However evidence to support the ‘Multistore model’ like the ‘Serial position curve’ and ‘Brown-Peterson curve’ show that Short Term memory and Long Term Memory are separate processes and not structurally separate as implied by Atkinson and Shiffrin. After the failure of the ‘Multistore model’ Craik and Lockhart proposed the ‘Levels of Processing’ theory.
Craik and Lockhart consider how processing may influence memory trace. According to them information is processed at different ‘levels’. In their model of memory perpetual processing is a continuum which ranges from ‘shallow’ to ‘deep’ processing. The greater the ‘depth’ of processing implied higher level of semantic processing. Memory and perception are considered unavoidably linked and that memory is a by-product of perception. Specifically trace duration is a function of depth analysis therefore the kind of perpetual analysis determines the duration of memory trace.
Two ways in which information is held in this model is:
-
The central processing unit transfers information from perception to memory.
-
The central processing unit can recirculate or retain information at particular levels of processing.
This process gives an impression of separate limited capacity STM without hypothesising separate stores.
The evidence to support this theory was an experiment carried out by Elias & Perfetti in 1973 and then repeated by Craik & Tulving in 1975 on the basis that the way one processes information determines the memory one gets. They presented participants with a word list, each word had an associated question e.g. 1) Word- does the word rhyme with…? 2) Word- does the word mean the same as…? After all the questions are answered an unexpected recall test is given. The words to do with similar meaning i.e. semantics were recalled more than the words to do with similar sound i.e. acoustically similar which were recalled better than those words given visually.
So according to this theory the different kinds of processing like visual, acoustic or semantic should reflect in different rates of recall as noted above.
However Tyler disagreed and concluded from his experiment results that it was effort and not Levels of processing that determined memory trace. In his experiment he split his participants into two groups. One group was given a hard set of anagrams to solve whist the other group an easy set of anagrams of the same words as the first group. They were then given an unexpected recall test. He found that the group given the hard anagrams to solve recalled more words than the group given the easy anagrams to solve. Thus proving his theory that more effort leads to better recall.
On the basis of his experiment it was logical to come up with the hypothesis (H1) that:
“The participants solving the harder anagrams will show a significant
difference in recall compared to those solving the easy anagrams.”
This is a directional hypothesis as it tries to imply that the harder the anagrams, the more effort needed to solve them and so more of the hard anagrams solved are recalled when given a recall test.
The null hypothesis (H0) is:
“ No matter what amount of effort is put in to solve the anagrams there is no
significant difference in the recall of those words solved.”
Method
Design: An experiment was carried out to investigate whether the harder anagrams are easier to recall when solved then easy anagrams. An experiment was used as it can establish a cause-effect relationship between two variables like whether more effort to solve harder anagrams makes it easier to recall the solved anagram. An independent measures design is used using two groups as the experiment is an unrelated design. One group is given a hard set of anagrams to solve whilst the other group (control group) is given an easy set of anagrams to solve. The Independent variable is the amount of effort used to solve the anagrams and the Dependent variable is the percentage of words recalled from the anagrams solved. A pilot study was carried out and it was found that the words ‘strawberry’ and ‘raspberry’ were too hard to solve and so were eliminated from the anagrams list. The controlled variables are that the participants were the same age group so that the participants did not feel uneasy about being the oldest or youngest which could have affected their performance, were told to sit individually to avoid copying or any discussion about the task, the time was set at two minutes to solve the anagrams and two minutes to recall them and both the groups were given the same words as anagrams.
Participants: It is an opportunity sample, 10 participants were found, 5 boys and 5 girls to avoid gender bias and they were also of mixed ethnicity to avoid any racial discrimination which were other control measures. The participants were not told what they were going to do in the experiment.
Procedure:
The participants were asked to sit separately and the apparatus kept ready (appendix 2) then they were given verbal standardised instructions (Appendix 1). The hard anagrams list (B) and easy anagrams word list (A) (Appendix 3) were arranged alternating so that all the boys do not get the hard anagrams and the girls do not get the easy anagrams or vice versa. The participants were then given two minute to solve the anagrams, when there was 30 seconds left the participants were informed. After two minutes the participants were asked to write their names on their sheets. The papers were collected and then the participants were told to recollect as many words as they could from the anagrams they solved in two minutes. Once again when there were 30 seconds left they were informed. After two minutes they were asked to write their names and the papers were colleted. The participants were then thanked and debriefed, none of them had any psychological harm done to them. The participants were reassured that the names would not be revealed nor will they be ‘judged’ by their answers. The raw data were then put together (appendix 4).
