Grant et al Flashcards
Aim
To test for context-dependency effects caused by the presence or absence of noise during learning and retrieval of meaningful material
Method and why is it that method?
- laboratory experiment
- Manipulation of variables/ controlled environment
Independent variables
- Read in silence, test in silence. (matching)
- Read in silence, test with background noise. (mismatching)
- Read with background noise, test with background noise. (matching)
- Read with background noise, test in silence. (mismatching)
Dependent Variable
Number of correctly answered questions:
- 10 short answer questions.
- 16 multiple choice questions.
Experimental designs
Independent measures - participants only take part in one condition
Sample?
-Opportunity sample
gathered by eight members of the Psychology lab class (5 each).
39 participants (1 participants results omitted due to because their performance was considerably different to others)
Age 17-56 years (mean 23.4 years), 17 female, 23 male.
Details of experiment
8 members of the psychology class were assigned the role of experimenter
Experimenters randomly assigned their participants to each condition (4 participants selected by experimenters and 1 assigned by the instructor).
Stimuli
Experimenters own cassette player and headphones
8 cassettes (copies from a master tape)-background noise recorded during lunchtime in a university cafe.
Background noise consisted of occasional distinct words/phrases, general conversation hum, sounds of movement of chairs and dishes.
Tape played at moderately loud level.
Materials
•A two page, three columned article on Psychoimmunology (is the study of the interaction between psychological processes and the nervous and immune systems of the human body- Hales 1984).
Materials - The Tests
- Short answer test 10 short answer qs derived from the multiple choice stems which could lead to a single word/phrase answer.
- •Multiple choice questions (MCQ). This included 16 questions containing a stem and four alternatives, testing memory for points made in the text.
Procedure
- Instructions, describing the experiment as a class project and stating that participation was voluntary, were read aloud.•
- 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.
- Participants were informed that their comprehension would be tested with both a short-answer test and a multiple-choice test.
- All participants wore headphones while they read.•
- Those in the silent condition were told they would not hear anything over the headphones whilst those in the noisy condition were told they would hear moderately loud background noise, but that they should ignore it.•
- Reading times were recorded by the experimenters.•
- A break of approximately 2 minutes between the end of the study phase and the beginning of the test phase was incorporated to minimise recall from short-term memory.•
- The short-answer test was given, followed by the multiple-choice test.
- Participants were tested in either silent or noisy conditions and were informed of the condition before testing. Regardless of testing.
- The entire procedure took approximately 30 minutes.
Results
There were individual differences in reading time, but no consistent differences between noisy and silent study conditions or test (retrieval) conditions.
No significant difference in reading times across the four conditions.
For both the short answer and multiple choice tests, performance was significantly better in matching conditions than in non matching conditions.
This suggests that recall is better when studying and testing are performed in similar environments in terms of the noisiness of the surroundings.
Conclusion
- As there was no independent effect of noise on performance, the claim made by many students that noise does not affect their capacity to study is supported.•
- However as context dependence affects retrieval in both SAQ and MCQ tests students should study in quiet surroundings, as exams are typically held in silence.•
- Study and testing in the same environment leads to enhanced performance.
Response bias- Participants did not know the answer so merely looked at the wording of the question for cues.
Therefore the memory did not actually change, more like demand characteristics.
Ethnocentrism Explain
This is because the sample only contained people from one culture- this means that the results cannot be generalised (applied) to people of other cultural backgrounds.
Ethnocentrism Evidence
In Grants study all the participants are likely to be living in America. A country with a western culture that may focus more attention and importance on learning in this way, studying written material and completing written assessments in a classroom environment. This study may then not be relevant to other culture where content-dependency may still be important but in a different way.
Sampling Baias - Point
This sample may be seen as a representative sample
Sampling Bias - Explain
This is because it included P’s who were both males and females. This increases the likelihood that results can be applied to the target population.
Sampling Bias - Evidence
Grant sample had similar amounts of males and females (17 f, 23m) read the article of Psychoimmunology and tested via short answer and multiple-choice questions.
Sampling Bias - Weakness Point
However, he gathered the participants using an opportunity sample
Sampling Bias - Weakness Explain
People who were available at the time of the study were asked to take part. This often creates unrepresentative samples as these participants often share similar characteristics and not a good cross-section found in the target population and therefore results cannot be applied to a wider group.
Sampling Bias - Weakness Evidence
The sample in the matching and mismatching conditions were the experimenters acquittances (not necessarily students but more than likely) so this could led to a bias sample as the results would not represent what would be found if the researcher studied non-students.
Reliability - Strength - Point
This study could be considered as high in reliability due to lots of standardisation put in place.
Reliability - Weakness - Point
This study could be considered as low in reliability as not all elements of the study were standardised.
Reliability - Strength - Explain
This means that the researcher ensures that all participants have the same experience. This increases the replicability of the study and the likelihood that if repeated by another the same results would be found.
Reliability - Weakness - Explain
This means that not all participants had the same experience and therefore makes it harder for another researcher to repeat the study in exactly the same way, this reduces the chance that they would find the same results.
Reliability - Strength - Evidence
This means that not all participants had the same experience and therefore makes it harder for another researcher to repeat the study in exactly the same way, this reduces the chance that they would find the same results.
Reliability - Weakness - Evidence
There were 8 experimenters, each had their own cassette player. This equipment could have differed in its quality of sound (the uni café background noise), this may have changed the results as some P’s may have had better or worse results because of this.
