Upload
hunarsandhu
View
77
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
IB PsychologyHigh Level Sample
Citation preview
Psychology IA HL
1
Internal Assessment An Experimental investigating of dual code theory
by using either abstract or concrete words Psychology HL
Candidate name School: Nrre Gymnasium 0598 Candidate number: Date of submission: January 5th 2010 Word count: 1,997
Psychology IA HL
2
Abstract
According to Paivios (1969) dual-code theory words that evoke a mental image should be easier to recall than abstract words, due to the use of imagery. This
investigation attempted to investigate this theory by designing a study that compared the recall of concrete and abstract words. It was hypothesised that the amount of
recalled words would be significantly higher when participants were presented with concrete words than when they were presented with abstract words. A repeated measures design was used, and the participants (N=10) were chosen using the opportunity sampling method. A list of ten concrete words was read out to the group of participants, who was subsequently given a filler task and asked to recall as many of the words as they could. The same procedure was then repeated with a list of
abstract words. The Wilcoxon statistical test was applied and the results were significant at P 0. 01 so the research hypothesis was accepted.
. The conclusion was that the number of concrete words recalled was greater
than the number of abstract words recalled indicating that imagery does in fact
enhance recall, thus supporting Paivios dual-code theory.
Word count: 191
Psychology IA HL
3
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................. 4
Method ..................................................................................................................... 6
Design: ................................................................................................................. 6 Participants: ........................................................................................................ 7 Materials: ............................................................................................................. 7 Procedure: ........................................................................................................... 8
Results...................................................................................................................... 8
Discussion .............................................................................................................. 10
Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 13
Appendices............................................................................................................. 13
Psychology IA HL
4
Introduction
Cognitive psychologists study complex mental processes such as memory. The
question of how knowledge is organized, for instance, is one that has led to several
theorethical explanations, including Paivios (1969) dual-code theory1.Paivio
suggested that the most powerful predictor of how well words will be learned is
whether the word evokes a mental image. This is the basis for the dual-code theory,
which proposes that visual and verbal information are processed differently and along
distinct channels. Furthermore, both visual and verbal codes for representing
information are used to organize incoming information, which can then be used,
stored and retrieved.
Evidence for the dual-code theory comes from a series of experiments
conducted by Begg and Paivio (1969)2, where the main variable being manipulated
was the classification of words as abstract or concrete. One such study aimed to test
how wording and meaning of abstract and concrete sentences could affect their
recognition. An example of a concrete sentence is The spirited leader slapped a
mournful hostage, while an abstract sentence is The arbitrary regulation provoked a
civil complaint. After presenting these two types of sentences in a short text,
participants were given a recognition test which contained distracter sentences that
resembled one of the original sentences. These distracter sentences had a different
wording or meaning than the original sentences; for instance, The spirited leader
slapped a mournful captive would be a distracter sentence with a different wording,
and The spirited hostage slapped a mournful leader would be one with a different
meaning. Results showed that, for concrete sentences, subjects recognized changes in
1 In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.100
2 In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.100
Psychology IA HL
5
meaning better than changes in wording. In the case of abstract sentences, on the other
hand, word changes were recognized better than meaning changes. These findings can
be interpreted in terms of supporting the dual-code theory by illustrating that the
ability of a word to evoke a mental image, as is the case with concrete words, plays an
important role on its recall.
These findings are corroborated by research conducted by Anderson and
Bower (1973)3 that showed that memory for some verbal information is improved
when a relevant visual stimuli is presented or when the learner can easily imagine a
visual image to go with the verbal information, as is the case with concrete words.
On the other hand, Richardson (1974)4, in a study consisting of the free recall
of concrete and abstract words, indicated a limitation to Paivios theory. The results
from Richardsons research indicated that concrete words were only recalled more
when there was an interval between presenting the stimulus and recalling it. Since
there was no significant difference in recall from short-term memory (STM), this
suggests that the effect of imagery lies in long-term memory (LTM).
In line with previous research, the aim of the experiment was to investigate if
words that evoke a mental image are easier to recall than abstract words as predicted
by Paivios dual code theory. The experiment was a variation of Anderson and Bower
(1973), with the alteration of adding a filler task in order to test LTM instead of STM.
Participants were presented with a list of concrete words and a list of abstract words.
