An investigation into whether participants recall more words with a familiar topic than they do with an unfamiliar topic.

Danielle McCarthy

Candidate number 8106

Abstract:

The background theory on which this is based is the study carried out by Brewer and Treyens in 1981 on schemata, they aimed to investigate whether schema consistent information was better recalled than schema inconsistent information. This study was similar in the fact both studies were investigating whether familiarity and unfamiliarity affects recall. The aim of this investigation was to investigate whether memorising words from a familiar topic and an unfamiliar topic affects recall of the selected words, it was predicted that the words that were unfamiliar to the participants were less in recall than the words that were similar and from a topic in which the participants have knowledge.

The research method chosen for this was experimentation other than observation. The design chosen was repeated measures design and the sample size was 10. An opportunity sample was used to select the participants for the experiment.

The results obtained showed that the familiar topic was better in recall (mean: 14.5) compared with the recall of words from the unfamiliar topic (mean: 8.2).

The hypothesis of the experiment was in this case was accepted and the conclusion this draws is that words from a familiar topic are better recalled than words from an unfamiliar topic, when tested on two word lists.

Introduction:

Memory is a term that can be used in many different ways, it is a mental function by which we are able to retain and retrieve information about events that have happened in the past. We can remember a large amount of information that we ourselves have personally experienced, as well as other knowledge acquired from the world around us.

However we don’t remember everything that has happened to us, many of our memories are not permanent therefore we forget things.

In this study the focus is on “Levels of processing”. Which can be seen as an addition to the structural models of memory. Atkinson and Shiffrin developed the “Multi-Store model”. This model was designed at the time when “The information-processing” approach was most influential; it assumes that mental processes can be understood by comparing them with operations of a computer. Also mental processes can be interpreted as information processing through a system, in a series of stages, step by step.

Atkinson and Shiffrin built a model including three memory stores: a sensory store, a short-term store and a long-term store. They proposed that the process of attention and rehearsal were responsible for controlling the flow of information between the stores.

“Levels of processing” is an alternative. Craik and Lockhart (1972) argued that it might be useful to focus on the processes that contribute to memory. They believed the way in which information is processed could affect the likelihood of it being retrieved. Also an assumption of theirs is that information can be processed at a range of different levels, for example, Acoustic to Semantic. Deeper or semantic levels of processing give priority to more durable and retrievable memories whereas Shallow or acoustic levels of processing result in memories, which are less likely to be retrieved.

A background study similar to this one is based on the idea of a generalised schema, which could have an affect on the recall. Schema is a preconception of an event or knowledge of an object stored in the form of a memory package. Brewer and Treyens (1981) set out to test whether schemata consistent information was recalled more than schemata inconsistent information. They found that participants demonstrated a good recall of schemata-consistent items and other items, which were not present in the room but were consistent with the schemata.

The aim of this experiment was to investigate whether memorising words from a familiar topic and an unfamiliar topic affects recall of the selected words.

It was predicted that the words that were unfamiliar to the participants were less in recall than the words that were similar and from a topic in which the participants have knowledge of.

Design:

The key variables were as follows, the independent variable was whether the participants learnt a list of words from a topic in which they were familiar with or learnt a list of words from a topic in ...