Will participants have a better recall of words when they are presented in an organised list?

WILL PARTICIPANTS HAVE A BETTER RECALL OF WORDS WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED IN AN ORGANISED LIST?

ABSTRACT

This experiment was carried out by three psychology students to investigate the role of organisation in memory and whether organisation of material helps memory recall.

An opportunity sample of friends and relatives were asked to take part in the study. The sample comprised 34 participants aged between 16 and 60. There were two conditions and the participants were split equally between them. In Condition 1, participants studied a prepared organised list of words and in Condition 2 they studied a random list. Their memory was then tested by free recall. An independent design was used and the results analysed using the Mann-Whitney test.

The results showed that organisation does play an important role in memory. Participants who studied the organised list of words recalled significantly more words then those who studied the random list. This supports the findings of other studies into the role of organisation in memory.

BACKGROUND

Memory is an essential part of the human make-up and without it society as we know it would not exist.

Whilst there are still questions about how memories are created, stored and retrieved, it seems clear from studies that have been carried out that the more organised information is, the easier the recall is.

Bousfield (1953) showed that even when words were presented in a random order, many participants use some form of categorisation in order to aid their recall. Bousfield took lists of words from several different categories, such as animals or cities, and randomised them. Participants were asked to memorise the list of words and then later were asked to recall as many words as possible. Many of the participants used self imposed categories in order aid their recall of the word list.

Other studies have looked at whether pre-organised information is easier to recall. Tulving has conducted much research into ‘cued recall’. Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) studied the effects of cued recall. Participants were read list of words which were all under a category name. They were asked to memorise the words but not the category headings and were then split into two groups. When the first group were asked to recall as many words as possible, they were given the category headings to aid them (cued recall). The second group were asked to free recall. The group which were given the category headings recalled more words; suggesting that organisation into categories aids memory retrieval.

Bower (1969) also studied the effects of organisation on memory. Again participants were split into two groups. Each group was shown a total of 112 words separated onto four cards. One group had cards on which the words were presented in logical branching diagrams, and the second group had cards on which the words were presented randomly on the branches. The process of studying the cards and recalling as many words as they could was repeated four times. The group whose cards had been presented in a logical manner recalled all 112 words in the final two recalls; the other group averaged just 70 words on the final recall. The study again suggests that material presented in logical categories is more easily stored and recalled from memory.

Other investigations have been undertaken into whether memory is improved by participants organising material into categories themselves. Wittrock and Carter (1975) used lists similar to those used by Bower but the ordering of the words was in a random format. Half of the participants were asked to simply copy out the list of words, whilst the other half were asked to order them logically before writing them down. Recall was greater in those who had been asked to organise the lists of words themselves. They also carried out the same experiment but with organised lists of words. Again recall was greater in the groups that had been asked to impose their own organisation on the lists suggesting that recall will be greater when the learner has some input into the organisation of the material.

Mandler (1967) also used self categorisation within his study. Participants were given words printed on cards and asked to organise them into categories (at least 2 but no more than 7). These participants recalled more words than those who had been given words as a random list. Mandler also found that the more categories participants had used, the greater the number of words recalled. This suggests that the greater the organisation of material, the better the memory storage and retrieval. It also appears that in order to aid recall, actively organising information is at least as important as the intention ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The most efficient learners were those that actively sought to categorise the material to be learned, however, most people only did this when they were asked to do so.

All of the above studies arrive at the same conclusion; that the better the organisation of information, the better the recall of that information, particularly when that information has been organised by the learner.

Aim:

The investigations discussed above all conclude that logically organised information is easier to recall than disorganised material.

This study aims to investigate whether lists of categorised words are better recalled than lists of random words using experimenter-imposed organisation following the same approach used by Bower.

Experimental Hypothesis:

Directional Hypothesis: Participants who memorise words in categorised lists will recall more words than participants who memorise words from a random list.

Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in the number of words recalled whether participants are given words in an organised or random list.

METHOD

Design

This experiment was undertaken using an Independent Measures design as each participant was selected for only one of the two possible conditions (either to remember words from an organised list (Condition 1) or from a random one (Condition2)).

This design was chosen over the Repeated Measures design as otherwise participants would have the advantage of already having learnt the list of words in a different format.

17 participants were given the organised list of words to remember and 17 were given the random list. Each participant undertook this task only once.

The Dependent Variable was the number words correctly recalled. The Independent Variable is how the list of words was organised (either a random or organised list).

