Craik and Lockhart (1972) did some research on depths of processing. They said that long term memory traces are formed at the time of learning depending on the processes that occur. Deeper levels of analysis will contribute to longer lasting, stronger traces (also developed in Atkinson and Shiffrin’s Multistore Model of Memory).` This would support the research by Slamecka and Graf and indicate that generation of material will lead to better memory of it. Miller (1956) mainly spoke about how chunked words will be remembered better but he also stated that people can remember around 7 words or chunks of information at a time. His research was very important so it will be interesting to see if the participants in this study remember around 7 words too. Participants will be asked to think about the opposite of a word and remember it, then these results will be compared with those when they simply have to remember a given word. Perhaps they will remember more of the opposites than a normal list of words because a lot more thought is involved e.g. deeper processing. It must be controlled, for example similar words need to be used in each condition. Counterbalancing will also need to be carried out.
It is hoped that Slamecka and Graf’s findings will be replicated using a within subjects test the generation method of opposites with equal numbers of words in each list. The experimental directional hypothesis is that the self generation of words will significantly increase recall ability when compared to words that are just read. The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in memory for generated words and memory for words that are just read.
Method
Participants
20 participants took part in the investigation in the form of an opportunity sample. Most of the participants were students.
Materials
Two lists of words were produced, one with a list of words with the first letter of its opposite as a trigger for the generated word and the other with a list of words deliberately similar to the generated list. Participants recorded the words they remembered on a plain sheet of paper (see appendices).
Design
An independent groups design was used. There was no independent or dependent variable as an exploratory study was carried out. It was counterbalanced by presenting the two lists in an alternate order to each participant to avoid order effects.
Procedure
The investigation was carried out in quiet surroundings and participants were tested individually. They were informed briefly about the aim of the study, given standardised instructions (including having the right to withdraw at any time) and presented with the first list. After this, they were asked to do an interference task which involved counting backwards from 100. They then wrote down as many words as they could recall in as much time as they needed. The procedure was repeated for the second list. Participants were debriefed and data was collected.
Results
The results of the procedure:
A table to show the results of all the groups, including variations of our method.
Discussion
The descriptive statistics would suggest that the self generation increased recall ability. The experimental hypothesis was accepted. The results were very significant when tested which would indicate that the self generation of words, or perhaps any kind of increased concentration on the material will improve memory for it. This is similar to the concept of mnemonics where mental imagery is used to increase learning. This can include organising the information and benefiting from retrieval cues which also increase learning and prevent cue-dependent forgetting. Meaning is imposed on the material just like it has been in this investigation. However mnemonics do not really contribute to improving complex learning. Similarly, the results of this study have little meaning for important and complex memory tasks. The task presented to the participants was fairly simple and so was not very ecologically valid. There is little chance that someone would have to carry out that task in real life, but our results have been valuable in showing that, for example, a shopping list of around 11 or 12 items could be remembered using a rhyme or rhyming words that match even if interference occurs between the time of learning and the shop. The study was also carried out in an artificial setting in quiet surrounding which, while reducing the confounding variables to the experiment, has also reduced the ecological validity. In further experiments it might be a good idea to try it in a naturalistic setting to see if memory is better or poorer. However, naturalistic settings have their limitations too
Another problem is that we included no measure of how long after the task the material was remembered. It is possible that the participants could have remembered the words for a long time after e.g. days or months, which would have been very6 interesting and had more implications for our study. This could be useful in a further replication. Another strength of this investigation was that counterbalancing was used to reduce order effects. Subjects were given the generated list and the read list in alternate orders. It should be brought to our attention that other confounding variables may have affected the accuracy of the results, such as subject variables and demand characteristics. This type of memory experiment is fairly common in psychology and participants may have deliberately changed their memory in accordance with what results were expected. The study was also not ecologically representative. Opportunity samples are generally more representative than other sampling methods, but mostly students were used. Students are not representative of the population and there is evidence that they are not good participants. It is likely that the primary and recency effects have occurred in this study and also in Slamecka and Graf’s.
The study could become more reliable and be improved by using more people (and a more representative sample) and perhaps by using a larger variation of words (different lists) and then calculating the mean. It is possible that the words we used we easier to remember than others. It could also be made more real to life. The study shows that memory does depend on processes at the time of learning and that if we are able to generate the material we need to remember more then it is more likely to be stored for longer or transferred to the long term memory.