Lecture 15

Question 1

Godden and Badley paper? Jappe and Murre?

Answer 1

context dependent memory in 2 natural environments: on land and underwater.

Jappe and Murre replication of godden and badley

Answer 2

Replication Studies in Psychology: Context-Dependent Memory
* The 2 papers differ in many ways
* What are the differences that might have produce this pattern of results in the first versus the second study?
* (1) The original study by Godden and Baddeley (1976)
* (2) The replication by Murre (2021), differ in several ways regarding context-dependent memory. (Was it a good replication or not?)
* Context-dependent memory: recall is better when learning and recal occur in the same place/environment.
o If you learn something in one place and try to recall it somewhere else, memory may be less effective.

Question 3

Background: Previous literature had heterogenous results

other issues?

The study?

Answer 3

Strand 1970: suggested that the difference happened because of the disruption that occurs when the subject moves from one environment to another, not becuase of the different contexts of learning/recalling.

Jensen et al 1971: Children and teenagers learned nonsense words in a room. Half had to recall in the same room, half in a different one. They found significant differences in retention across the age groups.

other issues:

most studies used artifical environments instead of natural ones, so their effects may not be generalizable.

the study:

objective - studying the phenomenon of context dependent memory in natural environments. The underwater environment was chosen due to its large difference ot the surface environment: divers are weightless, has restricted vision, and the scenario is visually different from any place on land.

Question 4

Keertana’s summary of the readings

Answer 4

• Readings Summary [My notes]:
• Paper 1: Godden and Baddeley (1975) - “Context-Dependent Memory in Two Natural Environments: On Land and Underwater”- natural environments
• Purpose: This study investigated whether memory recall is better when the context (environment) during recall matches the context during learning.
  o The researchers were inspired by anecdotal evidence of context-dependent memory in divers.
• Method: The researchers conducted two main experiments using divers as participants. In Experiment 1, 16 undergraduate amateur divers learned lists of 36 unrelated words either on land (Dry) or underwater (Wet). After a short delay, they were tested on their recall either in the same environment or the other environment, creating 4 conditions: Dry-Dry, Dry-Wet, Wet-Dry, and Wet-Wet. All divers participated in all four conditions. The underwater part of the experiment took place in open seawater at a depth of 7 meters.
• Experiment 1: A key feature was the delay procedure for the same-context conditions (Dry-Dry and Wet-Wet), where the divers waited quietly in the same learning environment for a 4-minute interval before the recall test/ In Experiment 1, those in the same learning and recall environment remained there during the delay
  Experiment 2:
• This experiment introduced a modification to the delay procedure
• This implies that in Experiment 2, the delay likely involved a change of environment for ALL groups/conditions after the learning phase and before the recall test in the designated environment.
  o The replication study by Murre (2021) explicitly states that its delay procedure mimicked this aspect of Experiment 2
• Key Findings:
• Conclusions
  o The effect of the environment of recall on performance depends on the environment of learning.
  o Recall is better when it happens in the same environment where learning happened.
  o This effect is unlikely to be due to disruption (seen with Experiment 2), supporting the context-dependent hypothesis.
• The study found a significant effect of context-dependent memory. Recall was significantly better when the environment at the time of recall matched the environment at the time of learning (i.e., Dry-Dry and Wet-Wet conditions showed better recall than Dry-Wet and Wet-Dry). This suggested that the environmental context plays a crucial role in memory retrieval.
• Limitations:
• Natural versus artificial research: Consider how unnatural the idea of learning underwater is. Typically, people don’t dive in with a wetsuit and listen to someone on a microphone reciting words to memorize. (unusual situation). Comparison to learning on land, where learning usually happens.
• Real life application:
• Exams in the same room as classes
  o Would be beneficial for recall.
• Work environments and other recall-dependent places
  o Context matters for remembering information precisely.
  o Example: Revisiting a place to recall a past moment better.
  o Examples:
   Giving a speech at a wedding.
   Rehearsing in a familiar space to improve memory retrieval.
• Context-dependent learning in sports
  o Training in the same environment may improve performance.
  o Possible link to motor memory or non-declarative memory.
  o Physical factors also play a role:
   Example: Athletes competing at different altitudes face additional challenges.
• Context effects apply broadly
  o Manifest in various types of learning (e.g., motor learning, spatial learning).
  o In sports, athletes often practice in environments that mimic real competition.

