Psychology HLInternal assessmentCandidate number: 001217

Internal assessmentAn experiment investigating how processing information using a shallow or deep level of processing affects the free recall of words

Candidate name: Psychology HLSession: May 2012Word count: 1995Candidate number: 001217-School: Sven EriksonsgymnasietAbstract

The aim of this experiment was to investigate whether the deep processing of 20 words lead to a better memory of them than shallow processing. Independent measures design was used in this lab experiment in which the 18 participants were randomly allocated to treatment groups. The results showed that participants who processed the words at a deeper level (semantic processing) remembered an mean of 8,11 words with a dispersion of 2,47 and those who processed the words at a more shallow level (structural processing) remembered 4,78 words with a dispersion of 1,48. A statistical test in the form of a Mann-Whitney U test was then administered to examine the significance of the results. There was a significant difference between the groups at p0.05 which additionally goes to show that words that are processed at a deeper level are remembered better.

From this one could conclude that the LOP used when handling information in the form of words, does influence the amount of words remembered by Swedish high school students. The deeper level of processing meant students took the actual meaning of the word into consideration when applying them in the questions and therefore remembered the words to a greater extent.

Contents

Introduction...............................................................................3

Method Design..........4Participants.......................................................4Materials............4Procedure...........5

Results.................7

Discussion................8

References....................9

Appendices A.....Consent form..................................................10 B.....Parental consent form......................................11 C.....Evaluation form................................................13 D.....Standardized instructions..................................15 E.....Word list for semantic group..............................17 F.....Word list for structural group..............................18 G.....Answer sheet for both groups..............................19 H.....Debriefing notes...................................................20 I.....Raw data.................................................................21 J.....Mann-Whitney U test..............................................22

Introduction

Cognitive psychology investigates cognitive processes such as memory. Memory is the process of acquiring, storing, retaining and later retrieving information. One theory about memory from the early 70s is the Multi-store model of memory, which presented a simplistic view of memory stating that it compromises two stores: the short-term store (STS) and the long-term store (LTS). In order for information to enter the long-term store it had to be rehearsed. The theory generated new research and two researchers by the name of Craik and Lockhart introduced a new theory regarding memory called the level of processing theory (Gross, 2008), which emphasized the depth of processing. The theory claimed that information needs to be processed on a deeper level, in which a semantic analysis is done and hence meaning understood, in order for it to be remembered. Furthermore, instead of linking STSs limited storage capacity to the amount of words that could be rehearsed the theory claimed it to be a consequence of its limited processing capacity.

Craik and Tulving (1975) tested this theory by conducting a lab experiment to investigate how different levels of processing affected the recall of words. They had a directional hypothesis stating that words (common nouns) processed on a deeper level will be better remembered than words processed on a more shallow level. The independent variable was the different types of processing and the dependent variable was the amount of words remembered. Participants were tested individually and minor deception was used as the researchers told them that the study concerned perception. They used three types of processing: superficial structural processing, phonological processing and semantic processing, operationalized by asking different types of questions. The first treatment group were asked if the words were written in lowercase/capital letters, the second if the words rhymed with a provided word and the third if the word was a type of food. The words were shown for 200 milliseconds, and after every word in the list had been shown they were given an unexpected retention test. The results showed that the semantic processing group recalled the most words and the structural processing group the least.

This is a partial replication of Craik and Tulving (1975) in which the two different levels of processing were used. The orienting task representing the semantic level of processing was to decide whether a word could fit into the missing gap of a sentence, which induces the role of meaning. The orienting task representing the structural level of processing was to identify whether a word was written in capital or lowercase letters, which merely requires one to look at the structure of the words. The aim of this experiment was to investigate how processing information using a deep or shallow level of processing affects the free recall of words.

Research hypothesis H1: The number of words remembered will be significantly higher when performing semantic processing than structural processing.

Null hypothesis H0: There will no difference in the number of words remembered, between the group performing semantic processing and structural processing.

