Page:Memory (1913).djvu/129

 {|
 * + | (1) The results in the case of learning derived series which had been repeated 16 times on the day previous in their original form were as follows:
 * | A Sum of (I, III, V)
 * | B Sum of (II, IV, VI)
 * | &Delta; (B-A)
 * | 656
 * | 522
 * | ―134
 * | 702
 * | 514
 * | ―188
 * | 603
 * | 613
 * | 10
 * | 450
 * | 500
 * | 50
 * | 662
 * | 696
 * | 34
 * | 560
 * | 459
 * | ―101
 * | 588
 * | 603
 * | 15
 * | 637
 * | 593
 * | ―44
 * | Av.&emsp;607
 * | 562
 * | ―45 P.E.$m$=±21
 * }
 * | 637
 * | 593
 * | ―44
 * | Av.&emsp;607
 * | 562
 * | ―45 P.E.$m$=±21
 * }
 * | ―45 P.E.⇭⇭⇭=±21
 * }

The fluctuations of the numbers for the separate experiments are also in this case very great. However, it is evident on the first glance and without further comparison that a strong displacement of the differences to the negative side has taken place. This fact is also expressed by the averages. In contrast with previous results, the series II, IV, VI were learned in somewhat shorter time than series I, III, V.

That this exception rests on mere chance is possible but not very probable. The probable errors, although large, are not large enough to indicate this.

I would sooner fear that it was a case of disturbance of the results through the oft-mentioned source of error, anticipation of the outcome ( and ). During the progress of the experiment I believed with increasing certainty that I could