Grant

• Background

  Context-dependent memory refers to the idea that recall of information is enhanced if we are recalling the information in a similar context to how we learnt it (matching conditions) compared to when we learn the information in one context and recall it in another (mismatching conditions).
• Background

  Previous studies have shown that when the envirnoment at the encoding and retrieval stage are the same that our memories perform better.
• The key theme is memory.
• Background

  It is understood that when we come across new information, we encode characteristics of the environment as part of the memory trace.
• Background

  Recall is retrieving information with very few prompts.
• Background

  Recognition is retrieving information with prompts.
• Background

  Grant aimed to show that environmental context can have a more positive effect on performance in a meaningful memory test, when the test takes place in the same environment in which the material was originally studied (matching) compared to when the test takes place in a different environment (mismatching).
• Aim

  To test for context dependency effects caused by the presence or absence of noise during learning and retrieval of meaningful material.
• Research Method

  The study was conducted as a lab experiment.
• Research Method

  It used an independent measures design.
• Research Method

  The two independent variables:

  1. condition of reading the article (noise/ silent)
  2. Testing condition (matching or mismatching to reading condition)
• Research Method

  There were 4 conditions in total.
• Research Method

  The dependent variable was their performance on a short answer recall test and a multiple choice test (recognition).
• Sample

  The study was conducted by 8 psychology students who served as experimenters.
• Sample

  Each of the experimenters recruited 5 acquaintances who served as participants.

  The data from 39 participants was used.
• Sample

  The ages of participants ranged from 17 - 56 years (mean = 23.4).
• Procedure

  Each experimenter was responsible for 5 participants (one participants per condition with the 5th being randomly assigned to any of the 4 conditions).
• Procedure

  During verbal standardised instructions, it was outlined to participants that this research was part of a class project and that their participation was voluntary.

  They were informed that short answer and multiple choice questions would follow the reading of the article.
• Procedure

  Participants read an article on psychoimmunology.
• Procedure

  Participants were asked to read an article once, as if reading for a class assignment, being allowed to highlight and underline.

  The article was 2 pages, with 3 columns of text to a page.
• Procedure

  All experimenters provided their own cassette players and headphones and made the participants wear headphones whilst they read the article.
• Procedure

  In the silent condition, nothing was played through headphones. Participants were told they wouldn't hear anything through them but that they had to wear them.
• Procedure

  In the noise condition, the noise was played at a moderately loud level. Participants were told to ignore the noise.
• Procedure

  The 8 cassettes were exact copies made from a master copy of background noise recorded during a lunchtime in the university cafeteria. This consisted of occasional words/ phrases embedded within general noise such as chairs and dishes.
• Procedure

  Reading time was recorded by the experimenters and there was a 2 minute break between finishing reading and being tested.
• Procedure

  In the test, participants were always tested with the short answer questions first, to ensure that it was recall of the article not prompted by the options in the multiple choice questions.
• Procedure

  There were 10 short answer questions, tested in the order the information appeared in the article.
• Procedure

  There were 16 multiple choice questions (1 correct option and 4 alternatives).
• Procedure

  Participants all wore headphones for testing.
• Procedure

  At the end of the test, participants were debriefed about the true nature of the study.
• Procedure

  The entire procedure lasted approximately 30 minutes.
• Results

  There was no significant difference in reading speed between the silent and noisy group.
• Results

  Performance was better when participants were in matching conditions. Scores were higher if people learned and were tested in silent conditions or learned and were tested in noisy conditions.
• Results

  There was no difference between the two matching conditions. In effect, if you know the conditions in which you will be tested, it is wise to replicate those conditions whilst learning.
• Results

  In the silent test condition, participants who read in silence (matching) scored 6.7 /10 on the short answer questions, compared to participants who read in a noisy environment (mismatching) who scored 4.6 /10.
• Results

  In the silent test condition, participants who read in silence (matching) scored 14.3/ 16 on the MCQ, compared to participants who read in a noisy environment (mismatching) who scored 12.7 /16.
• Result: Participants who read in the silent condition scored 6.7 /10 on the short answer questions when tested in a silent environment. Participants who read in the noisy condition and were tested in a silent environment scored 4.6 /10 on the short answer questions.


  Conclusion: Memory is context dependent. Memories are formed with traces of the environment which can then improve recall of said memory.
• Result: There was no difference between the two matching conditions on the MCQs. Both silent + silent and noisy + noisy scored 14.3 /16 on the MCQs.

  Conclusion: Studying and testing in the same environment leads to enhanced performance, thus students are likely to perform better in exams if they study for them with a minimum background noise as this mimics the environment of exam halls/ classrooms.