IA Sample 2

Self reference and memory recall

IB Psychology SL/HL

Word count: 1341

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
Exploration ......................................................................................................................... 2
Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation........................................................................................................................... 5
Works cited ........................................................................................................................ 6
Appendix i. Internal Assessment Proposal .........................................................................................7
Appendix ii. Letter of consent ...........................................................................................................8
Appendix iii. Standardized directions & “answer sheet.” ....................................................................9
Appendix iv. Word list ...................................................................................................................11
Appendix v. Raw data & inferential statistics ...................................................................................12
Appendix vi. Debriefing notes ........................................................................................................14

1
Introduction
Craik & Tulving (1975) proposed what is known as the “Levels of Processing Theory.” This
theory argues that “the way information is encoded affects how well is remembered. The deeper
the level of processing, the easier the information is to recall.” (McLeod). The researchers
distinguish between “shallow” and “deep” processing. Shallow processing can either be structural
or phonemic. Structural processing asks about the physical properties of something. The
researcher could ask “does this word have more than five letters?” Phonemic processing asks
something about the sound of the word. It may be whether the word rhymes with cat. Shallow
processing only uses maintenance rehearsal – that means that there is no elaborative rehearsal. The
deep processing is semantic. That means that the meaning of the word is reflected upon. This
helps us to remember words. Comment [1]: The theory is described in
some detail. The difference between
maintenance and elaborative rehearsal could
Rogers, Kuiper and Kirker (1977) carried out a study on deep processing. In order to get the be explained.
participants to think deeply, they asked them to personalize the words. They called this “self-
referent processing.” Their sample was made up of 32 first year psychology students. Participants
were asked either a shallow processing question or a deep processing question such as “Does this
describe you?” while watching a list of 40 words being projected. The results were that
participants who processed the words more “deeply” remembered significantly more words than
those participants in the shallow condition. Comment [2]: The study is described, but it
would be better to have more detail about the
original study so that an appropriate
The aim of our study is to replicate this study and see if deep processing increases one’s ability to comparison of the findings could be made in
recall a list of words. The deep processing will be to ask them the question “Does this describe the discussion section of the report.
you?” as was asked in the original study. This study is important to replicate because we need to Comment [3]: The aim is stated but not
see if we can get the same results. In addition, we want to know if this could help us to memorize very precisely. Although self-referent
processing is a form of deep processing, it is
more efficiently. that specific form of processing that this
investigation is examining.
The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the number of words recalled if a Comment [4]: A very limited reference to
participant uses shallow processing or deep processing. the relevance of the study. The first comment
is not really a statement of relevance. The
second comment is appropriate but not really
The research hypothesis is that when participants use deep processing they will recall more words explained.
than participants who use shallow processing. Comment [5]: It should be no “significant”
difference.
Comment [6]: In both the null and research
Exploration hypotheses, the IV and DV are not
operationalized.

Out study used an independent samples design. One group was asked to process the list of words Comment [7]: Design is identified and
shallowly (does the word have an “E?”) and the other group was asked “does this word describe described.

you?”. Our sample had 32 participants - with 15 in the shallow processing condition and 17 in the
deep condition. Both groups met at the same time but were in different rooms with a different
member of our team. We used a sample of opportunity because it was available. They were two
classes of IB English. A sample of opportunity uses a sample that already exists in order to make it
easier to obtain a sample. Comment [8]: Sampling technique is
identified and described in limited detail.

For our materials we created a list of forty words. The words were all adjectives that could be used
to describe people. The list made more sense for our experiment than a list of random words since
we were asking one group if the word described them. We put the words into a Powerpoint Comment [9]: An attempt at justification of
presentation and had each word projected to the participants for 15 seconds. the materials, but superficial.
Comment [10]: A control is identified but
not justified.

