The aim of this experiment is to examine whether mnemonic systems using interacting imagery increase recall of a list of twelve pairs of word associates. This study is a partial replication of Bower’s (1970) “Imagery as a Relational Organizer in Associative Learning” experiment. The Bower (1970) study found mental imagery improves paired associate learning relative to overt rehearsal. The study found that word plus imaginal code increased recall as it is a more distinctive, isolated and outstanding stimulus complex than the word alone, and this means the “paired items are more resistant to intralist generalization from other pairs in the list, so the associations suffer less interference and recall is higher” (Bower, 1970, p.529). Moreover the reliability of encoding is a major factor in recall, and imaginal encoding of a stimulus word is more reliable than verbal encoding. This is because the functional cues in verbal encoding vary, from letters to phonemes for example, and this lowers recall ability. Moreover other studies have found that interaction in the imagery is a very important factor in recall (Wollen, Weber & Lowry, 1972). The Wollen et al. (1972) study found that interaction in the imagery is even more effective when relevant to word pairs, this is in comparison to non-interacting and bizarre images. It is therefore key that the mental imagery group is instructed to use interacting images to ensure the mnemonic is used correctly and at its most efficient. Being a partial replication of Bower’s (1970) work it is expected the experimental results should support this and therefore the hypothesis for this study is that recall will be higher for participants in the interacting mental imagery condition than the word repetition condition in relation to a list of twelve associate word pairs.
Method
Design
This experiment used the ‘between-groups’ design. The independent variables ‘repetition’ and ‘imagery,’ were the two conditions of the survey where ‘repetition’ participants used overt rote word repetition to learn a list of word pair associates and ‘imagery’ participants used an interacting mental image to learn the associates. The dependant variable was the number of correct responses.
Participants
A total of sixty-eight first year psychology students from the University of Bath took part in this survey. The participants were aged between 18 and 35, with 50 females and 18 males. The participants were split into two groups, the first ‘repetition’ group had 46 people with an average age of 19.11, and 23.9% males compared with 76.1% females. The second ‘imagery’ group had 22 people with an average age of 19.14, with 31.8% males compared to 68.2% females.
Materials
Each participant had a protocol sheet (Reisberg, Gleitman & Gleitman, 2004). This gathered the participant’s demographic information such as their sex and age. They had to confirm what condition they were in (the ‘repetition’ group were condition 1, and the ‘imagery’ group condition 2). Finally there was space left for their twelve recalled second members of the paired associates. Additionally, there was the list of 12 pairs of nouns (Reisberg, Gleitman & Gleitman, 2004) that was read to both conditions, in the same order, but not handed out to the participants (see Figure 1 in the appendix). A stopwatch was also used to time the gap between each pair of words as they were read out.
Procedure
Before the lecture in which the experiment occurred the class was divided into two groups. It was decided a systematic random sample would be the best way to divide the participants, as it would give groups with a wide range of learning styles and memory abilities. The split was done by the date of birth of each participant; odd birthdays were in condition 1, whilst even birth dates were in condition 2. The two groups came to the class at different times and upon arriving the groups were read aloud their instructions (see Figure 2 in appendix for the verbatim instructions each group received.) The list of 12 paired associates was then read out to each group, with a six second pause between each pair of words (the order of the pairs was the same for both conditions). The protocol sheets were then distributed out to the participants. One of each of the associated words was read to the participants, and they were asked to recall its pair word (the order of pairs was made different from the original reading, so participants didn’t remember pairs through order, the new order being the same for both conditions). Participants were then asked to mark their own answers when the experiment had finished, with words recalled that were very similar to their associate allowed, but had to be checked with the assessor, an example is dishtowel and tea towel. Participants were then debriefed, being told what they had just done and why, and had any of their queries answered and finally thanked for their time.
Results
The summary of results for this experiment is found in Table 1, which shows the average recall score for the associated word pair test. The ‘imagery’ condition had the higher average recall score of 9.86, compared to the ‘repetition’ condition’s average of 5.72. An independent T-test revealed there was a significant difference between the averages for ‘imagery’ and ‘repetition’ and so the hypothesis was supported. In both conditions some participants recalled the full 12 pairs. As Table 1 shows however, the minimum recall scored differed in the two conditions, ‘imagery’s’ lowest score was 2, compared with 0 in ‘repetition’ further supporting the hypothesis, that it is harder to recall the paired associates using repetition.
Table 1
Summary of Recall to Associated Word Pair Test
Discussion
Prior to implementing the research it was hypothesised that the mnemonic system of interacting mental imagery would improve recall of associate word pairs. The results of this experiment support this, as Table 1 demonstrates the ‘repetition’ condition had an average recall of 5.72, significantly lower than ‘imagery’s’ 9.86. Moreover the minimum recall scores also support the hypothesis, as the ‘repetition’ conditions lowest score was less than ‘imagery’ highlighting the fact interacting mental imagery makes recall easier.
