And finally, Bower et al. (1969), upon whose research this report is based, carried out a study whereby one group of participants were presented with words that were organized in a form of an ‘associative hierarchy’ and another group was presented with the same words but in a random format to learn. Upon recall, it was found that that participants presented with the organized form could remember 47% more words than those who were given the random one.
Bower et al. suggest that subjects who were given the word in an organized format were able to work out a certain construction principle. By using this principle, they could reconstruct the word list from memory. Whereas, the subjects given the randomly formatted words were unable to detect a construction principle thus their recall result was poorer. According to their theory, when it comes to an organized material, there are two stages of recall involved in the process. It suggests that if participants can remember some words, especially ones at the top of the hierarchy, they are able to then generate associations to these words which help them in their recall.
Thus, following Bower et al.’s theory, the hypothesis for this report would be similar to that based on their result/conclusion. The participants presented with the organized word list are expected to have a better recall than those who had their material in a random format.
METHOD
This report was carried out as an experiment on two independent groups of participants. Although repeated measures is more effective as it eliminates certain extraneous subject variables, the aim of this experiment would be flawed if a repeated measure design is used. This is because it would be subject to the order effects, whereby if the same participants were to be used for both the conditions, since the list of words are the same for both, the participants might be able to use their knowledge of the organization of the first format (should it be presented first) to aid in their recall of the second (random) one. This is known as an asymmetrical order effect. Hence, an independent samples design has been used. And two trials for each condition were carried out. There were few to negligent presence of extraneous variables as participants were randomly assigned to each of the two groups.
A total of sixteen participants were used, with eight in each two groups of different conditions. All participants were of the same age ranging from 17-19, currently doing their second year of the International Baccalaureate. They had unanimously accepted to take part in this investigation and none of them had an idea or experience of such an experiment before, all being non-Psychology students.
A few materials were used in conducting this report. The whiteboard in the classroom was used to present the words in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. There were twenty two words for each condition; these are provided in Appendix 1. And a stopwatch was used to time the experiment.
The participants were sat at ease in a class. They were explained that this experiment in no way would deceive them and that their results would remain anonymous. They were told they had the right to withdraw themselves from the test if they so wished. Then the instructions, as shown following, were read to them.
Instructions read-
‘This experiment is two trialed. For both trials, you will be presented with the same list of twenty two words, which you should try to memorize within sixty seconds. The words will then be removed and you will be given two minutes to write down as many of the words as you can remember on a sheet of paper in any order. You shall then be shown the same words again, and will have another sixty seconds to study them. Then the words will be removed and you will be given a further two minutes to recall and write down what you remember.’
When the first group of participants was ready, the screen with the words in an organized format was shown. After sixty seconds, the words were removed and they were given two minutes to write what they could remember on a sheet of paper handed to them earlier. The same procedure was followed for the second trial, but the participants were asked to write the words on a different marked sheet so that they would not see their previous attempt. Then with the second group, the same instructions were given and methods followed; only difference being the random organization of the words presented to them.
RESULTS
Summary:
The results obtained from each of the two groups were then collected and organized in a raw data table as presented in the pooled date below. It was observed that group one, with the organized list, had a generally better recall than the second group with random organization as they had been able to remember more words than the latter.
-
Table of raw pooled class data:
Condition A: Organized Condition B: Random
-
Graphical representation:
From the statistical data and graphical representation provided above, it can be seen that the group with organized word format received a higher average mean rating than the other group with random format.
Analysis:
The Mann-Whitney U statistical test was used to determine the significance of the effect as it was the most appropriate for tests between unrelated, independent samples with data at an ordinal level of measurement. The data is converted to ranks in order to calculate U. The calculation and table showing the conversion into ranks is shown in the Appendix page.
U for the test was 9.5 and U’ was 39.5. The decision rule for significance states that if the value of U or U’, whichever is smaller (which is U = 9.5 here) is equal to or less than the critical value of 11, the null hypothesis can be rejected.
Therefore, on the basis of the data provided here, the result is significant at the 0.05 level:
p < 0.05.
DISCUSSION
The findings from this report present a variety of responses from the participants. But all in all, it can be said that the result is quite consistent. This experiment sought to investigate the effect of organization in recall and whether it reflects the findings of Bower et al. It can be seen from the statistical mean data of the results how participants presented with the organized word format could remember more words than the participants in the group with random format, although the difference isn’t as striking, and materials used are different from that of the original report. It can thus be inferred from the results this experiment produced that organization in information or materials prior to learning does have a positive effect on a person’s recall power as suggested by Bower et al.
Bower et al. had stated that some participants who were given the organized list could make out a certain association between the words which aided them in their recall; whereas the participants with the random format did not have that advantage. This was also seen in participants from this particular experiment when casually asked how they found it after the experiment. Most commented on being able to figure out the associations between the words given. However, it has been found that several participants in the organized format group remembered and wrote words that were not in the given material but had a very close verbal or meaning association with the ones that they were given; while the other did not depict any such mistakes. So this false recognition of words could potentially flaw their memory and interfere with their recall.
The experimental design used for this report was independent sampling. If this experiment were to be repeated, it would still have to be conducted with the same design since repeated measures would produce misleading results as discussed earlier. However, it could be carried out as a matched-pairs design instead of independent groups, where pairs of people would be separately given the two lists of organized and random word formats to remember, but that would be a time consuming process.
The number of words given to remember, which was twenty two in this case (compared to Bower et al.’s 112) could also be increased to see whether more words can produce a better result and greater significance between the two groups’ recall power. However, the huge quantity of words might perhaps bore the participants and cause them to not pay enough attention.
All in all, this experiment produced results that reflected the findings of Bower et al. (1969) and supported the previously stated hypothesis. It could thus be said that organization in information or materials prior to learning has a positive effect on recall and aid our memory.
REFERENCES
- Gross, R.D.,(1992) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, Chapter
-
Research Methods in Psychology, Hugh Coolican (3rd edition), Chapter 23
- http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/cogworks/cogpsy/down/Chapter-06_lectureB.pdf
APPENDICES
1. List of words and its organization for one group:
CHEESE
BREAD MOUSE YELLOW
Milk Wheat Cat Trap Sun Butterfly
Cow Germ Eyes Bear Hot Moth
Butter Field Tiger Cage Tan Net
2. List of the same words used in a random format for the 2nd group:
TIGER
TAN SUN BEAR
Germ Trap Moth Mouse Eyes Butter
Net Yellow Bread Milk Wheat Cat
Field Cow Cage Butterfly Cheese Hot
3. Ranking of the means for the Mann-Whitney test:
4. Calculation of the Mann-Whitney test:
Na = 7 and Nb = 7
To calculate U, the values above are substituted in the following equation –
U = Na Nb + Na(Na + 1) - Ra where Ra equals the sum of all ranks)
2
Sol: U = 7 x 7 + 7(7 + 1) – 67.5
2
U = 49 + 56 – 67.5
2
U = 9.5
And U’ is calculated –
U’ = Na Nb – U
U’ = 49 – 9.5
U’ = 39.5