Investigating the Effect of Strategy Use on Verbal Paired-Associate Learning

Paired-associate tasks are used in basic research investigating human memory and in applied work investigating memory dysfunction. Prior research suggests that individuals vary in their use of strategies and that some strategies are more effective than others but there is little work investigating how strategy use affects what is measured by paired-associate tasks. In two studies, I investigated whether the predictive validities of fluid intelligence and working memory capacity differ as a consequence of using elaborative or non-elaborative strategies in paired-associate learning. Additionally, I attempted to replicate prior work investigating individual differences in spontaneous strategy use as well as the effect of strategy use on paired-associate learning performance. In Study 1, I found that most individuals used elaborative strategies, however, roughly 1 in 8 participants primarily used non-elaborative strategies. Across all studies, individuals using elaborative strategies significantly outperformed those using non-elaborative strategies in paired-associative learning. The effect of strategy use on the validities of the predictors was more ambiguous. In one study (Study 2), strategy use did not appear to moderate the relationships between the predictors and paired-associate learning. In Study 3, which used a different set of stimuli, strategy use did appear to moderate the relationship between the predictors and paired-associate learning. Differences in results may be due to the different stimuli used across studies but more research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.