Method

Design

Independent measures design was used in order to avoid effects of practice, demand characteristics, instrumentation and diffusion of treatment. Furthermore the same words (appendix E & F) could be used avoiding the extraneous variable of words influencing the results. Standardized instructions were used, participants were separated and one-syllable nouns were used to ensure that the words were equally easy to remember.

Ethical guidelines were followed by obtaining consent (appendix A & B), in addition they were informed that they could withdraw at any time and that their data would be kept confidential. A debriefing was carried out after the participants finished their task (appendix H).

The independent variable was the level of processing operationalized by asking different questions allowing for the use of structural and semantic level of processing. More specifically, one group were determining whether a word was written in capital or lowercase letters (appendix F) and the other was deciding whether a word fit into a sentence (appendix E) provided. The words were presented one at a time. The dependent variable was the number of words remembered out of the possible 20.

Participants

Opportunity sampling was used in this experiment and the target population was Swedish high school students. Opportunity sampling was economically easy and the only sampling method possible with the IB time restraint.

Participants were allocated into treatment groups randomly by having them pick a number out of a hat. The 18 participants (N=18) basic characteristics were their mean age, 15.8, gender which was mixed (12 females and 6 males) and their second most frequently used language (English) as the nature of the experiment required a certain understanding of the English language.

Materials

Word list & correlating question list for both groups (appendix E & F) Consent form (appendix A & B) Standardized instructions (appendix D) Evaluation form (appendix C) Answer sheet (appendix G) Debriefing notes (appendix H) Stop watch Hat containing 18 slips of paper with equally many group-one slips as there were group-two slips. Two prepared PowerPoint presentations including both word lists and correlating questions (appendix E & F). Computer

Procedure

The material was developed by creating two simple PowerPoint presentations which allowed for the word-and-question lists for the two groups to be shown separately. There were two second intervals between each slide in both presentations. The 20 words chosen (appendix E & F) were one-syllable concrete words ensuring that they were all equally easy to remember with no links between them. The 20 questions (appendix E & F) were written in simple English and formulated so that the answer to the questions was either obviously yes or obviously no.

The sample entered the classroom. A brief introduction was followed by informing that the true aim of the study was not to be revealed until after the experiment and that what they would have to do was to answer questions to words appearing on a power point presentation in front of the white board. They were also told that they would be debriefed (appendix H) after having answered the questions and filled in the evaluation form (appendix C) (part 1 of appendix D). Participants were asked to sit separately without anything lying on their desks with the exception of a pencil (part 2 of appendix D). Consent forms (Appendix A & B) were distributed and participants were informed through the consent forms that if they were to participate in the experiment, they could withdraw from the experiment at any time, their information would be anonymously treated and that the results could be obtained in two weeks after the experiments completion. They were also informed that they would not be exposed to any sort of discomfort.(part 3 of appendix D) The signed consent forms were collected (part 4 of appendix D). The additional parental consent forms (appendix B) were also collected as participants were informed how they could later retrieve the results of the study (part 5 of appendix D). The participants now got to pick a slip of paper out of a hat showing which of the two groups they belonged to (part 6 of appendix D).The deep level of processing group was asked to leave the room (part 7 of appendix D).The shallow level of processing group were told that they were about to be shown a number of questions related to each word to which they were supposed to answer a simple yes or no, on a separate answer formulary (Appendix G). Furthermore they were told that an example (appendix F) would be shown (part 8 of appendix D). The example was explained and some additional information regarding the answer sheet (appendix G) was clarified so that they would not lose themselves midway. Any questions regarding the explanation were answered and the PowerPoint commenced. During the PowerPoint presentation a single word was displayed for two seconds, then the related question appeared for two seconds, after which three seconds of a blank page was displayed in order for the participants to answer, before moving on to the next question (appendix F) (part 9 of appendix D).

