Experiment on a context dependent memory task

• Aim


  To consider how memory is dependent on context- do we remember better when we are tested in the same context that we learnt info in?
• IV


  Same room or different room (whether the context of learning & retrieval is same or different).
• DV


  Memory: number of words recalled accurately from a word list out of 20. (did a small pilot study & 10 words was too easy)
• Null hypothesis


  There will be no difference in memory (as measured by word recall out of 20) when participants are tested in the same context as learning (same room) or in a different context to learning (different room).
• Alternative hypothesis:


  Participants will show better memory (more correctly recalled words /20) when they are tested in same context as learning (same room) compared to different context to learning (different room). Directional due to previous research suggesting people remember better when context of encoding & retrieval are same.
• Possible extraneous variables:


  Temperature & noise in both rooms
• Possible confounding variables:


  Caffeine intake, memory diseases, amount of sleep, noise/distractions in 1 room but not other, ages, movement between rooms & groups may have different memory skills or IQ.
• What type of research is this?

  Experiment- manipulate IV & randomly allocate participants to groups. (Easier to control variables & can establish cause & effect).
• Limitations of methodology:


  Artificial/not natural- could lack ecological validity.
• Sampling:


  opportunity- quick & easy could be biased so may not be representative
• Characteristics of sample:


  Sixth form students (year 12) that don't do psychology (26 students).
• Ethical considerations:


  Consent, deception, risk of psychological harm & confidentiality.
• How do we deal with consent?

  Tell participants about study & ask them to sign consent form
• How do we deal with deception?


  Tell them study is about memory & debrief at end to explain about context dependent memory & give right to withdraw
• How do we deal with risk of harm?

  Upset if they feel they can't remember well/embarrassment. Reassure that scores don't matter & don't tell scores
• How do we deal with confidentiality?

  Don't tell anyone else outside study, no names- give participants numbers & groupings.
• How do we make results as valid & reliable as possible?

  Standardised procedure for all participants, deal with confounding variables, use accurate timer & no psychology students in sample to reduce demand characteristics.
• Procedure


  1. Select participants from sixthform area via opportunity sampling

  2. Inform participants about study & ask them to sign consent form

  3. Give them participant number & group them A or B (A=different room B= same room for recall). Don't tell them about A/B conditions. SF room (traditional room) & IT room

  4. Give word list (made by using random generator) to memorise for 2 mins (use timer)

  5. Take list away- participants either go to different room or remain in same room. Those in same room walk around room for 1 min

  6. Give answer sheet (with participant number on) & ask them to recall words as accurately as possible in 1 min (no talking)

  7. Collect answer sheets. Debrief participants (tell them details about study, right to withdraw, signpost to LVC) & thank them for participation
• Possible issues with methodology & procedures?

  Make sure no talking- exclude data from those being loud as they could affect results' validity
• Descriptive statistic used:


  Mean & S.D. Mean takes into account all data points (ratio data so appropriate to use mean- will have to check data doesn't have extreme values/outliers). S.D more precise than range.
• Graphical representation used:


  Bar chart of means (nominal data) or line graph to show frequencies of word recall for 2 groups (plotting ratio data (number of words recalled) & frequencies). 2 lines for different groups/conditions.
• Inferential statistic used:


  Mann-Whitney as there's test of difference, ratio data (at least ordinal) & independent groups.
• Findings for the same room:


  Mean= 7.4 SD= 4.27
• Findings for different room:

  Mean= 9 SD= 3.81
• Inferential statistics finding:


  Mann Whitney U value= 27.5 Critical value at p<0.05 = 18 Result is not significant
• Conclusions:


  Mean for different room was higher, so they remembered more on average ( contrast to hypothesis). Same room had more variation slightly. Reject alternative hypothesis & accept null hypothesis.
• How could we improve research?

  use of matched pairs, larger sample/volunteers & improve ecological validity e.g, more complex material to learn & a test at later date to reflect real life learning
• How could you assess if research was valid & reliable?

  No suggestions of demand characteristics being an issue (suggests high validity), face validity & checked research group followed same procedure- checked with others that tests were marked accurately.
• Issue/limitations of our research:

  Small sample as with use of opportunity sampling, use of multiple researchers may have led to slight differences even though standardised procedures used, doing baseline memory task/test & then doing matched pairs to match participants in the 2 conditions on memory skills would have reduced participants' variables which could have affected validity.
• How could we deal with the confounding variables?

  Could ask not to consume caffeine but would require advance notice, ask people with memory diseases not to take part but this would have ethical implications, make sure both rooms quiet, can't control for amount of sleep completely, use same year group (matched pairs would be time-consuming), get people who stay in room to take lap around for same length of time & could do memory/IQ test before & match people. No repeated measures.