However, they did not state whether it is a certain type of information that girls seem to process more efficiently or whether they process all information better than boys. This is relevant to this A Level study because if females are able to process more information on the whole, then they are more likely to perform well in a recall test, as they will take in more information than their male counterparts. Conversely, if they are only able to process certain types of information better than boys, then this chance is reduced. This leads back to the weakness of the memory model, since we are not aware what type of information is to be recalled better. The ability to take in more information, or words in this case is important to this investigation because the recency effect does not involve information being stored into long-term memory. It is the amount of words taken in from the sensory store and those that have been transferred into Short Term Memory that actually matters. So, if girls have a cognitive advantage concerning information processing, then it may also affect their ability to perform on a recall test.
Dorner (1976) also provided further evidence for the difference in brain structure between the two sexes through his experiment on rats. It was significant as it was useful empirical evidence that showed the extent to which male and female brains differed. However, in doing so, many ethical guidelines were broken whilst conducting this research. This is because the animals may have been harmed, which seriously weakens the study by making it unethical. In addition, the findings may not be generalised to humans since there is ‘interspecies difference.’ Therefore, the findings are immensely weakened.
Nevertheless, Baron (1996) disagrees with these psychologists and argues that there is no cognitive difference between males and females and argues that their theories are based on a superficial analysis of weak evidence. This continuing controversy is another reason for this 6th Form investigation because it will not only either support or refute previous work, but will also provide the crucial empirical evidence required, which is lacking in this area.
5. DESIGN
a) Variables
The independent variable for this investigation was the gender of the participants. This meant that the researcher could control it, so a cause and effect relationship could be inferred. In other words, it could be established whether gender does, in fact affect the ability to recall.
The dependent variable was the recall of words and was affected by the independent variable, which was manipulated by the researcher.
There were also a number of possible extraneous variables, which could have affected the investigations, but were controlled through a number of measures. These included:
- Unclear instructions- it was controlled by repeating the instructions and speaking clearly. This was the main extraneous variable because it could have affected the outcome of the investigation since the participants may have misunderstood the instructions, thus would have distorted the results.
- Noise- this was overcome by placing the participants in a quiet room, away from the noise. It would have affected the participants concentration so could have affected the ability to recall, which could have caused anomalies in the results and undermined the focus of the investigation, as it could be deepley flawed, therefore not very valuable.
b) Condition
One condition was used for this investigation because participants were asked to perform one task; the recall test. The researcher could then compare the data from the two groups since they took part in the same task. Also, it eliminates order effects such as fatigue and practice, which could slightly affect performance.
c) Sampling method
Convenience sampling was used to select participants because it was the quickest and best form of sampling for the researcher because the participants could be collected with ease. This is because not only did it save time, but it was also the cheapest method available to the researcher. This would not be easy for the researcher at another location since the unfamiliar surroundings, would have taken longer to gather the required number of participants. Of course, stratified sampling would be ideal because one could divide the participants into gender groups and take into account other variables such as IQ, which could affect results, but could not be used due to time constraints and financial reasons.
d) Experimental Design
An independent measures design was used because there were two groups of participants to be compared: male and female. Also because there was only one condition, therefore it would allow a direct comparison between the two groups of participants. The advantage of this is that there are no order effects such as practice or fatigue, which could affect the outcome of the investigation. This is when participants may perform extremely well on the tests due to prior practice or ease and is termed, ‘the ceiling effect’ or when the opposite may occur, known as ‘the floor effect.’ However, the major weakness is the individual differences between participants. There may well be individual differences between the participants, which could systematically confound the results.
e) Geographical Location
The sample was taken from the urban area of Hounslow. The area was not important in this investigation, but was merely chosen to make it convenient for the researcher to carry out the study. This is because it allowed the researcher to collect the participants because they were familiar, hence more willing to take part. This advantage would not be possible if an unfamiliar urban area was used.