Considering the implication of the dual-code theory, a one-tailed hypothesis was
chosen as it was expected that there would be a significantly greater recall of the
concrete words because these can easily evoke a mental image to go with the given
verbal information.
3 In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.104
4 In: Gross, R. (2001) p.257
Psychology IA HL
6
H1: The amount of recalled words will be greater when participants are presented with
concrete words than when they are presented with abstract words.
H0: The amount of words recalled will be the same in both conditions or differences
will be due to chance.
Method
Design:
The design chosen as most appropriate for this experiment was the repeated measures
design, so the same set of participants (N=10) was used for both conditions. This was
because fewer participants are needed, and the related design also controls for
participant variables thus avoiding a decrease of reliability of results by having
participants with a better capacity of recalling words in one condition than in the
other. Furthermore, in order to avoid order effects, we counter-balanced the
participants so that five participants would be tested in one condition first while the
other five were tested in the other condition first. Moreover, ethical considerations
were followed in that all participants signed an informed consent form5 and were
assured that their anonymity would remain protected and that they could withdraw
from the experiment at any moment.
Choosing the experimental method made it possible for variables to be
manipulated and, therefore, to establish a cause-effect relationship. The independent
variable of this experiment was whether concrete or abstract words were presented,
while the dependent variable was the amount of words recalled in each condition.
5 See Appendix 1
Psychology IA HL
7
Participants:
The target population of this experiment was International Baccalaureate students of
Nrre Gymnasium of both sexes. IB students were ideal for this experiment since a
fluency of English was necessary to ensure understanding of the words presented for
recall. All ten participants were over the age of eighteen (age range 18-20) and thus
able to legally consent their participation. The sample (N=10) was chosen through
opportunity sampling, because it was the most convenient method.
Materials:
Consent form6
Standardized briefing and debriefing instructions7
List of ten abstract words8 List of ten concrete words9
Blank sheets of paper
Two similar filler tasks10
6 See Appendix 1
7 See Appendix 2
8 See Appendix 3
9 See Appendix 4
10 See Appendix 5
Psychology IA HL
8
Procedure:
Before commencing the experiment, participants were read out the standardized
briefing instructions3 and then given a consent form2 to sign.
The participants were randomly divided into two groups of five participants by
drawing their names out of a box so that counterbalancing could take place. Each
group was lead to a quiet classroom by one of the experimenters. Two different
experimenters were used so that both groups could be tested simultaneously, in
different classrooms, in order to avoid sharing of information between participants of
different groups.
Afterwards, the experimenter warned that he/she will now begin to read out the first
list, and did so. One group of participants had the list of concrete words11 read out to
them first, while the other group had the list of abstract words12 first. Participants
were then asked to do the filler task13, which had previously already been set on their
desks.
Once everyone had finished, the filler tasks were collected, and a blank sheet of paper
was given out to each of them on which they were asked to write down the previously
read out words, in any order. No time limit was set, and the lists were collected once
every participant claimed to be finished.
The procedure was then repeated, yet with the second list. The group which had the
list of concrete words read out first was then read out the list of abstract words and
vice-versa. Once all participants claimed to be finished, the papers were collected and
the standardized debriefing instructions14 were read out.
11 See Appendix 4
12 See Appendix 3
13 See Appendix 5
14 See Appendix 2
Psychology IA HL
9
Results
Glancing over the raw data15, it can be noted that all participants recalled more
concrete than abstract words. The mean of amount of concrete words recalled (6.1)
was greater than the mean of amount of abstract words recalled (4.0). Furthermore,
since a relatively low standard deviation was found, our results were consistent and
not very spread out.
Table 1: Mean of amount of words recalled in each condition
Mean of amount of words recalled
Standard deviation (SD)
Condition 1 (Concrete Words)
6.1
1.60
Condition 2 (Abstract Words)
4.0
1.33
15 See Appendix 6
Psychology IA HL
10
Figure 1: Mean of amount of words recalled in each condition
Comparison of Means
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Condition 1 (Concrete Words) Condition 2 (Abstract Words)
Me
an
o
f am
ou
nt o
f wo
rds
re
ca
lled
Since the experiment tested a difference, and a repeated measures design was used, and the data was at least ordinal, the Wilcoxon Sign test7 was chosen to test the statistical significance of the results. According to the table of critical values of the Wilcoxon test, the critical value for one-tailed hypothesis is 5 and since the test statistic (0) is much smaller than the critical value, then the level of significance is P 0.01. This indicates that the null hypothesis could be rejected, and that the research hypothesis was to be accepted at P 0. 01.
