Experimental (Directional) hypothesis (H¹): There will be statistically significantly more recall of words put into a hierarchy than the recall of words put into an unorganised fashion.
Due to the fact that there were two separate groups of students under different conditions the experiment were using independent samples which reduced order effects. Participants with learning difficulties or dyslexia were sensitively identified on the consent form (Appendix 1) and their data was eliminated by discarding their data once collected. This improved the accuracy of testing the hypothesis by controlling a variable. Other controls in the experiment were that participants were tested in their usual class room because it did not add any distractions whilst testing them. Each participant was directed using standardised instructions (Appendix 2) to eliminate experimenter bias and the instructions were sensitive, polite and direct. A consent form (Appendix 1) enabled the experimenters to give the participants the knowledge that they can withdraw from the experiment at any time that their data is anonymous, that the experimenters aim to be sensitive and not demeaning. Also the consent form will include notification after the experiment they will be debriefed and that they will not come under any distress or harm during this experiment. Although the consent will not enable the participants to be fully informed as there was justified deception. The deception will enable the participants to recall the words using their honest memory capacity and not answer to appeal to the experimenter; this kind of deception will not harm the participant or leave any effects after debriefing. A debriefing form (Appendix 3) informed the participants of the true nature of the experiment, it gave them the opportunity of being able to access their data at a future date as it had contact details of both experimenters and it also informed them that they can withdraw their data from the experiment at any time if they wish to. Another control was that all of the words were identical in both conditions and that within each condition all participants viewed either Page A (appendix 4) or Page B (appendix 5).
Independent variable: the presentation of words (organised hierarchy or unorganised)
Dependant variable: the number of words participant recalls
An opportunity sample of two groups was used from a population of 16-25 years olds from a Sixth form college in middle to upper class area. There were a sample of X and another sample of X. Using an opportunity sample gave the experiment mundane realism as there was a variety of individuals that may not have taken part if it was an experiment in which you have to volunteer for. Also an opportunity sample means we were more economical on time as we did not have to wait for participants to forget the first condition. Due to the fact that memory was being measured in the experiment the ratio between Males and females was not necessary to control. Two classes were used from a first year of tertiary education, a class of students studying X and another studying X. There was a possibility that some of the participants had psychology knowledge which may have affected the results. Using two different groups of participants means that the experiment was less economical on participants.
- Consent Form (appendix 1)
- Standardised instructions (appendix 2)
- Debrief Form (appendix 3)
- Page A- Hierarchy of the words (appendix 4)
- Page B- Unorganised order of the words (appendix 5)
- Stop watch
- Pen/Pencil for each participant
- Pass one consent form to each participant
- Students were be asked if they wanted to participate in the experiment
- Read Step X on the standardised instructions and wait for X minutes for all participants to complete the form.
- Standardised instructions were read out (Appendix x)
- Each participant was given a piece of paper (group A had an ‘A’ on the page, and group B had a ‘B’ on the page)
- The slide with the hierarchy (organized/non-organized) was shown to the participants for 2 minutes.
- The participants were asked to write the words they saw on the board, as well as they remembered (see Standardised Instructions- appendix X) for 5 minutes
- The sheets were collected in by the experimenters
- Finally, a debriefing form was given to the participants. (appendix x)
Condition A - organised hierarchy
In total 2 participants’ data removed from the results
1 non-English participant
1 mildly dyslexic
Total participants – 11
Condition B – non-organised hierarchy
In total 3 participants’ data removed from the results
3 non-English participants
No dyslexic participants
All together 11 participants
Table showing the mean and range statistics for the recall of words under different conditions
The mean for Condition A (X = 14.7) was higher than for Condition B (X = 12.8) and the median also suggests that condition A was more successful than condition B when participants were recalling words, as Condition A = 15 in comparison to condition B = 13.
The Mann Whitney U Test is used because it shows statistically the difference between the two conditions. It is used to calculate the difference between condition A (organised words) and condition B (unorganised words). When tested at 0.05 significance level U > 30 (critical value). Therefore the directional null hypothesis (H°), there will be no difference between the recall of words put into a hierarchy and the recall of words put into an unorganised fashion, is accepted. All working can be found in Appendix 6.
Over all, the Null hypothesis was accepted because the analysed data proved this. Firstly the mean of words recalled was calculated for both condition A and condition B. Comparing the mean values showed that the participants in Condition A recalled more words than students in condition B. On average the participants in condition A recalled 2 more words than the participants in condition B, the median values showed this. From the mean and median suggested the experimental hypothesis (H¹) was correct. The Mann-Whitney U test is the more accurate statistical test therefore the results show more proof of which hypothesis is correct. The result of the Mann-Whitney test was that the null hypothesis (H°) was correct and accepted.