After they had answered all the questions they were asked to turn their answer sheets upside down and then immediately start writing all the words they could remember in any order out of the words presented to them on a separate sheet. They received three minutes to finish this final task (part 10 of appendix D). The groups were switched after the first group had been informed not to talk to anyone on their way out. The procedure was similarly repeated with a set of different questions that were explained for the deep level-processing group (Appendix E) (part 11 of appendix D). The first group was asked to re-enter the classroom (part 12 of appendix D).A questionnaire was handed out concerning the experiment that could help the avoiding of extraneous variables for future replications. It was answered anonymously (Appendix C) (part 13 of appendix D).Debriefing was done stating the true aim of the experiment as well as explaining the theory of level of processing (Appendix H).

Results

The results showed that there was a clear distinction in the amount of words remembered in the two groups. The raw data can be found in appendix I.

Figure 1

N=9N=9Figure 1 shows the mean number of words remembered in the two treatment groups (semantic/structural) and the standard deviation is represented by error bars.

As figure 1 shows, the mean number of words remembered in the semantic group (8,11) was much greater than in the structural group (4,78). This means that on average, the participants who processed the words deeply remembered more words than the participants that used a shallower level of processing.

The standard deviation also shows that the dispersion around the mean was much larger in the semantic group than in the structural (2,47 as compared to 1,48). An independent measures design was used in the replication and a one-tailed hypothesis was defined, which is why the significance of the result was examined using the Mann-Whitney U test (appendix J). N, the number of participants in the study was 9 in each group making the critical value 21. Since the U value was 7.5, this makes p0.05 and the results 95% certain that the difference in results were not due to random errors or chance. Hence, the research hypothesis can be accepted, confirming that participants using a deeper level of processing will on average remember more words, and the null hypothesis can be rejected.

Discussion

The results of this replication suggest that those in the semantic group memorised a greater deal of words than the participants in the structural group (8,11 as compared to 4,78 in mean values). The Mann-Whitney U test also concluded with 95% certainty that this difference was statistically significant. This supports the hypothesis presented by Craik and Tulving in their series of experiments (1975) that using deeper levels of processing causes participants to have a better memory of the words from a list, as well as the L.O.P theory proposed by Craik and Lockhart.

The use of opportunity sampling resulted in a non-representative group of participants in conjunction to the target group which was high school students in Sweden. The IB students are known to be more motivated and possess a higher prestige than the average high school student in Sweden. The sample also had a gender bias, making the generalizability to the target group even more difficult. Furthermore there was no control of participant variables as the sample was culturally biased seeing as foreigners constituted a majority of the sample, once again making it more problematic to generalise the results to the target group. Hence, in future replications an equal amount of females and males should be used, as well as obtaining more Swedish participants.

A lab experiment lacks ecological validity because they involve testing memory using artificial tasks. An independent measures design could be a limitation as students at high school level differ in memorizing ability. At the same time, using a repeated measured design would cause the participants to learn the words by rehearsal. An independent measures design also allowed the use of the same list of words, ensuring that the difficulty level was the same and preventing diffusion of treatment.

One consideration is that the PowerPoint slides were switching fast, making it difficult for the participants to read the words. This could explain the outlier who memorized 13 words, showing the importance of participant characteristics. The participants speed of reading could then become a confounding variable. The wide dispersion around the mean in the semantic group could have been due to extraneous variables such as the PowerPoint slides switching too fast, which many of the participants mentioned in the evaluation (appendix C). This lowers the validity of the results as both groups suffered from this and especially as the sample was so small. However in Craik and Tulving (1975) they showed the words for 200 milliseconds so that rehearsal was impossible which could have been a variable in our partial replication as our words were shown for two seconds. If this was the case some of the participants could have remembered the words not due to the level of processing but rather through rehearsal. Nevertheless the retention test was unexpected which should disregard this variable. The Mann-Whitney U test concluded that there was a clear distinction between the words remembered in the semantic group and the structural group, illustrating that the L.O.P does influence memory.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this replication is that a deeper level of processing causes an enhanced performance in the free recall of words in Swedish high school students.

