups a t twentyfour hours. Resolution of the apparent discrepancy requires that retention be

AGE DIFFERENCES FOR INTENTIONAL AND INCIDENTAL LEARNING AND RECALL SCORES

The present research was designed to investigate the general hypothesis that much of the observed deficit in the recall scores of older persons can be accounted for by inadequate learning. Numerous investigators have demonstrated that both learning and recall scores tend to decline with advanced age. However, since many of the investigations (1, 2) which demonstrated an age-related deficit in recall scores did not incorporate a measure of acquisition, it is impossible to determine whether the lower acores of older people on the recall tests were a function of an age-related deficit in acquisition or retention, or both. In four recent studies the recall scores of elderly and young subjects (Ss) were compared for material which had been learned to the same criterion of mastery. In two of these studies (3, 4) the recall scores of elderly Ss were not inferior to those of young Ss at 15 or 20 minutes or one week after learning. In the two other studies (5, 6) an age-related deficit in recall scores was apparent twenty-four hours after learning. Hulicka and Rust (5 ) suggested that part of the recall deficit observed in the latter two studies was specific to the type of experimental task, which in both studies involved the acquisition and retention of nonsense equations, e.g., E X 2 = G and B X D = M. It was observed (5) that during acquisition the younger Ss much more frequently than older Ss, simplified the task by ignoring one of the stimulus letters or by converting the nonsense equations into personally kneaningful symbols. Thus although the experimental task was formally identical for both groups, the younger Ss apparently had less material, and yet material which was more sequentially organized, to learn and retain. Consequently, the observed differences between the two age groups for recall scores may not have reflected a true difference in storage and retrieval. Moreover, Hulicka and Rust (5) reported that the Ss in the two age groups appeared to differ markedly with respect to motivation for engagement in the experimental task. The young Ss seemed to accept the task in a matter-of-fact way, whereas many of the older Ss made remarks which reflected disinterest in, or resentment toward the task. Obviously, if valid comparisons are to be made between age groups for eEciency of learning and recall, it is necessary to select experimental tasks and techniques which are equally appropriate for 8s in the various age groups. In the design of the present study, an attempt was made to select tasks and experimental techniques which would not bias the results in favor of any one age group. Previous research (7) had indicated that Ss in several age groups appeared

ADDITIVE VERSUS MULTIPLICATIVE COMBINATION OF DRIVE AND INCENTIVE

This experiment was designed to investigate the manner in which the theoretical motivational variables drive (D) and incentive ( K ) combine with habit ( H ) to determine response strength (E) . Lacking experimental evidence concerning the combination of D and K, Hull ( 1951, 1952 ) speculated that they combined in a multiplicative manner. Reynolds, Marx, and Henderson ( 1952 ) , using resistance to extinction as a measure of response strength, obtained evidence supporting this speculation. Recently, Spence ( 1954, 1956) suggested that D and K might combine additively. Experiments by Hulicka (1959) and Loess (1952) may be interpreted as favoring Spences position. Sufficient data are not available to evaluate the alternative hypotheses. The proposed test of these hypotheses requires the assumption that H is a function of the number of reinforced trials, but is not affected by variations of D and K. Although there is some evidence against this assumption (Eisman, Asimow, & Maltzman, 1956) the bulk of the evidence (Brown, 1956; Deese & Carpenter, 1951; Heyman, 1957; Hillman, Hunter, & Kimble, 1953; Reynolds, 1949; Strassburger, 1950; Teel, 1952) supports it. Further required assumptions are that H and D and H and K combine multiplicatively. Evidence for the multiplicative interaction of H and D is provided by several investigations (Passey, 1948; Perin, 1942; Ramond, 1954; Williams, 1938) in which number of reinforced trials and hours of deprivation or intensity of the unconditioned stimulus were varied. Response measures plotted against the number of trials show with one exception (Campbell & Kraeling, 1953) diverging curves for the different drive groups. When D is held constant but amount or delay of reward is varied and a response measure is plotted against number of trials (Crespi, 1942; Dufort & Kimble, 1956; Fletcher, 1940; Grindley, 1929; Heyman, 1957; Perin, 1943), diverging curves are also obtained, indicating that H and K combine multiplicatively. The limited generalization that E = f H (D, K ) seems possible. According to Hull (1953) when excitatory potentials (sEn) to two or more incompatible reactions occur in an organism at the same instant, each in a magnitude greater than sLR, only that reaction whose momentary reaction

Combination of drive and incentive

This experiment was designed to investigate the combination of drive and incentive as determinants of performance. Nine groups of rats were trained to press a bar under three levels of food deprivation (12, 24 and 36 hr.) and three incentive conditions (1, 2 and 3 pellets). Response strength was estimated by counting the number of responses with a latency of 1 sec. or less during five 20 trial sessions. The results indicated that response strength increased with hours of deprivation and with amount of food reward. Significant interactions between sessions and drive, and sessions and incentive provided additional support for the multiplicative combination of H (habit) and D (drive) and H and K (incentive). The lack of significant interaction between D and K was interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that D and K combine additively rather than multiplicatively.

PSYCHOLOGIC PROBLEMS OF GERIATRIC PATIENTS

Itare is tthe human who is adequately prepared to meet the emotional problems associated with age, illness, enforced idleness, and approaching death. As Tolstoy, with great insight, observed in W a r and Peace (1) : “At the approach of dangcr there are always two voices that speak with cqual force in the heart of man: one very reasonably tells man to consider the nature of the danger and the means of avoiding i t ; the other even more rcasoiiably says it is too painful and harassing to think of the danger, since it is riot in man’s power to provide for everything and escape from the general march of events; and it is t,herefore better to turn aside from the painful subject till i t has come, and to think of what is pleasant. In solitude a man generally yields to the first voice; in society to the second.” In our American society, which has been described by Slavson (2) as a “frce group culture,” it is probable that the majority of members have, indeed, turned away from the painful subject of old age and illness, 1vit.h the exception that, some have attempted to provide for their material welfare. Few have paved the way for maximal satisfaction of the basic emotional needs under the vastly changed circumstances. In loneliness, idleness and solitude, many of the disabled aged who still possess their intellectual facilities relatively intact, ponder with discomfort the emptiness and barrenness of their present lives.

To design experimental research.

SOME OF THE MOST GRIEVOUS WASTE OF RESEARCH TIME IS DUE TO NEGLECT OF A FEW RULES.