2
We flipped a coin to randomly allocate the classes to the shallow or deep conditions. In each Comment [11]: Allocation to conditions is
condition, participants were read the standardised directions (see Appendix ii). Participants were explained.

given an “answer sheet” to fill in while they watched the 40 words projected in a Powerpoint Comment [12]: Another control identified.
slideshow. Following the presentation of each word, participants answer one of two questions:
"Does this word have an "e"?" (structural encoding) or "Does this word describe you?" (deep
encoding). After the list was complete, participants were shown the video “Funny Animal Videos”
as a distractor task. This was to make sure that the participants would not simply recall the words
because they were the last words on the list. Comment [13]: Control explained.

After the distractor task, participants were given two minutes to write down as many words as they
could recall. When the time was up, they were thanked for their participation and debriefed them.
(see app vi). Comment [14]: Procedure is described in
satisfactory detail.

Analysis
After all data was collected, both descriptive and inferential statistics were done to see if our data
was significant. The descriptive statistics are in the table below.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics Comment [15]: The statistics that are

applied are appropriate.

Shallow processing Deep processing

Mean 8.86 21.29
Median 7 22
Standard deviation 4.33 7.96

The mean of the deep processing group that was asked to think about how the word related to them
personally was 21.29, while the mean of the group that did shallow processing was only 8.86
words. This means that the deep processing condition remembered on average 12.43 more words
than the group that only had to think about the structure of the word. This is not due to outliers. Comment [16]: A simple description of the
Even if we take out the top two scores in the deep processing group so that the group sizes would statistics, but no real discussion of the nature
of the raw data. The median is an attempt to
be even, in the shallow processing group the median score was 7 words – meaning just as many do so, but the comment about removing scores
participants scored above 7 as below 7; in the deep processing group the median was 22. There is unclear and not really correct.
was more variance in the deep processing group, maybe because some people didn’t understand the
directions. Comment [17]: Variance is noted and
described, but the reasons for the variance are
not clearly or correctly argued.

3
Graph 1. A comparison of shallow and deep processing

Comment [18]: The graph distorts the data

by limiting the range of words to 25, instead of
using the full range of 40. The x axis should
be more clearly labeled and the title should be
more exact.

Because we used an independent sample design, we used a Mann Whitney U test. The results were
significant at p < 0.0001. This means that we can reject our null hypothesis. It appears that when
we think about how words are personally relevant to us and therefore process the information
deeply, we can remember significantly more words than when we process the words shallowly. Comment [19]: The test is appropriate and
the results are correctly stated and related to
the hypothesis.

4
Evaluation
Our replication of Rogers, Kuiper & Kirker (1977) was successful. We found that those
participants who did self-referential, deeper encoding were able to recall significantly more words
than the group that was asked structural questions. This matched the findings in the original study. Comment [20]: An oversimplified
It appears that there are different levels of processing that the deeper the level, the better we are comparison of the findings to those of the
original study.
able to recall a list of words.

Asking students to think about how much the word describes them is asking them to do elaborative
rehearsal. The idea is to create a sense of meaning for the words so that they are easier to recall.
This strategy appears to be successful in this experiment. Comment [21]: An attempt at linking to
the theory, but the ideas should be more
developed.
There were several limitations of our study. First, we used an opportunity sample made up of
students. They may have been unmotivated to do their best in the study. Another problem is that
we cannot generalize the students to a larger population. Students are used to memorizing lists of
words so they are not like other people. Comment [22]: The limitations of the
sample are correct, but ideas could be more
carefully developed.
In addition, one of the problems is that we used an independent samples design. One of the
problems with this design is that one group may tell the members of the other group what the
experiment is about. This is called contamination. In our study, however, we had both groups go at
the same time, so we did not have any contamination. However, it is not possible for us to say that Comment [23]: This is one of the controls
both groups had exactly the same experience because different researchers carried out the that was used; it is unclear why the student
thinks that this is a limitation.
experiment with each group.
Comment [24]: This is correct but should
be more developed. What differences may
Another limitation of the study was that the study lacks ecological validity. Experiments are done have existed by using different teams of
in laboratories and thus are highly artificial. This means we cannot generalize the results outside of researchers? This paragraph is not, overall,
very focused.
the laboratory.
Comment [25]: Although it is true that
most lab experiments lack ecological validity,
Another limitation is that we had a very small sample and the size of the two groups was not the this is simply a general statement about
same. If we were to do the study again, we would want to have a larger sample in order to make experiments and is not linked directly to the
replicated study.
our results more reliable.
Comment [26]: This will always be true in
the IAs. It is not a very good example of
For future research, it would be interesting to see if thinking about yourself leads to deeper evaluation.
processing than other forms of deep processing – for example, mental imagery. It could be that Comment [27]: This is not relevant.
making personal connections is even more important than trying to create images, which has been
Comment [28]: This is a good example of
shown in the past to produce higher levels of recall. a potential topic for future research.