References

Craik, F., and Lockhart. R. (1972). Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal BehaviorVolume 11.6: 671-84

Craik F.I.M. & Tulving E. (1975) Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1975, Vol.104, No. 3, 268-294

Gross, R. (2008).Key Studies in Psychology. London: Hodder & Stoughton

Appendix A consent form

Consent form approval from the participants to participate

Name:__________________________ (the name will not be published, It will only be used so that the researchers can take away, if requested, that specific persons result)

Age:_______________

Male Female

Most frequently used language:______________________

Second most frequently used language:____________________

Rights: All data collected will be kept in a confidential and responsible manner, in other words the data collected will be anonymous and will not be divulged (given out) to any other person The experiment is voluntary, meaning that participants do not have to take part in the experiment if not wishing to do so. If this is the case we ask you to remain seated throughout the experiment without disturbing others. The experiment will not create anxiety, stress, pain or discomfort in any way so the participant will be in the same physical and mental condition as they were when they entered/ started the experiment. The participants will be debriefed (told the true aim of the experiment) when the experiment is over, in addition the participant will on request receive the results of the study in a few weeks.

I have read and understood my rights as a participant and I accept to participate in the experiment.

___________________________________ Participants signature

Appendix B Parental consent form (English version)

Bors, 2011-08-19

Hello!

My name is Zorica Zarkovic and I am your childs psychology teacher. Our IB year threes tend to use the year one students as subjects in simple memory studies every year in the beginning of the fall term. The students that have chosen psychology in year two have as an assignment to perform a controlled study and write a report that is graded by IB. The work constitutes for 20% of their grade and is therefore rather important to them. The ethical rules concerning the treatment of their subjects are very strict and because of ethical reasons IB does not allow for students under the age of 16 to be used without the consent of their parents. Therefore I wonder if you would like to give your consent so that your children may participate in these studies.

With dear regards

Zorica ZarkovicE-mail: zorica.zarkovic@edu.boras.seTelephone: 033-358052

Parental consent

My child may / may not participate in the above mentioned studies.

Student nameGuardians signature

_____________________________________________________________________

Parental consent form (Swedish version)

Bors, 2011-08-19

Hej!

Mitt namn r Zorica Zarkovic och jag r ditt/ert barns psykologilrare. Varje r i brjan av hstterminen brukar vra IB-treor anvnda ettorna som frskspersoner i enkla minnesstudier. De elever som har valt psykologi i tvan har som uppgift att utfra en kontrollerad studie och sedan skriva en rapport som bedms av IB. Arbetet utgr 20 % av deras betyg och r drmed ganska viktigt fr dem. De etiska reglerna fr hur frskspersonerna behandlas r mycket strikta och just av etiska skl tillter inte IB att man anvnder sig av elever under 16 utan ett medgivande frn frldrarna. Drfr undrar jag om du/ni skulle vilja ge ert samtycke till att ditt/ert barn medverkar i dessa studier.

Med vnlig hlsningZorica ZarkovicE-post: zorica.zarkovic@edu.boras.seTelefon: 033-358052

Frdramedgivande

Mitt barn fr / fr inte delta i ovan nmnda studier.

Elevens namnMlsmans underskrift

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix C Evaluation form

The following is a few questions regarding the experiment. It would be highly appreciated if you could answer them. You are not required to write your name.

I was in group: One Two

Was there any factors that affected your memory of the words, such as extra-ordinary words or the power point slides switching too fast?: Yes No

If answer yes, circle the word(s) you didnt understand from the below provided:

Ball chair key tree wallet sun

bike candle watch dog cup ring

pool bridge map toy cave

knife bell tape

Develop your viewpoint regarding the word or power point presentation in general here Answer: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I had problems understanding what was asked of me: Yes No If answer yes, what was difficult to understand? Answer: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I had problems focusing on the task: Yes No If answer yes, develop yourproblem bellowAnswer: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I experienced other problems: Yes No If answer yes, what type of problem did you encounter? Answer:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix D Standardized instructions

1) My name is Michael Eliasson and I am to conduct a psychological study on your class today. What you will be doing is simply watching and answering questions to corresponding words that will be shown on my powerpoint presentation. The aim of the study and details on what it is all about will be explained after the questions and an evaluation form regarding any difficulties you might have had have been answered.