Discussion
Paivios dual code theory predicts that it is easier to recall concrete words than
abstract words due to their ability to evoke mental images. The results of this
investigation support this theory, by showing that there was a highly significant
difference, where p 0.01, between the amount of words recalled by the participants
in each condition. Considering that the study conducted by Begg and Paivio (1969)16
showed that subjects were able to recall more concrete than abstract words, our
findings corroborated their results.
16 In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.100
Psychology IA HL
11
Similarly, our findings also corroborate those of Anderson and Bower (1973)17,
since they concluded that memory for some verbal information is improved when the
learner can easily imagine a visual image to go with the verbal information. The
concrete words presented in our experiment could easily evoke a mental image, while
the abstract words could not. Moreover, Begg and Paivios (1969) study indicated the
meaning of concrete sentences is stored more in the form of images than by words.
This was interpreted to mean that changing the wording, but not the meaning, of a
concrete sentence will not affect its image representation and the change will not be
noticed. Although our experiment only dealt with words instead of complete phrases,
similar results were obtained in that concrete words were recalled more efficiently,
suggesting that an image (evoked mentally by the word) is an effective way to store
the meaning of a word (or sentence).
Some of the limitations of this experiment were made clear as it was being
conducted. In the briefing instructions, participants were told they would be asked to
recall the words after completing the filler task. Possibly due to experimenter bias,
some participants seemed to dismiss the filler task and focus solely on remembering
the words that had been read out to them. This was especially so after the participants
had already completed one condition, and at this point were quite convinced of the
purpose of the experiment. This experimental weakness could be avoided in a future
experiment by changing the briefing note so that the filler-task is not mentioned;
therefore participants might not be able to suspect the aim of the research from the
beginning. Nevertheless, counterbalancing, which was a noticeable methodological
strength, was used in order to avoid such order-effects, meaning that they should not
have affected to reliability of the results to any great extent.
17 In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.104
Psychology IA HL
12
Still, considering that the aim of this investigation was to research the effect of
imagery on long-term memory, and the filler tasks appeared to not be very effective, it
might be questionable if this procedure tested LTM at all. It could just have tested the
effect of imagery on short-term memory instead. Nevertheless, according to
Richardson (1974)18, imagery only has an effect on recall from LTM. Therefore, since
our findings showed that imagery did affect word recall, it would be reasonable to
believe that we did in fact test LTM.
Another noted limitation was that no fixed time was set for the filler tasks. If in
one condition participants took significantly longer to finish the filler task than in the
other, the interval between stimulus and recall may have affected the number of words
recalled in each condition. This variable could easily be controlled to improve further
research by setting a time limit to the filler task.
In conclusion, the aim of this experiment was to investigate the effect of
imagery on word recall, and this was successfully accomplished even though some
methodological limitations were perceived. By using the Wilcoxon Sign test as a
statistical measure, it was calculated that the obtained results were highly significant
and thus supported the experimental hypothesis; hence suggesting that words that
evoke a mental image are in fact easier to recall.
18 In: Gross, R. (2001) p.257
Psychology IA HL
13
Bibliography
Gross, R. (2001). Memory and Forgetting. In The Science of Mind and Behaviour (pp 243-265). London: Hodder & Stoughon
Maglennon, K. (1996). Imagery and Rehearsal, In Essential Practical psychology. (pp 100-105). London: Collins Educational
Appendices
Appendix 1
Consent Form I have been informed about the nature of the experiment I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time,
and that any information/data about me will remain confidential. My anonymity will be protected as my name will not be identifiable. The experiment will be conducted so that I will not be demeaned in any way. I will be debriefed at the end, and have the opportunity to find out the results.
I hereby give my informed consent to participating in this experiment, NAME and date____________________________________________
Contact number____________________________________________
Appendix 2
Standardized Briefing Instructions: Part 1: A list of ten words will be read out for you. You should then turn over the sheet of paper in front of you and fill in as much as you can. Afterwards, you will be given another sheet on which you should try to recall and write down as many of the previously read out words as you can, in any order. Please remember that if at any time during the proceedings of this experiment you wish to withdraw, you have the right to do so. If you have any questions, please ask them now. Part 2: Another list of ten words will now be read out to you, and the same process will take place.
