The other part refers to Context dependent forgetting, also the part being tested in this study, which points to the external circumstances or environment setting during the time of information being encoded or retrieved. These are also called external cues, example such as a particular classroom. (Cox 2001)
In Abernathy’s research, he concluded that participants were able to recall more words with better accuracy in the same environment of where they learned the words. (Cox 2001) A subsequent experiment conducted by Godden and Baddeley (1975), where the divers were asked to remember a list of words in two very different settings, on land or 20 feet underwater, followed by a four minutes gap before they were asked to recall the words in those two different settings. The results show that participants’ accuracy of recalling was 50 percent higher when tested in the same setting for recall and learning. These two studies both support the idea that environment act as a useful cue for participants to access their memories. Further more, Klatzky (1980) also proposed that recalling is much better when done in the same condition as where the encoding took place.
He used this finding to explain the remembering of vivid memories when a person revisits childhood places or smells a familiar scent. Smith (1979) also conducted an experiment corresponding to this topic, where students learnt a list of words in a basement, before being asked to recall in either the basement or on the fifth floor. The results show that students performed better recalling in the basement, but performance on the fifth floor was equal when students were instructed to recollect the encoding environment.
Method and design
Participants
Opportunity sampling was used as the experiment took place at the college, where opportunity sampling is the quickest and convenient way to get participants, because there is easy access to students. 8 participants; 4 males 4 females between age of 18 and 24.
The hypothesis is tested through a field experiment. This method was chosen due to the classroom being a natural setting for participants who are all college students. Previous research was done as a laboratory experiment.
Repeated measures design was used because there was only one group of 8 participants; the same group is tested in two different condition. In List A, students were asked to recall at the same place where they memorise the words. List B is where the students recalled in a different location from where they were given the list of words.
Materials include: Informed consent (app 5), Debrief (app 3), Standardised instruction(app 1) Word List A A3 size, Word List B A3 size sheet, (look at word list app 2), Results data (app 4), 1 researcher, 1 watcher.
Variables
The independent variable is the same or different environments; In first condition students learned and recalled in same classroom at encoding and retrieval and in second condition students recalled words in a different environment, the hallway. The dependent variable is how many words the participants remember accurately from a list.
Confounding Variables
Confounding variables include the different genders of participants, their nationality, level of English languages skills, and their capability.
Procedure
- Inform consent was obtained from all participants for participating the following experiment.
- All participants were given standardised instructions.
- Participants were presented with List A of words for 2 minutes, before taking a 2 minutes gap until they are asked to recall words on sheet A.
- After the recall accuracy data of List A was collected, participants were then required to repeat the same recalling activity but recall in a different location with a new list of words, this set of data was recorded in sheet B:
- The participants were presented of List B of words for 2 minutes before relocating themselves in the following 2 minute gap.
- The new location was in a hallway where participants were asked to recall the words in List B.
- After completing the recall activity for List B, Sheet B was collected
- Participants proceeded to return to the classroom, where they were given debrief and were thanked for contributing to this experiment.
Control
Control variables were the amount of words given to each participant in both condition, the time at the encoding and retrieval of the words, and the time gap between encoding and retrieval need to be the same for the experiment to work well. Participants took part in the experiment on the same day in the same room.
The ethical issues that acquired consideration 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 were allowed to ask questions about the experiment. The participants were informed that they could withdraw their data at anytime.
Results
Summary table
Table to show how many words out of 8 participants in Sheet A, encoding and retrieval of the words in same place, and Sheet B, retrieval of words in the hall, got correct.
The table shows in List A, participants recalled words at the same environment of encoding of words remembered less words than List B, where participants retrieved words in a different environment from the setting where the encoding took place. The mean for List A is 78.5 %, and the mean for List B is 85.7 percent. This shows around 7% percent difference, with List B being higher. The results show that List B, who recalled words in different environment performed better on the cue dependant memory test than List A, who recalled words in the same environment as where encoding took place. The mean for List B (12) is higher than the mean for Sheet A (11).
The results show that participants recalled more words from List B than from List A. The results refute the hypothesis. The mode for Sheet A is 85.7 percent, and the mode for Sheet B is 100%.
Bar Chart
This bar chart shows participants recalled less amount of words (vertical axis) from List A in the same context (horizontal axis), compare to amount of words recalled in List B, different context. This rejects the directional hypothesis which stated participants would be able to recall more words in the same environment by using same context as retrieval cue to aid recall.
Discussion
The results show higher recall rate in different context; 12 words (mean number) recalled accurately from List B in a different context, compare to 11 words (mean number) recalled from List A in the same context. This refute the hypothesis which stated that the same context would help produce higher recall rate by acting as a context retrieval cue. This contradicts what is suggested from previous research conducted by Abernarthy.