2) Firstly if you would please sit separately with one desk between you and remove everything from your desks except for on pencil the study will proceed smoothly.

3) I will now hand out a consent form that briefly states your rights when participating in a study of this kind, there is no reason to feel stressed or scared since this is quite simply a general procedure that is always done. The first paragraph basically says that your information will not be seen by anyone else than me. The second makes sure that youre aware that you do not have to take part in this study and if you do not want to participate I kindly ask you to remain seated without talking or disturbing anyone else throughout the short event. There will definitely not be any sort of traumatizing activities whatsoever, you will feel the way you felt when you entered the classroom when were finished.

4) I will now collect the consent forms and if anyone wishes not to participate you may leave quietly now.

5) Also if you are under the age of 16 you should have been given a parental consent form that your parents have signed, you may hand these in. Also, if you would like to see the results of this study you can contact me in two weeks.

6) You will now be handed slips of paper on which it either is written the number one or two. This number represents the group you have been placed in at random.

7) I would like for the group two students to leave the classroom in quiet manor and stay put until I ask for you to re-enter the room.

8) You will now be shown a word, followed by a question related to that word, to which you will be able to answer a simple yes or not. To show this more clearly and to ensure that everyone understands what is asked of them you will now be shown an example before you start answering the real questions.

9) As you see here you will be shown a word first, which I represented by simply writing word, after which the question is stated, was the word written in lowercase letters?, meaning is the word written in small letters in simpler English. The rest of the questions will be exactly the same except that you could be asked if the word is written in capital letters instead, which in simpler English means big letters. Furthermore know that the word is always presented before the question, which means first a slide with a word, and then the following slide displays a question relating the word on the previous slide. The questions are stated in numerical order to help you out in case you lose yourself along the way, in which case you can just look at the number on the powerpoint and answer the same one on your answer sheet. Any questions before we commence? Then lets begin.

10) Now that youre done with answering the questions you may turn your paper upside down. Now write down as many words as you can possibly remember from the list of words that you were shown and answered questions to. Keep in mind that this is not a test, so as stated, do not feel pressured to fail.

(The stopwatch is used to measure three minutes of time)

11) Time has run out, would you now please put your pencils away while I collect your papers. Now I ask of you one last thing to exit the classroom, walking past your classmates without talking to them, this is very important. You will be called back as soon as the other group are done with their part of the study.

Welcome back inside, you will now be shown a word, followed by a question related to that word, to which you will be able to answer a simple yes or not. To show this more clearly and to ensure that everyone understands what is asked of them you will now be shown an example before you start answering the real questions.

As you see here you will be shown a word first, which I represented by simply writing word, after which the question is stated, this is an example sentence, in which the ... would fit in here. As you can see the word would fit in the blank spot in this particular sentence, which means for this question the answer is yes (the word does fit into the sentence). The rest of the questions will be in exactly the same manner, including a blank spot in which the word shown on the previous slide may or may not fit in. Furthermore know that the word is always presented before the question, which means first a slide with a word, and then the following slide displays a question relating the word on the previous slide. The questions are stated in numerical order to help you out in case you lose yourself along the way, in which case you can just look at the number on the powerpoint and answer the same one on your answer sheet. Any questions before we commence? Then lets begin.

Now that youre done with answering the questions you may turn your paper upside down. Now write down as many words as you can possibly remember from the list of words that you were shown and answered questions to. Keep in mind that this is not a test, so as stated, do not feel pressured to fail.

(The stopwatch is used to measure three minutes of time)

Time has run out, would you now please put your pencils away while I collect your papers.

12) Would group one please re-enter the classroom.

13) The final part of this study is an evaluation form of utmost importance as it treats aspects of what you just finished that might have been difficult to understand or even influenced the results of the entire study. Would you fill these in as well as possible before I debrief you.