Standardized Debriefing Instructions:
The experiment is now over. This was an experiment on memory, and the difference between recalling abstract and concrete words. Thank you for your participation, your identity will remain confidential. If you wish to learn more about the results of this study, feel free to ask any questions. You are also welcome to see the results of the experiment and to read the final report upon its completion. Thank you again.
Appendix 3
Stimulus: List of abstract words
Psychology IA HL
14
Concept Success Knowledge Freedom Racism Cooperation Hate Obedience Trauma Attraction
Appendix 4
Stimulus: List of concrete words
Violin Pineapple Ice-cream Book Bracelet Dentist Flower Computer Highlighter Elephant
Appendix 5
Filler task #1:
1. 225 / 25 = __
2. 15 + __ = 3
3. 69 + 19 = __
4. 40 x 5 = __
5. 100 / 4 = __
6. 1_ + _8 = 39
7. 102
= ___
8. 12 + 13 = __
Filler task #2:
Psychology IA HL
15
1. 65 12 = __
2. 85 / 5 = __
3. 82 =__
4. 2_ + _3 = 56
5. 91 17 =
6. 81 x 2 = __
7. 17 + 59 = __
8. 0 45 = __
Appendix 6 The Raw Data - Table for condition 1 (Concrete words):
Participant Scores Mean Scores Square of Mean scores
X XX ( )2XX P1 9 -2,9 8,41 P2 5 1,1 1,21 P3 5 1,1 1,21 P4 4 2,1 4,41 P5 5 1,1 1,21 P6 5 1,1 1,21 P7 7 -0,9 0,81 P8 7 -0,9 0,81 P9 8 -1,9 3,61
P10 6 0,1 0,01 Total 61 - 25,9
Psychology IA HL
16
Table for Condition 2 (Abstract words):
Appendix 7
Calculations for the Wilcoxon Sign test: First, the scores are paired up and the difference between them is calculated.
Participant Scores Mean Scores Square of Mean scores
X XX ( )2XX P1 6 -2 4 P2 2 2 4 P3 4 0 0 P4 3 1 1 P5 3 1 1 P6 4 0 0 P7 5 -1 1 P8 6 2 4 P9 4 0 0
P10 3 1 1 Total 40 - 16
Participant Score of Condition 1 (Concrete words)
A
Scores of Condition 2 (Abstract Words)
B
Difference (A B)
P1 9 6 3 P2 5 2 3 P3 5 4 1 P4 4 3 1 P5 5 3 2 P6 5 4 1 P7 7 5 2 P8 7 6 1 P9 8 4 4 P10 6 3 3
Psychology IA HL
17
The differences are then ranked by size.
Difference (A B)
Order Rank
1 1 2.5 1 2 2.5 1 3 2.5 1 4 2.5 2 5 5.5 2 6 5.5 3 7 8 3 8 8 3 9 8 4 10 10
The rank can then be added to the previous table.
The value of N is then calculated by adding all the pairs of scores where there was a
difference. In this case, a difference was obtained in every pair of scores, so N= 10.
The sum of the ranks of the positive signs was then calculated:
3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 3 = 21
The sum of the ranks of the negative signs was then calculated:
0 = 0 (There is no rank with a negative sign)
From the two figures (21 and 0) the smallest one is the test statistic T.
Participant
Score of Condition 1 (Concrete
words) A
Scores of Condition 2 (Abstract Words)
B
Difference (A B)
Rank
P1 9 6 +3 8 P2 5 2 +3 8 P3 5 4 +1 2.5 P4 4 3 +1 2.5 P5 5 3 +2 5.5 P6 5 4 +1 2.5 P7 7 5 +2 5.5 P8 7 6 +1 2.5 P9 8 4 +4 10
P10 6 3 +3 8
Psychology IA HL
18
Hence, T = 0.
According to the critical values of Wilcoxon test, for a one-tailed test:
N 0.05
0.025
0.01
10 10 8 5
By reading the values specific for N = 10, it can be noted that the T value (0) is smaller than all the given values ( 0 < 5) , meaning it is significant even at a 1% level of significance.