The results from this experiment not only support the hypothesis, but also support past research that interacting mental imagery improves recall (Bower, 1970; Roediger III, 1980; Wollen, Weber & Lowry, 1972). It is clear from this experiment that mnemonic systems especially that of mental imagery improve recall, and the theories relating to this hold true, these being that imagery forms stronger associations, and is a more adaptable method at creating a relational connective between the two nouns to be associated. Moreover imagery increased reliability of stimulus encoding and increased relational association improving recall ability. This research also supports the “Levels of Processing” hypothesis (Craik, Lockhart, 1972) as the deep processing method of ‘imagery’ did give better memory retention that the shallow processing of ‘repetition’ as predicted. It would be interesting to extend this experiment by testing non-interacting mental images to discover to what extent past research’s claims that interaction is key in the improvement of recall is correct (Wollen, Weber & Lowry, 1972). Additionally comparisons of different mnemonic systems such as the method of loci or peg system to ascertain which method of mnemonics is most effective would help extend this experiment to improve knowledge of mnemonic systems. Moreover bizarreness has been hypothesised to effect imagery recall and so testing this in comparison to interaction could yield fascinating results.
This study was effective in many ways, the use of the twelve word pair associates was an accurate way of testing the effectiveness of mnemonic systems, because it clearly showed mental imagery’s superiority in recall compared to overt rote repetition of the word pair. Also the two conditions had an even spread of participants, a similar gender proportion and age range and so it must be assumed that the spread of learning styles and memory abilities were also split fairly, a key factor in the reliability of these results. The marking in this experiment was lenient, but in this context it should not effect the results, as it was consistent, though if this study was comparing different mnemonic systems the marking would need to be stricter to get a clearer comparison of which worked best. If there was an opportunity to replicate this study, some ways to improve it would be to increase the number of participants, and widen the demographic from where the participants came from (for example wider age range, not all university students, or a wider spectrum of nationalities and cultures), to make this study more applicable to the wider world. Additionally the verbatim instructions could have been clearer as three participants results were removed prior to the analysis because they had not understood the instructions fully.
In conclusion this experiment clearly demonstrates that the mnemonic system of interacting mental imagery improves recall in relation to a list of twelve associate word pairs. These results strongly support the hypothesis but further evidence for the hypothesis could be found by studying the mnemonics effects in more contexts. The implication of this research is that mnemonic systems, especially that of interacting imagery does improve recall in relation to a list of words. Most people when trying to memorise information do not use any mnemonic system mainly because of a lack of awareness of their existence, this experiment shows that perhaps teaching children to use these methods would help them memorise information more accurately. However there are limitations when using mnemonics as mnemonics are useful for memorizing material that, by itself has internal organisation (list of words) and for remembering orders, but if material is organised or meaningful the best approach is to seek an understanding.
References
Bower, G.H. (1970). Imagery as a relational organizer in associative learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 9, 529-533.
Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing. A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671-684.
Reisberg, D., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (2004). Instructor’s resource manual with classroom demonstrations (6th ed.). London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Roediger III, H.L. (1980). The effectiveness of four mnemonics in ordering recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 5, 558-567.
Wollen, K.A., Weber, A., & Lowry, D.H. (1972). Bizarreness versus interaction of mental images as determinants of learning. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 518-523.
Appendix
Figure 1
Associate Word Pair List (in order originally read out)
Locomotive - Dishtowel
Jacket - Asparagus
Mask - Sailboat
Oyster - Telephone
Pencil - Elephant
Curtain - Liver
Blackboard - Suitcase
Rock - Bottle
Alligator - Thermometer
Piano - Banana
Carpet - Rainbow
Sugar - Headlight
Figure 2
Verbatim Instructions Read Aloud To Each Condition
Instructions Condition 1 (‘Repetition’)
- I am going to present you with a number of pairs of nouns, which I will read aloud to you. Your job is to associate the members of each pair. I will later test your memory by asking you to supply the second member of each pair presented with the first.
- After I read each pair of nouns, I’ll pause for about six seconds before I go onto the next pair. During this pause I want you to rehearse the association by silently repeating the two nouns to yourself again and again. So, if the pair is A-B, I want you to say to yourself ‘A-B, A-B, A-B, A-B’ and so on until I start to read the next pair.
Instructions Condition 2 (‘Imagery’)
- I am going to present you with a number of pairs of nouns, which I will read aloud to you. Your job is to associate the members of each pair. I will later test your memory by asking you to supply the second member of each pair presented with the first.
- After I read each pair of nouns, I’ll pause for about six seconds before I go onto the next pair. During this pause I want you to form a mental image that connects the two items mentioned into one mental picture seen in ‘your minds eye’.
