Investigation 1 Flashcards
Aim
to explore the effects of background music on context-dependant memory
Experimental hypothesis
Participants who learn 20 words in a context dependent memory test with the same background music when learning and when recalling will produce higher memory scores than those who learn and recall with different background music.
direction of hypothesis and why
directional hypothesis as there is previous research – ‘background music and context dependant memory’ article by Steven Smith which used different conditions including, jazz, white noise, no music to measure participants recall from a list of words and found that their recall was lower in the jazz condition.
null hypothesis
there will be no significant difference between memory scores of sixth formers who listen to the same music when learning and recalling compared to those who listen to different music at recall.
independent variable
background music, both conditions will listen to the same song when learning; condition 1 will continue listening to that song at recall whilst condition 2 will listen to a different song.
dependent variable
scores on the memory task
control variables
same words used in both conditions - 20, 5 letter, 1 syllable words.
experimental design and why
independent groups design (2 groups)
- more suited because the independent variable was ‘background music’ and the dependent variable was ‘scores on the memory task’
- we wouldn’t be able to do repeated measures because the participants would already know the words on the list and we wouldn’t be able to change those as its the control variable
- matched pairs is time consuming and we would have needed double the participants.
type of investigation and why
lab (classroom) experiment
- Using an experiment in order to better control confounding variables and because experiments have been used in previous research.
sampling type and why
opportunity sampling
- Less time consuming than random as it’s easy to choose from the target population.
- Less chance of bias compared to volunteer.
descriptive statistic and why
mean because the data is ordinal not nominal
graphical representation and why
bar chart
- non-continuous data
- ordinal data
statistical test and why
Mann Whitney U test
- difference study
- independent groups
- not nominal data -> ordinal data
issues with reliability and how to prevent
demand characteristics → internal reliability was maintained by using standardised instructions displayed on a Whiteboard to avoid demand characteristics from how the investigator read out the instructions e.g. the tone of voice if the instructions were read out by a researcher could have affected results.
- could have used the split-half method to test if the words were of equal difficulty.
- test-retest could be used to test external reliability by using different words.
issues with validity and how to prevent
- researcher bias - may have been present if we unintentionally chose easier words to remember, however, it was prevented by displaying the standardised instructions and the words being tested on the whiteboard.
- low external validity - could lack generalisability as it was only done on sixth form students, however, it was carried out in a school so could be generalised to school, learning contexts.
- participant variables - some people know the song better than others and we could end up measuring something different o our aim – how much they like the song.
method of assessing validity:
- Concurrent – used previous research.
- Content - asked an expert (teacher)
- Face – checked with teacher.
ethical issues and how they were dealt with
confidentiality
- people did not write names on their answer sheets – anonymous
deception
- didn’t tell them the aim to prevent demand characteristics e.g. people being more aware of the song and trying to focus more, however they were debriefed after research
risk to participants beliefs
- chose non-offensive words.
valid consent
- standardised instructions – participants are informed of their right to withdraw before signing consent form.
- debriefed after the research.
dealt with any ethical issues by using the ethical guidelines and showing our research to our teacher to suggest any changes.
discuss ways to improve investigation
Ethical
Some participants left early from the second session.
- Didn’t get the chance to debrief them.
- Should have explained that people have to stay until we tell them to leave or to let us know if they have to leave early.
Used some violent words.
- Although we chose non-offensive words there were some words like death and knife which could have triggered people.
- We should have made sure to choose words that were not overly violent or let people know before if they were sensitive to certain words than to be aware that they may come up.
Methodological
People distracted each other.
- Separate people more so they can’t disrupt each other and to prevent cheating.
- Use less people per session or find a way to block in-between people.
Small sample size
- Could have done research on more days or with more people in order to increase the sample size.
People knowing the song.
- Try to choose songs that many people won’t know.
- Poses a problem when deciding whether we are actually aiming what we set out to.
Conclusion
There is no difference at the 5% level of significance. The critical value for a one tailed test when n1=10 and n2=10 is 27. Since the observed value of 38 is higher than the critical value the experimental hypothesis can be rejected, and the null hypothesis can be accepted as the null hypothesis stated that there will be no difference between the participants who listen to same background music when learning and recalling compared to those who listen to different background music when recalling.