From our study we are able to conclude that deep processing in the form of self-referential
encoding has greater recall of words than when the words are processed at a structural level. Comment [29]: Simple statement of
conclusion.

5
Works cited
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words
in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.

McLeod, Saul. (2007). Levels of Processing. Simply Psychology. Accessed January 14, 2015.
Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/levelsofprocessing.html

Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding
of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688.

6
Appendix i. Internal Assessment Proposal

Study to be replicated: Rogers, Kuiper and Kirker (1977)

Materials required: A list of 40 adjectives. A short film which we can use as a distractor
task.

Procedure: There will be two groups. One group will be asked to do shallow processing by
indicating whether the letter e is in the word. The other group will be asked to think about
whether the word describes them. Then they will be read a list of words. After the list is
read and they have answered the questions, they will be asked to recall as many words as
possible.

Ethical considerations: Before the experiment, informed consent will be obtained from all
participants.

The study should not cause any undue stress or harm for the participants as they are simply
being asked to recall a list of words. I will keep their individual scores confidential. In the
debriefing I will explain the experiment to them and share the results.

Feedback on the proposal: I need to do a pilot test of my list of words to make sure that
they are understandable. I will do this with the psychology class before carrying out my
study. In addition, it would be better to project the words so that the process can be
standardized. Finally, I need to check with the participants at the end to make sure that they
understood all of the words.

____________________________________

Teacher signature

7
Appendix ii. Letter of consent

Hello, we are performing an experiment for our Psychology class. We are doing a study on
the perception of vocabulary words. In our experiment, we are going to read to you a list of
words and then ask you questions about them. We would like to ask you to take part in our
experiment.

If you agree to take part in our experiment, you should know that:

• All data will be kept confidential and anonymous.

• You may stop participating in this experiment at any time.

• You will receive information about the nature of this experiment and our results after
our analysis is complete.

I, _______________________________________, understand the nature of this experiment

and I agree to participate voluntarily. I give the researchers permission to use my data as
part of their experimental study.

Signature: ________________________________ Date: __________________

8
Appendix iii. Standardized directions & “answer sheet.”

Good afternoon and thank you once again for agreeing to take part in our experiment.

We are now passing out a letter of consent. Please read the letter and if you agree to participate,
please sign the form and fill out the relevant information.

After forms are collected, pass out the answer sheet to all participants.

Group 1.

You are about to see a series of words projected on the screen in front of you. Each word will be
projected for 20 seconds. During that time, decide if the word contains the letter “e.” If the word
contains the letter “e”, please write the letter Y on your answer sheet for “yes.” If it does not
contain the letter “e”, please write no. Once we begin showing the words to you, you may not talk
or ask any questions. If there is a word that you do not know, that is ok. If you miss a word, please
be sure to skip a line on your answer sheet.

Are there any questions?

Group 2.

You are about to see a series of words projected on the screen in front of you. Each word will be
projected for 20 seconds. During that time, decide if the word describes you. For example, if the
word is “shy” - if you are shy, write yes on your answer sheet. If you are not shy, then write “no”
on your answer sheet. Once we begin showing the words to you, you may not talk or ask any
questions. If there is a word that you do not know, that is ok. Simply leave the blank on your
answer sheet with no response. If you miss a word, please be sure to skip a line on your answer
sheet.

Are there any questions?