The investigation was undertaken at Cranford Community College. This location was important for this investigation because the familiar surroundings would make the participants more at ease and enable the researcher to collect the required participants quicker. The researcher could also generalise from the results to other urban areas with a similar age and ethnic make up.
f) Target Population
The target population was 16-18 years olds from Cranford Community College. This group was chosen because it was easier for the researcher to carry out the experiments and because no parental consent was needed which might have delayed the investigation, if some parents had not agreed to their child taking part.
g) Statistical test
Chi squared-A non-parametric test was used because the data was nominal, since it was sorted into whether participants demonstrated the recency effect or not. The data was suitable as nominal data as More importantly because this investigation was comparing the recall of boys and girl, so was looking for a difference. A non-parametric test was used because it is less powerful than a parametric test, so it only reveals ranks, which were needed in this investigation. Meanwhile, a parametric test reveals the difference between individual scores. Additionally, a non-parametric test is much quicker and simpler to use than a parametric test and as this investigation is limited in time, it was better to opt for the former.
h) Level of significance (LOS)
A 0.05 LOS was used because it was the best for this investigation. This is because a higher LOS could increase the chances of a Type error I, whilst a lower LOS would increase the chances of a type II error.
i) Equipment/Apparatus
- Twenty pens
- Twenty papers
- Twenty chairs
- Twenty tables
- Standardised instructions (see appendix)
- Briefing speech (see appendix)
- Debriefing speech (see appendix)
- List of words (see appendix)
- Chi-square statistical test and level of significance.
- Table of significance for Chi-square (see appendix)
- A scientific calculator
- Empty classroom
- Consent form (see appendix)
- Calculations for mean and standard deviation (see appendix)
- Oxford dictionary
j) Procedure
- A word list was constructed.
- An empty classroom was chosen.
- A sample of twenty participants was taken using convenience sampling: Ten females and ten males.
- Participants were approached and asked if they wanted to take part in the investigation.
- If the did not agree, they were thanked for considering it.
- If they agreed they were given a permission slip (see appendix) and asked to sign it and return it the next the day. This was because the participant had time to consider and be sure that they wanted to take part in the investigation.
- After twenty participants were collected, they were taken to an empty classroom and told to sit down on the chairs provided.
- Following this, participants were provided with pens and papers and told to await the instructions.
- The standardised instructions were then read about by the researcher (see appendix) and participants were then told that they could ask any questions if they were unsure.
- The researcher then read out a list of words followed by a short pause.
- Participants were then instructed to write down as many words as they could remember on the sheet provided and told to wait until everyone had finished, which would be announced by the researcher.
- After this, participants were debriefed. (See appendix)
- The results were then collated.
- The results were then analysed using the Chi-square statistical test.
- A table of significance was used to work out the significance of the results.
k) Ethical safeguards
Confidentiality was protected under all circumstances, as it was the most important ethic in the investigation. The reason why it is the key ethic is because it not only eliminates deception, but also relieves anxiety, which may be caused due to a fear of this. Keeping the documents secure and not writing participants name on the sheets protected this and they were also informed of this. (Refer to standardised instructions in appendix.) It was more important than the other ethics, as a breach of confidentiality can directly affect the other ethics. For example, if one were to disclose information about the participant, then it may cause distress/anxiety and may cause the participant to lose dignity. This would not only occur after the investigation, but also before as they would constantly be thinking about this consequence and could therefore affect their performance. Additionally, it would deceive the participants, since they were informed that their personal details would not be known to any other person. (Refer to standardised instructions in appendix.)
Distress/anxiety was also important and was controlled by informing the participants that they were allowed to walk away any time they wanted in order to avoid stress.
Participants were placed in comfortable surroundings, which were familiar to them to reduce the risk of anxiety. The debrief (see appendix) informed them about the nature of the experiment to stop them from worrying further.
Participants were treated respectfully as individual human beings and were given the chance to leave whenever they wanted, which gave them control and protected their dignity. They were also spoken to politely and in a respectful manner and there was no discrimination based on their gender because they were both treated the same.
Participants were informed about the true nature of the study in the debrief (see appendix) in order to address the issue of deception. They were also allowed to view their results if they wished and were not given wrong information.
