Grant Et Al (1998)

• 𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 - 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆

  Encoding → Storage → Retrieval (Recall or Recognition)

  • research has shown that recall's better when p's in same environment during recall as they were when learning occurred ,, in situations as diverse as different classrooms ,, indoors & outdoors ,, on land/in water ,, etc
  • bc some aspects of environment during learning are study 'encoded' with to-be-remembered item & become part of memory
  • these 'cues' can help w/ retrieval of learned items
  • thus ,, when environment & learning and recall '' matches '' ,, recall's better than when they're mismatched
• 𝗔𝗶𝗺

  → Grant et al aimed to investigate context-dependent memory effects on both recall & recognition. they realised that students often study in conditions that differ from test condition

  → Grant suggests that if memory is context-dependent then study habits don't give students best change in an exam
• 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀

  → 39 participants - aged 17-56 years

  → 17 were female ,, 23 were male

  → were recruited by opportunity sampling whereby 8 psychology students ,, acting as experimenters ,, each found 5 acquaintances who would be participants
• 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝

  → Grant et al used a lab experiment to find out if there was a difference in memory between studying & recalling in either matching // non-matching situations

  → they manipulated background noise (silent // noisy) instead of music ,, due to difference in people's music preferences

  → participants were asked to read a 2 page article on psycho-immunology as study task & then completed 2 tests (recall and recognition) to see how much they could remember about article
• 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻

  → study had an independent measures design, because

  each participant only took part in one of the four conditions ;

  • Matching ; Study context: Silent Not Matching ; Study context: Silent

  Test context: Silent Test context: Noisy

  Study context: Noisy Study context: Noisy

  Test context: Noisy Test context: Silent
• 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲 ; 1

  1 → Instructions, describing the experiment as a class project and

  stating that participation was voluntary, were read aloud.

  2 → Participants were asked to read the given article once, as if

  they were reading it for a class assignment. They were

  allowed to highlight and underline as they read.

  3 → Participants were informed that their comprehension would

  be tested with both a short-answer test and a multiple-

  choice test.
• 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲 ; 2

  1 → All p’s wore headphones while they read. Those in silent condition were told they wouldn’t hear anything over headphones ,, those in noisy condition were told they would hear some loud background noise ,, had to ignore it.

  2 → Reading times were recorded by experimenters - break of approx 2 mins between end of study phase & start of test phase was incorporated

  3 → short-answer test was given, followed by MCQ. - P’s were tested in either silent/noisy conditions & were informed of condition before testing. Regardless of testing condition, all p’s wore headphones.
• 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀

  → there are context-dependency effects for newly learned meaningful material regardless of whether a short-answer test // multiple choice test is used to assess learning

  → studying & testing in same environment leads to enhanced performance

  → students are likely to perform better in exams if they study for them with a minimum of background noise bc ,, although there was no overall effect of noise on performance ,, evidence for suggests they're better of studying without background noise as it'll not be present during actual testing
• 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆

  • 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 → replicable ,, high control ,, objective measures ,, nomothetic ,, reductionist ,, quantitative data
  • 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 → subjective ,, low control ,, lack of replicability ,, holistic ,, idiographic ,, qualitative data
• evaluation ; method


  STRENGTH → task had mundane realism ,, reading an article and answering questions is usual behaviour for students ,, therefore the study has high ecological validity

  WEAKNESS → whilst there was high levels of control ,, some extraneous variables may have impacted the results.

  → E.G ; other distractions // noise in the room whilst they were studying // being tested
• evaluation ; sample

  STRENGTH → using students when looking at context-dependent memory in students is an appropriate group to use ,, as they frequently use their memory for study - both genders & range of ages were studied

  WEAKNESS → sample was small and ethnocentric ( all american ) ,, therefore not representative of how all people use their memory. lack of representativeness means results can't be readily generalised beyond sample population of students
• evaluation ; data

  STRENGTH → collection of quantitative data allows statistics to be calculated (E.G. the average number of correct test answers) & then comparisons can be drawn between groups (E.G. whether performance was better in matching or non-matching conditions)

  WEAKNESS → only collected quantitative data ,, so participants weren't able to give information about how they thought noise affected their performance ,, or if they were aware of context effects when recalling information
• evaluation ; usefulness

  STRENGTH → it's useful ,, particularly for students ,, to understand how contexts in which they study can impact their later memory recall. they can use this information to try & match their study context as closely as possible to recall context. it's also useful for learning in other situations ,, E.G. using the same car for driving lessons // tests

  WEAKNESS → usefulness is limited if nothing can be done to change study context ,, E.G. learning will almost always take place in a classroom which will not be a fully matching context to examination room