Extraneous Variables to be considered were participant and environmental. Participant variables included reading ability, age, emotional state, demand characteristics etc. Environmental variables incorporated time of day (if it was too early or too late participants may be tired) or external distractions. In order to try and minimise some of these variables time of day was limited to between 9am and 5pm. Participants were also asked to turn off mobile phones and televisions to limit distractions.

Apparatus

The following materials were used to conduct the experiment; typed lists of organised and unorganised words, standardised instructions, de-brief document, pen, paper and clock (with a second hand). Copies of the word lists, instructions and de-brief can be found in the Appendices.

A calculator was also used to undertake the later statistical analysis (see Appendix 4 for calculations).

Participants

A total of 34 participants were used, split between 3 experimenters. Each experimenter worked with an even number of participants to ensure equal numbers were used for each of the two conditions.

Friends and family were most accessible to each of the experimenters and therefore Opportunity Sampling was used for the purposes of this study. It was agreed that the age parameters would be set between 16 and 60. It was also agreed that gender was unimportant for the purposes of this experiment.

To decide which participants were placed into each group randomisation was used. This was undertaken by picking names out of a hat or using a shuffling process.

Procedure

In order to test the hypotheses a list of 20 words was used, each word containing no more than 6 letters each. The organised list was separated into four categories with appropriate subject headings (see Appendix 1 for lists).

The 34 participants were randomly allocated into two groups.

To ensure that each participant was treated and tested in the same way the study was controlled within strict time parameters.

To ensure that all participants received the same instructions, standardised ones were used (see Appendix 2) and read out to each of the participants.

For Condition 1 each participant was required to study a prepared organised list of 20 words for exactly 1 minute. They were then given a pen and blank piece of paper and allocated 2 minutes to write down as many of those words as they could remember.

For Condition 2 each participant was required to study a prepared unorganised list of 20 words for exactly 1 minute. They were then given a pen and blank piece of paper and allocated 2 minutes to write down as many of those words as they could remember.

Following the test a de-briefing statement (see Appendix 3) was read to all the participants in order to cover the ethical issue of confidentiality. This was important to reassure participants that they would remain anonymous.

RESULTS

Results table to show number of words recalled correctly by participants

Bar Chart to show mean number of words recalled correctly for each condition

(See Appendix 4 for calculations)

Treatment of Results

The Mann-Whitney statistical test was used in order to show the difference between the numbers of words recalled for the two conditions. This was considered appropriate as it is a test of difference and suitable for use with independent data.

Using the Mann-Whitney test the size of the scores was considered for both conditions to clarify whether there is a significant difference between the 2 conditions. The smallest value (U1) of 75 wais lower than the critical value of 87, signifying that the difference between the results for the two conditions were not due to chance alone.

Full statistical analysis can be found in Appendix 4

Interpretation of Results

The results of this study demonstrated that participants clearly recalled more words from an organised list (mean 15.24) than from a random list (mean 12.35). The Mann-Whitney test indicates that there is a less than 5% chance that this result is not due to chance, therefore supporting the Directional Hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis is rejected.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study support findings of other similar studies as discussed in the Background material, clearly showing that a better recall was shown by participants who had learnt from categorised lists than random ones. The Mann-Whitney test confirms that there is a less then 5% possibility that this is due to chance. A directional hypothesis was chosen as previous studies that had been conducted indicated that this was a likely outcome to the experiment. This hypothesis was held up in the results.

Mandler, Wittrock & Carter and Bousfield all showed that memory was greatly improved when the material to be learnt was clearly organised. The participants with the two highest scores from Condition 2 (the random word list) listed their recalled words in self imposed categories which supports Bousfield’s (1953) findings. Mandler also found the most efficient learners were those that actively sought to place their own categorisation on the lists.

Mandler (1967) and Wittrock & Carter (1975) showed that recall is even more effective when the participants are asked to categorise the words for themselves. This could be an area for further study conducting the experiment with 3 Conditions: Condition 1 - those who memorise experimenter imposed categorised lists; Condition 2 - those who memorise random lists of words; Condition 3 - those who are given random lists but asked to categorise the words for themselves before memorising them.

As previously discussed we rejected the Repeated Measures design for this experiment as participants would have the advantage of already having learnt the list of words in a different format. However further studies could be conducted using the Repeated Measures design following type of investigation undertaken by Mandler (1967), where participants were given four chances to study the word lists. A greater number of words would need to be used in order to undertake this type of investigation.