Appendix E Word and question lists for semantic group0. word0. ''This is an example sentence in which the .. would fit in here.''

1. ball1. ''He kicked the .. into the goal.''

2. chair2. ''She couldn't stop reading her ..''

3. key3. ''I am locked out, and I dont know where I forgot my ..''

4. tree4. ''I stopped smoking .. a few years ago.''

5. wallet5. ''He was thirsty so he bought a ..''

6. sun6. ''The clouds are blocking out the ..''

7. bike7. ''He took his .. to school.''

8. candle8. ''You shouldnt carry a .. through metal detectors.''

9. watch9. ''May I take a look at your .., Im in quite a hurry.''

10. dog10. ''Your .. is so cute!''

11. cup11. ''This doesnt match the .. our teacher gave us.''

12. ring12. ''He actually bought you a diamond ..''

13. pool13. ''Would you want to take a swim in my ..?''

14. bridge14. ''This is the longest .. in the world.''

15. map15. ''Payment-day, that means a lot of .. in my bank account.''

16. toy16. ''Im sick of having .. for dinner every day.''

17. cave17. ''I am exhausted, this .. will have to wait.''

18. knife18. ''He stabbed her with a sharp .. ''

19. bell19. ''Would you please take out the.., its almost filled.''

20. tape20. ''I can see dads .. in the rear window.''

The following, and the following two slides only, presents an example to show how the task will be done.

Appendix F - Word and question list for the structural group0. word0. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

1. BALL1. Was the word written in capital letters?

2. chair2. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

3. KEY3. Was the word written in capital letters?

4. TREE4. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

5. WALLET5. Was the word written in capital letters?

6. sun6. Was the word written in capital letters?

7. bike7. Was the word written in capital letters?

8. CANDLE8. Was the word written in capital letters?

9. WATCH9. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

10. dog10. Was the word written in capital letters?

11. CUP11. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

12. ring12. Was the word written in capital letters?

13. pool13. Was the word written in capital letters?

14. BRIDGE14. Was the word written in capital letters?

15. map15. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

16. toy16. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

17. cave17. Was the word written in capital letters?

18. KNIFE18. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

19. bell19. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

20. TAPE20. Was the word written in capital letters?

The following, and the following two slides only, presents an example to show how the task will be done.

Appendix G Answer sheet for the questions asked

Answers:

1. Yes No 2. Yes No 3. Yes No 4. Yes No 5. Yes No 6. Yes No 7. Yes No 8. Yes No 9. Yes No 10. Yes No 11. Yes No 12. Yes No 13. Yes No 14. Yes No 15. Yes No 16. Yes No 17. Yes No 18. Yes No 19. Yes No 20. Yes No

Appendix H Debriefing notes

This study is in fact a study on memory that explores how different levels of processing data affect the extent to which we actually remember the information. The different levels of processing range from structural to semantic examples of the two could be is the following word written Arabic letters or at the semantic level is the word .. a type of food. The latter results in a deeper level of processing in which meaning is taken into consideration, hence the deeper level of processing. This type of processing allows for an increase in the number of words remembered.

If there is any interest in the results of this study you may contact me in two weeks to retrieve the organized results.

Appendix I raw data

ParticipantsSemantic taskStructural task

#176

#2104

#374

#475

#5134

#686

#765

#8102

#957

Mean8,114,78

STDEV2,471,48

Appendix J Mann-Whitney U test

ParticipantsSemantic taskPointsStructural taskPoints

#170.567.5

#210049

#370.549

#470.558.5

#513049

#68067.5

#76258.5

#810029

#95475.5

N1=9Ptotal=7.5N2=9Ptotal=73.5

U=7.5Critical value of U=21

Seeing as the observed value is smaller than the critical value it is definite that one can reject the null hypothesis (at p0.05) in conjunction with that the number of words remembered when performing a semantic task of such case is bigger than performing a structural task. The difference has been confirmed using a Mann-Whitney U test because independent measures design was used and the data were minimum ordinal level. Also, it was directional, predicting the type of difference between the two treatment groups.

1