Results
From table 1 and 2 in the appendix 4 it can be seen that list A solve more anagrams but list B had a higher percentage of recall from the anagrams solved as seen in graph 1 and graph 2. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for both groups to summarise both sets of data.
A summary of the results is shown below:
TABLE 3
GRAPH 1 GRAPH 2
However from the above table (Table 3) the mean for the group with list A is higher than the mean for the group with list B. To check and see if these results are significant or not a statistical test has to be done. The Mann-Whitney U test was used as the hypothesis is showing a difference, the data is interval and the design is unrelated. The level of significance used is p< 0.05 as it is the most common one used and is a compromise between a type1 and type 2 error.
For a sample of 10 the observed value (U=9) was found to be more than the critical value (U= 4) using a level of significance of p< 0.05. (Appendix 5)
Therefore the results show that there is no significant difference and the experimental hypothesis can be rejected and null hypothesis accepted.
Discussion:
The results show that there is no significant difference in recall of the solved anagrams and so rejects the experimental hypothesis but accepts the null hypothesis. This result also does not support Tyler’s results, the researcher whose theory the experimental hypothesis was based on. There could have been methodological errors or maybe that effort cannot determine memory trace.
Some of the methodological errors that could be there are individual difference between participants and so may differ in whether an anagram was difficult or easy for them to solve. Maybe if the anagrams were the same number of letters the task could have been performed better. Some of the participants could be bad at forming words from anagrams. The instructions were read out verbally which did not take participants who may have hearing problems into consideration or maybe the participants could have misinterpreted the instructions so written instructions could have been more appropriate. During the experiment one of the participants had music on (who was told immediately to switch it off) which could have disrupted other participants and also make it difficult for the participant to concentrate on the given task. This participant also showed that they could not be bothered with the task given. This may have affected the other participant’s will to do the task given properly. There were time limits for both groups which could have been a problem, as the group with the harder anagrams may have needed more time than those with the easy anagrams. The sample size was quite small and so maybe more participants could have given a more significant result. Providing an incentive for taking part in the research could have attracted more participants but this is both time and money consuming as an independent measures design is used. Another problem could be that it was carried out in the morning so the participants may not be ‘upto’ taking a task that early in the morning or if they had a late night it could also affect their performance. Another time of day like in the late morning when they are more settled into college could have been more appropriate. Whether the participants had previous psychology knowledge is not known as it was an opportunity sample and if they did then maybe there could have been some demand characteristics. Experimenter bias could have occurred as the experimenters were in the same room as the participants so could have had an effect on their performance.
Some theoretical problems could be that the same anagrams as Tyler used in his experiment were not used so the results are not the same. The theory suggests that the more effort put in to solve the anagrams leads to better recall but ‘can the amount of effort be measured?’ Everyone does not use the same effort for a given task there are bound to be individual differences. Also time is another variable, as people tend to take longer on difficult tasks so is it that they spend more time so the task becomes easy? Or is it that more effort is used in that time?
From this it can be seen that the amount of effort and length of time spent to solve the anagrams are confounding variables. The experiment lacks ecological validity as the results cannot be generalised to real life.
If further research was to be done taking different age groups into consideration may show different results as their vocabulary maybe more developed so easier for them to solve anagrams. People from different backgrounds i.e. socio-economic status could show a different result as those from a higher socio-economic status may have better education and knowledge than someone from a lower social-economic status.
References:
ATKINSON & SHIFFRIN (1968) the multi-store model, Psychology a new introduction 2nd edition. Hodder & Stoughton.
CRAIK & LOCKHART (1972) the levels of processing, Psychology a new introduction 2nd edition. Hodder & Stoughton.
CRAIK &TULVING (1975) the way information is processed by someone determines memory trace, Psychology a new introduction 2nd edition. Hodder & Stoughton.
ELIAS & PERFETTI (1973) the way information is processed by someone determines memory trace, Psychology a new introduction 2nd edition. Hodder & Stoughton.
TYLER (1979) effort and not levels of processing determine memory trace, Introduction to psychology volume 2.