There are few factors that may distorted the results; One is varied participants characteristics; how alert the participants were that day, and different level of English skills among participants can greatly affect how well they were able to recall English words, therefore a true difference between means may not be evident.
The classroom, being a natural setting for students, was used to conduct this experiment, to increase its ecological validity with strict control maintaining the variables, this contributes experimental validity. Nevertheless, the memorising task is an unnatural task, which decreases ecological validity. To counter this, it would be good idea to adopt an independent measures design because it reduces order of effect as participants only do one condition by having two different groups of participants to perform task in two different sets of location non-related to classroom without prior notice. The challenge would be that the study will have to be carried out without informed consent, instead of obtaining presumptive consent followed by debrief at the end. However, this could pose ethical issues which could also reduce its validity.
Since all participants were psychology students who have studied cue dependent forgetting, they may establish demand characteristics where they were predisposed with expectations and anticipations. This could lead to participants making less effort in performing the task of recalling. To avoid this, non-psychology students should be used to increase the validity of results, as they would be less likely to exhibit demand characteristics.
In this experiment, the null hypothesis is retained; the research concludes that there was insufficient evidence for a relationship between two variables. If the context retrieval cue of this experiment was truly ineffective, then the conclusion should deemed correct. However, in this case, experiment effectiveness is not evident due to insufficient sample size, therefore the conclusion may be erroneous, a Type II error: retaining the null hypothesis when it is not true. (Girden 2001) As the difference of magnitude and a relationship is anticipated, the difference must be detected through experimenting a large enough sample. (Girden 2001)
Due to research constraints, an insufficient number of only 8 participants are tested, therefore not enough to reveal the effect of the independent variable because it is possible that participant variables pose distortion to results. This brings the issue mentioned earlier, varied participants characteristics; the participants were not categorized with the consideration of gender or any other criteria such as intelligence, age, or English level, so to eliminate participant variables a method of matched pairs could be used, although it is comparatively more time consuming and costly. A method of repeated measures have been used which involve repeating the experiment with the same group taking the recall test in the other place. However, this posed the problem of order effects where performance can deteriorate through the fatigue effect or improve through the practice effect. In this case, an improvement in recalling could be contributed by the practice effect expressed in List B as List B recall activity was done after List A.
The method and design used in this study is simple, straightforward and replicable. The conditions in the two contexts include some uncontrollable variables such as temperature, lighting, and noise levels that reduce the replicability of this experiment. To solve this problem, researcher should carry out this experiment in a laboratory where most confounding variables become controllable and thus increase the replicability of experiment.
The randomness of the list of words given in this experiment is another undesired confounding variable as the words have variety of characteristics among themselves, the complexity of words include being plural/singular (students seem to make more mistakes on forgetting a particular word being plural, which still counted as wrong even they remember the singular form), some words can be easily chunked due to their syllables and synonyms (aiding recall)
Evaluation:
Problems with generalising raised from using psychology students as subjects because they were predisposed with expectations and anticipations therefore are more able in recalling activity. Due to possibility of demand characteristics evident in this study and the bias in the opportunistic sampling, the results fail to provide sufficient evidence that context aids recall for the entire population.
Study shows that participants do not have to be in the same context at encoding and retrieval .
Reference
Nicky Hayes (2000). Foundation of Psychology. 3rd ed. London: Thomson. p84.
Mike Cardwell (2008). Psychology AS. 4th ed. London: HarperCollinsPublishers. 111.
Erika Cox (2001). Psychology for A Level. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p35.
Ellen R. Girden (2001). Evaluating Research Articles. 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications. p5.
Abernathy, E.M. (1940) The effect of changed environmental conditions upon the results of college examinations. Journal of Psychology, 10, 293-301
Godden, D. and Baddeley, A.D. (1975) Context dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and under water. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-31
Tulving, E. (1974) Cue-dependent forgetting. American Psychologist, 62, 74-82
Daniel J. Garland, John A. Wise, V. David Hopkin (1999). Handbook of Aviation Human Factors. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p483.
Pearlstone. (2007). Learning, memory, and cognition. Journal of experimental psychology. 33 (3)
Appendices List
Appendix 1 Instructions to participants
Appendix 2 Word lists given to participants
Appendix 3 Debrief
Appendix 4 Raw Data
Appendix 5 Informed consent
Appendix 1
Instructions to participants.
- Here is a piece of paper with 14 words on it.
- You will be given 2 minutes to learn these words
- You will take a 2 minutes gap in silence. For List B, you will be relocated during the 2 minutes gap, also in silence to avoid distractions.
- After 2 minutes has passed you will write down the 14 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 2
Word list given to participants
Appendix 3
Debriefing
You have just taken part in a study to investigate whether the setting at encoding and retrieval of a list of words acts as a context cue to the memory.
The results will be available if you wish to view them. All data collected will be kept confidential.
Appendix 4
Raw Data
Appendix 5
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.
Signature _____________________________