A permission slip was given to the participants before they undertook the experiment in order to gain their consent. Participants were advised that they were not obliged to take part if they did not wish. The permission slips (see appendix) had to be signed and returned before the participant could take part in the investigation.
6) Results
The results showed that overall, participants recalled more words at the end of a list than the beginning or the middle. Therefore, illustrating the recency effect. The aim of the investigation was to determine whether gender has an effect on the recency effect. The researcher hypothesised that females would significantly recall more words at the end of a list than males; however, the investigation did not support this.
A graph to show the recency effect
The graph titled ‘A graph to show the recency effect’displays the recency effect and it is clear to see the trend that the words towards the end of the list are recalled better than those in the middle or the beginning. This can be clearly seen from the results (see appendix), as most of the participants were able to recall the last word: “Animal.” In contrast, many of the participants had difficulty in recalling the words placed in the middle of the list, apart from words 9 and 11. This is because the words in the middle of the list were not transferred to long-term memory, nor were they retained in short term memory, as it only had the capacity to hold between 5-9 items. Therefore it supports Miller’s (see introduction) assertion about the capacity of short term memory.
However, there is an anomaly in the results, which does not fit the pattern of the primacy and recency effect. This is word number 11: ‘book’ which was recalled nine times by the participants. This may have occurred possibly due to the weakness of the memory model, as it does not distinguish between different types of information. The word ‘book’ may have had personal connotations to the participants, thus is recalled a great amount of times because they were all students, so are acquainted with this word in their everyday vocabulary. This slightly weakens the results, as a clear trend of the primacy and recency effect is not demonstrated.
A graph to show recall for males and females
The graph above titled ‘a graph to show recall for males and females’ does not seem to show a clear relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. In other words there is no clear gender difference between recall, however, if analysed in detail, it is evident that word 20 was recalled more by females than males, therefore implying that females are able to perform slightly better on the recency effect, but not significantly better. Therefore the data needs to be analysed statistically using the mean and standard deviation, in order to provide a better indication of recall ability, which will also be used to support or refute the experimental hypothesis.
Overall, the results have been important to this area of Psychology, as they have provided crucial empirical evidence, which is lacking in this area. When placed alongside the broad context of Psychology, this investigation parallels the aims of the leading Psychologists such as Loftus, Gregory, Gfeller et al and Brice and Young (see introduction), as they aimed to understand the human brain and memory.
Discussion
Despite the findings of this investigation, it alone cannot be used to show that there is no gender difference because the previous research into gender (see introduction) has been seminal and has changed the focus of psychological research. Therefore, a broad implication of this should be applied in education. If females process information differently due to brain differences, then the way they are taught should be adapted to the students’ needs. Perhaps, the male students could be taught in a way that would aid them in processing information just as efficiently as their female counterparts. This may involve more physical interaction or extra support from the teacher. This would be important; as it could change the way children are educated and could possibly lead to student’s achieving higher.
The major weakness of this investigation was that the sample was not representative of the population because a convenience sample was used. This is problematic as it makes it difficult for the researcher to generalise the findings from this sample to the entire population. Therefore, the sampling method could have played a role in rejecting the experimental hypothesis because a convenience sample does not allow a representative selection. So, extraneous variables such as IQ could have distorted the results, but were not possible to control due to time constraints. This may have been addressed by using stratified sampling, which takes into account various factors, such as ethnicity and class and would have enabled the researcher to make a secure and confident generalisation.
To improve this, a stratified sampling method should be used, which would take
An additional limitation was the sample size. The investigation consisted of only twenty participants, which did not allow a confident generalisation. Therefore this investigation cannot be used solely to state that there is no significant cognitive difference between males and females that could affect recall. In order to make this investigation stronger, the research would need use a larger sample size, approximately 100 participants, only then would the findings of this investigation be significant and could be placed alongside the broader research into memory, such as Loftus, Gregory, Bruce and Young and Gfeller et al. (see introduction)
Another issue associated with generalisation is whether the location was adequate in allowing a secure generalisation. The urban area of Hounslow was used, which consists of a wide ethnic make-up. Therefore, it would not be possible to generalise these findings to other areas of the UK, such as Richmond, which typically consist of white, middle class people. Therefore the findings of the investigation are undermined by not being able to apply these findings to all areas of the UK.
