Grant Et Al Flashcards
What was the aim of Grant et al.’s study?
To investigate whether context-dependent memory affects recall and recognition in a meaningful learning environment, such as studying and testing conditions.
What is context-dependent memory?
The idea that memory recall is better when the learning environment matches the retrieval environment (e.g., studying and testing in the same conditions).
What research method was used in Grant et al.’s study?
A laboratory experiment with an independent measures design.
How many participants took part in the study?
39 participants (17 females, 23 males), aged 17-56, recruited through opportunity sampling.
Why is the sample size relatively small?
The study only had 39 participants, meaning results may not be fully generalizable to the wider population.
What type of material did participants have to study?
A two-page article on psychoimmunology (the effects of psychological factors on the immune system).
What were the two environmental conditions used in the study?
Silent condition – Participants wore headphones but heard nothing.
Noisy condition – Participants wore headphones and heard background noise from a cafeteria (e.g., conversations, chairs moving).
What were the four experimental conditions in Grant et al.’s study?
Silent study – Silent test
Silent study – Noisy test
Noisy study – Noisy test
Noisy study – Silent test
What were the two types of memory tests used to measure recall?
Short-answer test (recall) – 10 questions requiring detailed answers.
Multiple-choice test (recognition) – 16 questions with four answer options.
Why did participants have a 2-minute break after studying the material?
To reduce the effects of short-term memory and ensure they were recalling from long-term memory.
What was the main finding regarding context-dependent memory?
Participants had better recall and recognition when the study and test conditions matched (silent-silent or noisy-noisy).
How did participants perform in the matching conditions (silent-silent, noisy-noisy)?
They had higher mean scores on both recall and recognition tests compared to those in mismatched conditions.
How did participants perform in the mismatched conditions (silent-noisy, noisy-silent)?
Their scores were significantly lower, showing that a change in environment impaired memory recall.
Was background noise a distraction during learning?
No, participants in the noisy condition performed just as well as those in the silent condition, as long as they were tested in the same environment.
What do the results suggest about studying environments?
Students should study in an environment similar to their exam conditions to improve recall and recognition.
Does the study support the encoding specificity principle?
Yes, it supports Tulving’s (1983) encoding specificity principle, which states that memory is best recalled when cues at encoding match cues at retrieval.
What instructions were given to participants before the study session?
They were told to read the article carefully and that they would be tested on the content afterward.
What were the mean scores for the short-answer test (recall) in the matching conditions?
Silent-Silent: 6.7 out of 10
Noisy-Noisy: 6.2 out of 10
What were the mean scores for the short-answer test (recall) in the mismatching conditions?
Silent-Noisy: 4.6 out of 10
Noisy-Silent: 5.4 out of 10
Why is high control a strength of Grant et al.’s study?
The same study material, time limits, and test format were used for all participants, reducing extraneous variables.
Why does the study have high ecological validity compared to other lab experiments?
It used a meaningful learning task (reading an article and taking a test), which is more realistic for students than typical memory studies using word lists.
How does the study have practical applications for students?
It suggests that students should revise in conditions similar to their exam setting (e.g., studying in silence for a silent exam).
Why might the study lack population validity?
The sample consisted of only 39 participants, mostly students, meaning the findings may not apply to other age groups or people with different learning styles.
Why does the independent measures design pose a limitation?
Different participants were used in each condition, meaning individual differences in memory ability could have influenced results.
How does low mundane realism affect the study?
In real-life learning, students often study over longer periods, whereas participants in this study only read a short article and were tested shortly after.
How does Grant et al.’s study relate to eyewitness testimony?
It supports the idea that witnesses may recall events better when placed back in the original crime scene, as context aids memory retrieval.