Question 5

What are the 2 kinds of replications?

Answer 5

Direct:

• exact same methods
• aim to verify the original study and/or finding is true/real
• “assuming we execute the same study, can we get similar results?”

Conceptual:
- can be the same or modified method to improve/adress limitations
- aim to verify the original construct / phenomenon is real.

• “assuming we are measuring this same thing, can we get the same result?”
• The same study can be interpreted differently depending on the intention behind it.
• There are two types of replications: direct replication and conceptual replication.
  o Direct Replication:
   Copies the original study exactly, using the same methods and ideally the same population.
   The goal is to verify whether the original finding holds true when replicated precisely.
   Simplified: If we follow the same procedure exactly, do we get the same or similar results?
  o Conceptual Replication:
   Does not strictly follow the original study but may modify aspects to improve upon it.
   Recognizes that studies often have limitations, and knowledge evolves over time.
   Example: Research practices like p-hacking (e.g., adding participants until p-value drops below 0.05) were once acceptable but are now discouraged.
   The goal is to verify the underlying construct or phenomenon rather than just the original study’s findings.
   Example of context-dependent memory:
• Direct replication: Tests if people recall information better in the same environment (e.g., land vs. water).
• Conceptual replication: Investigates whether learning in situation A leads to better recall in A vs. B, without needing specific contexts like water or land.
   If we measure the same construct, can we get similar results, providing converging evidence for the same phenomenon?

Question 6

Keertana’s notes on Murre paper.

Answer 6

• Paper 2: Murre (2021) - “The Godden and Baddeley (1975) experiment on context-dependent memory on land and underwater: a replication”
• Purpose: This study aimed to replicate the classic findings of Godden and Baddeley (1975) on environmental context-dependent memory using a similar methodology. The author highlights the importance of replicating significant studies in psychology.
• Method: 16 experienced divers participated in the replication study. Similar to the original study, they learned lists of words either on land or underwater and were tested on their recall either on land or underwater, across all four possible combinations.
• However, there were several differences in the procedure and environment compared to the original study.
  o The underwater testing took place in a heated indoor swimming pool with a depth of 1.8 meters. All four conditions were completed by each group of divers within approximately 1.5 hours on a single day.
  o The delay procedure mimicked Godden and Baddeley’s Experiment 2, where participants changed environments after learning before the recall test. The experiment was also filmed for a TV program.
• Key Findings:
• Contrary to the original study, this replication did not find a statistically significant effect of same versus different context on memory recall. In fact, there wasn’t even a trend in the same direction as the original findings.
• The study did find a main effect of the learning environment, with better recall for words learned on land regardless of the recall environment.
• Key Differences Between the Two Studies that Might Explain the Divergent Results:

Methods identical except for the following:

original:
- undergraduate divers
- words chosen from toronto word bank
- open water except 2 participants
- depth of 7m during wet condition
- exp. 1 did not “switch” locations
- tested across 4 days, one condition per day.

Murre replication:
- club divers (presumably more experienced)
- CELEX word corpus (more difficult words)
- heated indoor pool
- max depth of 1.8m during wet condition
- “switched” locations between learnign and recall
- all in one day with 1.5 hours.

Question 7

What were the results of the 2 papers?

Answer 7

original:
- main effect of learning environment (dry better than wet)

replication:
- no main effect of recall environment (dry = wet)

• Paper 1:
  o Recall depends on both learning location and recall location.
  o Steep slopes between conditions indicate an interaction.
• Paper 2:
• Learning on land led to better recall than learning underwater.
• SO No main effect of recall environment:
  o Where participants learned in isolation didn’t affect recall.
  o No statistical main effect of recall environment.
• Initial confusion about findings, but confirmed that recall environment didn’t matter in isolation.
• Key contrast:
  o Unlike the original study, the replication did not find a strong interaction.
  o Learning on land didn’t lead to better recall on land (DD) compared to recalling in water (DW), and vice versa.

CRUCIALLY, unlike the original, no interaction between the 2 (effect of recall environment did not significantly differ between dry learning and wet learning.

Question 8

Discussion

Answer 8

• Discussion: Direct or Conceptual Replication
• Very likely aiming to do a direct replication because much of his discussion and framing of the paper is about the original study’s finding, not the phenomenon.
• He spends most of his time discussing whether the original paper showed context-dependent memory rather than investigating if it’s true.
• Ends with a strange sentence in the paper:
  o Something like, “It’s unfortunate that this paper was not able to be replicated.”
• There are telltale signs, though not explicit, that suggest his intent—one can gauge the author’s vibe to infer what they were trying to do.
• Participant Characteristics: Godden and Baddeley used undergraduate amateur divers. Murre’s replication used more experienced divers from diving clubs.
  o The original sample might have been more homogeneous, whereas the experienced divers in the replication could have varied more in their diving habits and learning strategies.
• Experimental Environment: This is a crucial difference. Godden and Baddeley conducted the underwater portion in open, cold seawater at a depth of 7 meters. Murre’s replication used a heated indoor swimming pool with a depth of only 1.8 meters.
• Murre suggests that the contextual difference between land and deep open water is likely much greater than between land and a shallow indoor pool. This smaller contextual difference in the replication could have led to a weaker or non-existent context-dependent memory effect. Additionally, the original study might have inadvertently involved state-dependent memory rather than purely environmental context-dependent memory due to physiological changes at greater depth.
  o It could be about how your body is reacting to the different situation rather than the context itself.
  o This has very different implications for how memory works.
  o So maybe it’s not about the environmental questions, but it’s about the internal context.
  o And so maybe it’s exploring the boundary conditions on that effect, etc.
• Experimental Timing and Interference: Godden and Baddeley’s experiment spanned 4 days. Murre’s replication completed all conditions within approximately 1.5 hours on a single day.
  o This compressed timeframe in the replication could have led to extra forgetting, proactive interference from previously learned word lists hindering later recall.
• Delay Procedure Details: While both studies had a delay, Murre’s replication specifically mirrored Godden and Baddeley’s Experiment 2, involving a change of environment during the delay to prevent rehearsal. However, Murre notes that Godden and Baddeley found waiting in or out of context during the delay to be comparable, suggesting this might not be the primary factor.
• Delay Procedure: In Godden and Baddeley’s Experiment 1, divers in the same-context conditions (Dry-Dry and Wet-Wet) waited quietly for 4 minutes in the learning environment before recall. Murre’s replication mimicked Godden and Baddeley’s Experiment 2, where divers changed environments after learning and then returned to the recall environment after a 4-minute delay. This change was intended to limit rehearsal in the unfilled interval. While Murre notes this difference, they also point out that Godden and Baddeley found waiting out of context to be comparable to waiting in the same context, suggesting this procedural difference might not be the primary reason for the differing results.
• Potential Distractions: Murre’s experiment was filmed for a TV program, which could have distracted participants. While Godden and Baddeley also reported distractions during their open water dives, the nature and impact might have differed.
• Word Difficulty and Subject Memory: Murre speculates that the lower overall recall in their study might be due to more difficult words or differences in the memory abilities of their participants - potentially weaker memory in their older and possibly less educated participants compared to the original undergraduate sample.
• Underwater Stimulus Presentation: While monitored for clarity, the underwater speaker system in Murre’s study might have still affected learning underwater compared to on land, potentially contributing to the different pattern of results.
• Understanding these differences is key to appreciating why the replication failed to support the original findings and highlights the importance of considering contextual and procedural variations in memory research.
• In summary, the differences in the experimental environment (open sea vs. indoor pool), the compressed timeframe of the replication potentially leading to interference, and the nature of the participant samples (experience level and homogeneity) are highlighted by Murre as potentially significant factors that could explain the failure to replicate the context-dependent memory effect found in the original Godden and Baddeley study.