One of the methodological limitations of this study was the extraneous variables that were present. For example there were several participants that were experiencing conditions or circumstances that may have greatly affected their performance in the tests, for example:

One participant was repeatedly interrupted by her children throughout.
One participant suffered from short term memory difficulties due to neurological treatment
One participant undertook the test after a particularly stressful day at work

These particular participants all had low scoring results in Condition 1.

In future studies it may be more beneficial to try to carry out the investigation in ‘laboratory conditions’ rather than in participants’ own homes to limit distraction and ensure that all participants carried out the test at the same time of day.

Other factors that may have affected the participants are ‘demand characteristics’. Knowing that they are taking part in a psychology experiment may have meant that the participants behaved differently when in a ‘normal’ situation e.g. the situation may have spurred on some participants, whereas others may have felt nervous which could have hindered their performance.

Allocating participants into groups should have been carried out in the same manner by each of the experimenters, and in future experiments perhaps the use of Random Number Tables would be more appropriate.

Upon conducting the study it was also discovered that although the words had been shuffled on a computer to compile the ‘random’ list, the computer had placed them in alphabetical order which imposed some form of organisation onto the list which was pointed out by some of the participants. The randomisation of the words would have to be improved if further studies were undertaken.

It had been decided for the purposes of this study that gender was not important. However, further studies could investigate whether there is a difference in memory recall between genders. The same study could be repeated but in this instance four Conditions would need to be satisfied: Condition 1 – female participants to study a prepared organised list of words; Condition 2 – female participants to study a prepared random list of words; Condition 3 – male participants to study a prepared random list of words; Condition 4 – male participants to study a prepared random list of words.

This study also did not take into account any possible cultural variations.

Investigations into memory are important in finding ways to help people learn, particularly in an educational or work environment. Teachers should use structures within their lessons and encourage students to attach meaning to what they are learning, so that later retrieval of the information will be easier. In addition, children and students should be encouraged to attach some of their own organisation when studying new subjects.

REFERENCES

Bousfield (1953), The Effect of Organization on Memory, Beginning Psychology, p75

Bower (1969), The Effect of Organization on Memory, Beginning Psychology, p75

Mandler (1967), Category Clustering, Simply Psychology (Michael Eysenk), p16

Mandler (1967), The Effect of Organization on Memory, Beginning Psychology, p77

Wittrock and Carter (1975), The Effect of Organization on Memory, Beginning Psychology, p76

General Text Books Used:

Cardwell, M., Clark, L. and Meldrum, C. [2002], Psychology for A Level, Harper Collins Publishers (Second Edition)

Statistical Tests, Starting Statistics, pp41-43

APPENDIX 1:

LIST OF 20 WORDS:

Four legged animals (non domesticated)

Lion

Puma

Tiger

Wolf

Zebra

Buildings (accommodation types)

Bed-sit

Chalet

Flat

House

Hotel

Family Members

Cousin

Niece

Sister

Son

Uncle

Body Parts (singular)

Chest

Face

Foot

Hand

Thumb

LIST OF 20 WORDS

Bed-sit

Chalet

Chest

Cousin

Face

Flat

Foot

Hand

Hotel

House

Lion

Niece

Puma

Sister

Son

Thumb

Tiger

Uncle

Wolf

Zebra

APPENDIX 2: STANDARDISED INSTRUCTIONS

Here is a list of 20 words. You will be given one minute to study this list. After this time a blank sheet and pen will be provided and you will be asked to recall as many words as you can remember in two minutes.

APPENDIX 3: DE-BRIEF

Thank you very much for taking part in my memory experiment. Please note that you are free to withdraw from this experiment at any time and please be assured that the information gathered from you will be kept completely confidential.

APPENDIX 4: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Ranking of scores:

MANN-WHITNEY TEST

FORMULA:

R = total of the ranks in one of the groups

N1 = number of cases in the smaller group

N2 = number of cases in the largest group

U1 = N1N2 + N1(N1+1) - R

U2 = N1N2 – U1

Calculation:

R = 367.5

N1 = 17

N2 = 17

U1 = (17x17) + 17x(17+1) - 367

U1 = 75

U2 = (17x17) – 75

U2 = 214

CRITICAL VALUE = 87

Organisation in Memory Claire Armitage

March 2003 Page of