Underwood’s study refutes Tulving’s cue dependant forgetting theory and states that it is the interference of the new words, which makes the participants forget the old words. Another background study is Schab (1991). This study supports Tulving’s cue dependant theory. Schab did an experiment where 72 Yale graduates took part either, 1. In the presence of chocolate odour or 2. In an unscented environment or 3. By following instructions to imagine and think about the odour. The results show that recall was 17% higher in the chocolate odour condition compared to the unscented conditions. Schab carried out another experiment and recall was better with the same odour present at encoding and retrieval. Another study that supports Tulving’s Cue dependent theory is Bower (1981) who manipulated the mood of his participants using hypnosis. The conditions were a happy or sad state of mind. Participants who encoded and recalled information while in a happy state of mind allowed greater accessibility to their memories. Those who encoded information in a happy state of mind but recalled in a sad state of mind seemed to remember less information.
Rationale
Schab’s study relates to my study the only difference is that one group of participants, Group A will be eating chocolate at encoding and retrieval and Group B will eat chocolate only at encoding rather then having a chocolate odour. We have chosen that the participants eat the chocolate because we think it will have more of an effect on them than just the odour of chocolate and it is more true to life. We expect to find that in Group A, participants who eat chocolate at the encoding and retrieval of words will remember significantly more words than Group B, who only eat at the encoding of words. We predict this because participants in Group A will be in the same state of mind at the encoding and retrieval of words.
Aim
The aim of this study is to find out whether eating chocolate at the encoding and retrieval of words acts as a cue for memory and can help to recall words.
Hypothesis
Participants eating chocolate at both encoding and retrieval will remember significantly more words, from a word list than participants who just eat chocolate at encoding.
Method and design
The most appropriate method for testing my hypothesis is a field experiment I have chosen this method because it will be in the participant’s natural setting. The natural setting will be in a classroom where you would usually expect to see students. Previous research used was done as a laboratory experiment. Therefore my study is more relevant to real life.
The design will be an independent measures design because there are two groups of 15 participants; the groups will have a different condition. Group A will get a square of chocolate at the encoding and retrieval of words and Group B will be given a square of chocolate only at the encoding of words. An independent measures design is the most appropriate because it reduces order of effect as participants only do one condition.
Variables
The independent variable is the two conditions, which are, Group A, who eat chocolate at encoding and retrieval and Group B who eat chocolate only at the encoding of words. The dependent variable is how many words the participants remember from a list.
Participants
The sampling method used will be opportunity sampling as the experiment will take place at the college, opportunity sampling is the quickest and convenient way to get participants, there is easy access to students.
There will be 30 participants taking part in the experiment (15 in each group). This experiment doesn’t require certain characteristics in participants as it is testing memory.
Procedure
Participants will be asked if they would take part in the experiment, they were given no information about what would happen during the experiment and were given standardised instructions when they agreed to take part. (See appendix 1)
The participants will be given a list of 15 words (see appendix 2) and a square of chocolate. The participants will have 30 seconds to learn the words and to eat the square of chocolate. After 30 seconds has passed a passage will be read to the participants for 2 minutes. This will be an intervening task. After the passage is read out Group A will be given another square of chocolate to eat and all participants will have 1 minute to write down the words previously learnt. An intervening task is used to cleat the participant’s short-term memory. The participants will be debriefed after the experiment. (See appendix 3)
Controls
The variables that need to be controlled are the amount of chocolate given to each participant in the groups. The time at the encoding and retrieval of the words needs to be the same for the experiment to work well. Both groups of participants will take part in the experiment on the same day at the same time in the same room.
The ethical issues that need to be considered are consent, debriefing and withdrawal. All participants gave consent when they were asked to take part in the experiment. The participants have to be debriefed about the aims of the study after they have participated. The participants are able to ask questions about the experiment. The participants should be informed that they can withdraw their data at anytime.
Results
Summary table
Table to show how many words out of 15 participants in Group A, eating chocolate at encoding and retrieval of the words and Group B, eating chocolate only at the encoding of words, got correct.
The table shows that Group B, who ate chocolate only at the encoding of words remembered more words than Group A, who ate chocolate at both encoding and retrieval of words. The median for Group B is 77% and the median for Group A is 66%. This shows a 10% difference.
The results show that Group B, who ate chocolate at the encoding of words performed better on the cue dependant memory test than Group A, who ate chocolate at both encoding and retrieval. The mean for group B (10.3) is higher than the mean for group A (9.6).
The results show that Group B did significantly better than Group A. The results refute the hypothesis. The mode for Group A is 60% and the mode for Group B is 77%.
Discussion
Validity
Validity is whether the experiment measures what it is supposed. The experiment tested if eating chocolate at the encoding and retrieval of words would act as a cue for memory and can help recall words. One of the factors that contribute to this could be how alert the participants were that day. Also some of the participants were psychology students so would have had a bit of understanding of what was expected of them. If this experiment was repeated we would make sure that there are no psychology students who participate.
Reliability
One control of this experiment turned out to be poor. The participants came in talking and sat anywhere in the classroom. When the standardised instructions where being read out participants were talking and when they were encoding and retrieving the information the majority of the participants still talking. Although at the encoding stage of the experiment, the talking is considered as interference and at the retrieving stage participants could have copied each other’s answers. This makes the experiment unreliable. To prevent this from happening participants should be isolated throughout the experiment to make the experiment more reliable. I think this will have an effect on the results and show more consistent results as the participants will not be distracted. Another methodological problem with the experiment was the method. Some participants refused to eat the chocolate that was given to them.
Implications of the study
Tulving found that smells act as cues to aid memory. Schab’s (1991) chocolate odour study supports Tulving’s Theory. Bower’s study of manipulating the mood of the participants using hypnosis also supports Tulving’s cue dependant theory. However my study refutes Tulving’s theory. Chocolate doesn’t act as a cue and my study refutes Tulving’s Theory as I found out that participant who ate chocolate at the encoding and retrieval of words remembered fewer words than participants in Group B who ate chocolate only at the encoding of words.
Generalisation of findings
Problems with generalising is using psychology students because they know what to expect and are more able than using other students
Application to real life
My study shows that participants do not have to be in the same state at encoding and retrieval. The research also shows that participants do not have to be in the same state.
Appendix 4
Raw Data
Appendix 1
Instructions to participants.
Thank you for considering taking part in this study. I would like to ensure you that you will not be harmed in this experiment. You have the right to withdraw at any time. Your results will remain anonymous. By taking part in this experiment you have given consent. You will be debriefed at the end of the experiment. I am now going to give you what you have to do.
- Here is a piece of paper with 15 words on it.
- You will be given 30 seconds to learn these words and to eat the square of chocolate.
- After 30 seconds is up a passage will be read to you for 2 minutes.
- After 2 minutes has passed you will write down the 15 words previously learnt.
- I will remind you throughout the experiment the next thing you have to do.
- At the end of the experiment you have the right to withdraw your results.
Appendix 3
Debriefing
Group A, You have just taken part in a study to investigate whether eating chocolate at encoding and retrieval of a list of words acts as a cue. Group B you have just taken part in the same study but you were only given chocolate at the encoding of words to see the effect on group A.
The results will be available if you wish to view them. All data collected will be kept confidential.
Appendix 2
Word list given to participants
