Practical Investigation

• Practical investigation Title

  Investigating the impact of semantically similar and dissimilar words on the long terms memorys ability to recall the words in the correct place
• Aim

  To investigate the impact of semantically similar and dissimilar words in LTM with the ability to recall in the correct places
• Hypotheses

  Alternative- there will be a difference in the recall of semantically similar and dissimilar words in the correct place for LTM, out of 10 words

  Null- there won't be a difference in the recall of semantically similar and dissimilar words in the correct place for LTM, out of 10 words
• Design and variables

  Lab experiment- repeated measures, all PPTs in same room, same IV, knew in a study, briefed and gained fully informed consent

  IV- whether the words were semantically similar or dissimilar

  DV- the number of words recalled in the correct place out of 10
• Procedure

  -Set up PowerPoint, laid out room, collected PPTs with opportunity sampling

  -Sat them down, gave paper/pen, read the instructions and briefed them

  -PPTs presented with 10 words at rate of 1 every 3 seconds, semantically similar

  -Then given a bride distraction task of a 8 number digit sequence, shown rate of 1 per second, asked to recall numbers in order

  -Semantically similar words are presented again in random order, and PPTS had to write them in the correct order from their memory of the order earlier

  -Then repeated for semantical dissimilar words, with different digit sequence
• Results

  -PPTS found it easier to recall semantically dissimilar over similar words, by 0.5 more on average

  -Based on Wilcoxon T-Test, results were insignificant

  -P>0.05, our observed value 14.5 which is greater than the critical value of 10

  -We accept the null hypothesis
• Conclusion

  -PPTs found it easier to remember semantically dissimilar words

  -Which is in line with Baddeley's findings in his own study

  -Results are valid as supported by another study, but are not significant
• Strengths of study

  +Standardised procedure: study can be replicated by others, produce similar results, check consistency, eg use same word lists and read at same rate per second, retest results make it more reliable

  +Ethical guidelines: gained PPTS consent beforehand, briefed them about what we would be doing and debriefed after, no need to protect from harm, told about right to withdraw, had to be deceived to do the study without DC and bias
• Weaknesses of study

  -Extraneous variables: PPTs did not pay full attention, talked, did not take it seriously, impacted our results, worsened recall, shown in low numbers of results

  -Null hypothesis accepted: results not significant, failed to prove our aim, lack of evidence, invalid and not useful findings, need to redo the experiment

  -Repeated measures: order of effects, participant variables, boredom, practice and not being serious, affected our results, no way to control affects
• Ways to improve study

  Pilot study: able to test the efficiency of research methods, help identify issues, able to adapt plans, roughly know what outcome should be, allow us to change things to improve the reliability of study and validity of results

  Research methods: use independent measures, isolate PPTs, reduce order effects, be able to gain a larger sample, become more fair

  Different sampling technique: be more generalisable, include more diverse people, larger sample, able to apply to more people, make results more valid