Also the participants in condition A often wrote their recalled words in a similar format to the hierarchy shown to them on page A. On the other hand the participants in Condition B were seen to organise their recalled words in a list or a form that did not group the words of a similar subject.
The results of the experiment disagreed with all of the studies previously stated, probably because it was inaccurate in some way. First, Bousfield presented chunking and also carried out an experiment which proved that words are categorised when asked to recall them freely. It was found in this experiment that most students recalled their words in a list although some did use a similar format to the hierarchy that they were shown. Next Mandler produced results from an experiment which showed that if more (between two and seven) categories were used when recalling words the amount of recalled words would be higher. The experiment did agree with Mandler’s theory, six categories were used and the amount of words recalled was, on average, quite high.
An accurate experiment was carried out as many of the variables were successfully controlled. The dyslexic or non-English speaking participants were eliminated from the data in which was used in the results in order to only test memory without being affected by how well the participant understands each word. There were six categories of words and 27 words in total; this could have limited how well the words were recalled. Mandler (1967) proved that if more categories were used when memorising words the amount recalled was higher.
The students who may have had difficulty comprehending the words shown to them were eliminated sensitively. On the other hand only eleven participants were used from each group, if more participants were used it would in crease the validity of the results, for example the results would have more generalisability. The participants recalled a high percentage of the words presented to them but the effect of organisation could be present if the were asked to free-recall by voice like in Bousfield’s experiment.
Firstly the environment was not controlled entirely, there was information surrounding the participants which could have affected the data for example if a word used in the experiment also featured on a poster. An opportunity sample was accessible and easy in the experiment but the fact that some participants may have studied psychology may have affected the results. If a participant had access to the area of psychology studied in the experiment demand characteristics may have affected the data. If the experiment were to be done in a more efficient way the participants should have never had access to a level of psychology equivalent or related to the one studied in this experiment, organisation in memory. Also the experiment should be in an appropriate environment therefore no stimulus should be available to the participants because it will lower the effects of interference. Finally, there were six different categories of words and possibly if more categories were used the experimental hypothesis may have been proven correct.
- Eysenck, M. (1993) Principles of Cognitive Psychology Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Pg: 81 – 84
- Gross, R. & McIlveen, R. (1997) Cognitive Psychology Hodder & Stoughton Pg: 103-4
- Baddeley, A. (1990) Human Memory – Theory and practice Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Pg: 180 – 86
- Bower, G.H. et al (1969) ‘Hierarchical ; Retrieve
Appendix 1
Consent Form
Maria Tross,
Dachinii Lee Hewitt,
The purpose of this research is to investigate the duration of short term memory and the effects of acoustic and visual stimuli.
You will be asked to take part in an experiment in which you will have to memorize a set of words and their places on the screen, and a couple of minutes later, rewrite them, in the same way they were first presented, and at all times to follow the experimenters guidelines to which has been asked from you.
You have the following rights:
- right to anonymity
- right to withdraw at any time
- right to be protected from any physical or psychological harm
- right to confidentiality
The submission of yourself to take part in this research project is with the full acknowledge of the nature of this study, and with the understanding of what you are asked to do.
Name: ………………………………………..
…………………………………..
(signature)
Date: …../…../………
Henley College, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon,
Tel: 01491 579988
Thank you for your participation.
Appendix 2
- Ensure all participants are seated in from of a desk. If not, ask politely “Please can you all take a seat in from of your desks?”
- The consent forms are handed out to the participant furthest to the left, and systematically continued to all participants.
- One of the experimenters asks the participants to “fill out the consent form in front on you, if you agree with the terms”
- Wait until all participants have filled out the form
- The forms are then collected in the same way as handed out
- All the participants are thanked “Thank you for completing the consent forms, nevertheless if you have chosen not to sign the consent form then you have been automatically been withdrawn from the following study”
-
Each participant is given a blank piece of paper to write on (group A will receive a blank page with a small A on it, and group B will have a B on their piece of paper)
-
One of the experimenters opens the document with the words on (organised for group A/non-organised for group B) followed by “you will now be shown a slide on this screen, and please do not write anything down yet”
- The slide is shown for 3 minutes
-
“Please can you now write down as many words as you can remember”
- The participants are given 4 minutes to write down the recalled worlds
- The sheets of paper are collected in by one of the experimenters
- The Debriefing Form is handed out to each participant
- Finally, the participants are thanked for their participation
Appendix 3
Debriefing form
Thank you for your participation.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the organisation of memory, and replicated Bower’s original experiment.
As a participant, you have the following rights:
- You may withdraw your data at any time
- Your data will be held in strict confidentiality
- There will be no psychological or physical after-effects
If you would like to withdraw your data, or have any other questions about the nature of the study, please contact us via:
Email: or
No: 0788 069 29 08