9
Answer Sheet for Psychology Experiment

1. ________________ 21. ________________

2. ________________ 22. ________________

3. ________________ 23. ________________

4. ________________ 24. ________________

5. ________________ 25. ________________

6. ________________ 26. ________________

7. ________________ 27. ________________

8. ________________ 28. ________________

9. ________________ 29. ________________

10. ________________ 30. ________________

11. ________________ 31. ________________

12. ________________ 32. ________________

13. ________________ 33. ________________

14. ________________ 34. ________________

15. ________________ 35. ________________

16. ________________ 36. ________________

17. ________________ 37. ________________

18. ________________ 38. ________________

19. ________________ 39. ________________

20. ________________ 40. ________________

10
Appendix iv. Word list

arrogant, ambitious, adventurous, aggressive, careless, moody, charming, sarcastic,

selfish, boring, careful, intelligent, fussy, loyal, bossy, jealous, honest, thoughtful,
hard-working, lazy, flirtatious, diplomatic, courageous, patient, optimistic, quick-
tempered, romantic, stubborn, creative, funny, greedy, energetic, grumpy, practical,
polite, inflexible, generous, gullible, nervous, sneaky.

11
Appendix v. Raw data & inferential statistics

Participant Words recalled - shallow Words recalled - deep processing

processing

1 5 22

2 3 26

3 6 14

4 12 29

5 4 11

6 7 8

7 6 19

8 9 31

9 7 26

10 8 22

11 19 29

12 11 33

13 15 30

14 7 25

15 14 12

16 15

17 10

Mean 8.86 21.29

Median 7 22

standard deviation 4.33 7.96

12
13
Appendix vi. Debriefing notes

First we would like to thank you for taking part in our experiment. In our experiment we
were trying to determine if the way that you processed information made a difference in
your ability to recall it. In one group you were asked to say whether the letter “e” was in
the word. In the second group, you were asked to think about whether the word described
you. The first group was asked to do something we call “shallow processing”. The second
group was doing “deep processing” - making a connection to the word. We found that the
second group had a much higher rate of recall than the first group.

Are there any questions about our study?

Thank you once again for your time.

14
Introduction (6 marks)

Marks Level descriptor

3-4
The aim of the investigation is stated and its relevance is identified but not explained.!
The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is described but
the link to the student’s investigation is not explained. The independent and
dependent variables are correctly stated in the null or research hypotheses, but not
operationalized.

Marks Comments

3 The study and theory are described but not well linked. The aim is stated but
imprecise. Relevance is identified but not explained in any detail. The IV and DV are
implied in the hypotheses, but they are not operationalized.

Exploration (4 marks)

Marks Level descriptor

1–2
The research design is described. The sampling technique is described. Characteristics
of the participants are described. Controlled variables are described. The materials
used are described.

Marks Comments

2 The research design is described in satisfactory detail. The sampling technique is

defined rather rather than described. Minimal characteristics of the sample are
identified. Controls are identified and there is some description and justification, but
most often they are simply stated. The choice of materials is described, but not
explicitly justified.

Analysis (6 marks)

Marks Level descriptor

3-4
Appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics are applied but there are errors. The
graph addresses the hypothesis but contains errors. The statistical findings are stated
but either not interpreted with regard to the data or not linked to the hypothesis

Marks Comments

4 Statistics are correctly applied. The variance is described in limited detail and not
explained correctly. The graph distorts data and is not appropriately labelled. The
conclusion is stated with regard to the inferential statistics and linked to the
hypothesis.

15
Evaluation (6 marks)

Marks Level descriptor

3- 4
The findings of the student’s investigation are described with reference to the
background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample or
procedure are stated and described and relevant to the investigation. Modifications are
described but not explicitly linked to the limitations of the student’s investigation.

Marks Comments

3 There is a minimal description of the findings with reference to the background study
and/or theory. Limitations are not always linked to the research, but are more general
or superficial in nature. Modifications are not always described. An idea for further
research is described.

Total score for the assessment: 12/22 marks

16