Further research should be conducted into cognitive differences between males and females, as the previous research is inadequate in building a strong theory regarding gender differences, due to a lack of empirical evidence. The research that currently exists does not effectively examine the effect of gender as a variable, nor does it adequately explain why there would be a difference in recall. Turkheimer and Farace do begin to do this, but need to provide a thorough explanation of the reasons for the difference in brain structure. Only then will their research be regarded as significant and innovative into this area of Psychology.
Conclusion
The experimental hypothesis is rejected, as there is no significant difference between males and females on the recency effect. Therefore the null was accepted, which stated:
There will be no significant difference between males and females in the recall of words placed at the end of a list and any difference is due to chance.
References
Dorner, G. Hormones and Brain differentiation. Amsterdam: Elvsevier. In Gross, R. (2001). Psychology. The science of mind and behaviour. Hodder and Stoughton.
Martindale, C. (1991) Cognitive Psychology: A neutral-network approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. In Bernstein, Clarke-Stewart, Roy, Wickens (1997)
Psychology- 4th edition. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cardwell, M. (1996), The complete A-Z psychology handbook. Hodder and Stoughton
Malim, T and Birch, A. (1996) Introductory Psychology. Macmillan press limited.
Cox, E. (2002) AS Psychology for AQA Specification B. Oxford University Press
APPENDIX 1
RAW DATA
Males
Females
APPENDIX 2
Briefing Speech
Thank you for taking part in this investigation. My name is Kasam and I am a year 13 student currently studying A Levels. I am required to carry out an investigation and therefore need your help. Should you wish to leave at any time, you may do so. You will be advised shortly on what to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, otherwise we shall begin.
Consent form
Name_____________________________
I agree to take part in the investigation.
I am aware that I can discontinue my participation in the investigation at any time.
Signed___________________ Date_____________________
Debriefing speech
I would like to thank you for taking part in my investigation. The purpose of this investigation was to test whether gender affects a person’s ability to recall on memory test. The specific aspect was the recency effect. This is the last few words on a list and is argued by psychologists to be recalled higher than the words in the middle. Your participation was greatly appreciated and I would like to thank you again for your help.
APPENDIX 3
Standardised instructions
- Please take a seat.
- Listen carefully when I read out the list of words and please refrain from talking whilst I am reading out the words.
- On the sheet provided, write down as many words as you can remember from the word list that I read out.
- When you have finished, raise your hand to notify me or wait until everyone has finished.
- Thank you for taking part in my investigation. Your results will be available soon, should you wish to view them. I would like to assure you that your names or personal details will not appear on the data, neither will it be available to anyone else.
Calculations
Mean:
females = 2+4+2+2+8= 18/5 = 3.6
males = 4+6+4+1+6= 21/5 = 4.2
Standard Deviation:
Formula for standard deviation:
x = value
= mean
Females
∑= 27.2/4= √6.8= 2.607680962
Males
∑= 17.6/4= √4.29= 2.071231518
Chi-squared:
A= 10x7/20= 3.5
B= 10x7/20= 3.5
C= 13x10/20= 6.5
D= 13x10/20= 6.5
A= 5-3.5=1.5-0.5= 1²= 1/3.5 =0.29
B= 2-3.5= -1.5-0.5= -1²= 1/3.5= 0.29
C= 5-6.5= -1.5-0.5= -2²= 4/6.5= 0.62
D= 8-6.5= 1.5-0.5= 1²= 1/6.5= 0.15
0.29(A) + 0.29(B) + 0.62(C) + 0.15(D)= 1.35
degrees of freedom = (r-1)(c-1)
= (2-1)(2-1)
=1
APPENDIX 4
Word list:
