What was the study that inspired Grant’s?
Godden and Baddeley study
What is the aim of this study?
To find out whether recall and recognition memory are improved when the context of encoding matches the context of retrieval.
What is the experiment type, design, and conditions?
- Lab experiment
- IMD
- 2 IVs: Context of encoding. Context of retrieval. => 4 combinations of IV conditions
- DV: Number of SAQs or MCQs answered correctly
How did the researchers collect the data for the DV?
Recognition: MCQs
Recall: SAQs
What was the sample of this study?
39 acquaintances of experimenters (aged 17-56)
17 females. 23 males.
Describe the experiment
- P’s were asked to read the article once as if reading it for a class assignment
- All P’s have the test to examine their comprehension
- Silent-silent condition: No sound in the headphones while studying and taking the test.
- Silent-noisy condition: No sound while studying but had to listen to noise from cafeteria from the headphone while taking the exam.
-Noisy-silent condition: Vice versa to the second one - Noisy-noisy condition: Had to listen to noise in a cafeteria from a headphone for both encoding and retrieval.
- Debrief then happen after testing
Did P’s get breaks in between encoding and retrieval sessions?
Yes they did. They had a 2 minute break
What were the findings of this study?
- P’s studying in silence did not score better than P’s studying in noise (Mean score in MCQ in silent-silent and noisy-noisy conditions is 14.3)
- Performance was significantly better in the matched than mismatched conditions ( Noisy-silent: 12.7. Silent-silent: 14.3)
What can be concluded from this study?
- Noise does not affect students’ ability to study
- Context-dependence affects retrieval of knowledge
EVALUATIONS:
Research method
(+) High in control. E.g. All P’s receive the same 16 MCQs about the psychoimmunology article.
Therefore differences in questions could not act as an extraneous variable
(-) IMD means that individual differences between P’s could have acted as extraneous variables. E.g. Some P’s might have been better at remembering than others. This means that if all P’s with poor memories are in the mismatched condition, they would perform poorer, regardless of the matching of context between encoding and retrieval.
EVALUATIONS:
Data type
(+) Quantitative data allows researchers to inferentially analyze P’s test scores to find out how the variables interacted with others. E.g. Results showed an interaction between study and test conditions whereby performance was significantly better in the matched than mismatched conditions
(-) We do not know how much of the studied text P’s had learned. If free recall had been used (blurt), we would have gained a greater insight into which details were remembered and forgotten.
The study is less complete
EVALUATIONS:
Ethics
(+) Right to withdraw: P’s were told that participation was voluntary before testing began.
This meant that if they became stressed because they couldn’t remember any of the article on Psychoimmunology, P’s could leave the study.
(-) Debrief: The purpose of the study was discussed with the P’s.
This meant that they could understand that context dependence in memory had been studied. They could leave with an understanding of the science they had been contributing to.
EVALUATIONS:
Ecological validity
(+) Involved reading and remembering the details of an article. Previous studies usually involved learning lists of words which would have been meaningless to P’s.
This reflects the kinds of reading comprehension tasks which would be given to people in real life in school or workplaces.
(-) When students are given materials to revise, they usually have a few days to revise it, not just a couple of minutes.
Memory may be better in real life in all conditions.
EVALUATIONS:
Reliability
(+) Highly standardized materials. E.g. The same psychoimmunology test was used as the test for all P’s.
Another researcher could replicate the study using the same materials. This means the test re-test reliability could be established.
What are the materials which were standardized?
- The headphones for all P’s
- The same cassettes (exact copis of a tape of background noise) for P’s in noisy conditions
- The same Psychoimmunology text was chosen (content interesting but unfamiliar)
- The same 2 tests for all P’s
EVALUATIONS:
Generalizability
(+) Sample consisted of people aged 17-56 rather than just students.
The findings that memory is context dependence can be generalized to a wide age group.
(-) Culturally biased: Study was carried out at Iowa State University.
This is bad because findings on context dependence in memory cannot be generalized to other cultures (not tested)
However, cognitive architecture is likely to be universal. Culture may not limit the generalizability of the findings in this study.
EVALUATIONS:
Practical applications
- Students’ study habits . E.g. Students wanting to improve test performance should study in silence in the same room as the test will take place.
This would work because the context is encoded with the to-be-remembered information. At retrieval, the student can use the context as a cue to the rest of the information within the memory trace. - Police questioning of eyewitness. Police should take witnesses back to the scene of the crime as this will improve their memory for the event.
‘Reinstate context’
