Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Method………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Appendix i Standardized directions…………………………………………………………………………………. Appendix ii Informed consent letter……………………………………………………………………………… Appendix iii Informed parental consent letter…………………………………………………………………. Appendix iv Debriefing Notes…………………………………………………………………………………….. Appendix v List of words for the participant groups………………………………………………………. Appendix vi Raw Data…………………………………………………………………………………………………. Appendix vii Mann Whitney Calculations……………………………………………………………………….

Abstract

The Serial position effect is the tendency of the human brain to recall the items present in the beginning and the ending of the list the best and it is a cognitive bias. The Primacy and the Recency effect suggests that if a list of words is read out or shown to a person, she/he is more likely to remember the first/last words present in the list. We carried out the replication and modification of the experiment conducted by Glanzer and Cunitz in 1966 which aimed to test whether participants would remember the first 8 words and the last 8 words more than the middle 8 words in the list of 24 words. Two control and experimental groups were used, the first control and experimental group was shown the words using a presentation on the computer screen and the second control and experimental group was read out the words through speech. This further helped us compare the results as it allowed us to analyse whether participants remembered more words by viewing it or by listening to it. However, it was hypothesized that both the primacy and the Recency effect would be shown in the results of participants of both groups. The independent variable was the positioning of the 24 words. The dependent variable was the number and position of the words remembered by each participant. The null hypothesis was rejected on the basis of the descriptive and the inferential data. It can be concluded that the results were statistically significant and therefore the null hypothesis is rejected thus more words shall be retained when the group of words is the first one-third and last one-third of the list when opposed to the second one-third of the list.

Word count: 287

Introduction

The Human Brain possesses the ability to store and retain information. However, our brains can only store a limited amount of information. According to research, our brains tend to recall the first and last items on a list the best. The Serial position effect is the tendency of a human to recall more of

the first and last items present in a sequence. This is why, we humans remember items present in the intermediate area of a series not as well as the ones in the beginning and the end. A reason for the occurrence of the primacy effect with consideration to Atkinson and Shiffrin’s memory model is that the items present in the beginning of a list are stored in our long term memory store as people would spend a lot of effort trying to remember the first few words of the list. Furthermore, the words present at the end of the list are stored in our short-term memory store. According to further research, the Primacy effect is more effective than the Recency effect, suggesting that the information received earliest is most impactful and remembered well.

The experiment conducted for this IA has been partially replicated from the original experiment of Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) who aimed to test whether reducing the amount of time participants had to study words would weaken the Primacy effect and reduce the number of words participants remembered from the first one-third of the list (the remembering of the first one-third of the list would be attributed to the Primacy effect). A delay, between the time to study the words and the participants’ recalling of the words to the psychologist, was used to test whether the Recency effect would be disrupted and reduce the number of words recalled from the last one-third of the list (the remembering of the last one-third of the list would be attributed to the Recency effect). The original experiment found out that fewer words from the first one-third of the wordlist were generally remembered when less time was given to study the words. Another finding was that the delay reduced the number of words recalled from the last one-third of the wordlist meaning both the Primacy and Recency effects had been weakened.

However, in this experiment, the time period was kept constant for both groups however two different control and experimental groups were introduced as modifications to the experiment with the initial aim of the experiment being that of analysing if the Primacy and Recency effect was shown in the data acquired from 40 participants.

Aim: To investigate the Primacy and Recency effect by conducting an experiment to show whether participants tend to remember the first few and the last few words better than the middle few words.

Research Hypothesis: The first 8 words of a list of 24 (positioned from 1-8) and the last 8 words (positioned from 17-24) of a list will have a higher recall than the middle 8 words (positioned from 9-16)

Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant difference in the words recalled regardless of their position. If any difference is present, that will be due to chance.

Method

Design

The research method for my IA is experimental. The design used is independent measures. The type of data collected will be nominal and will be presented in the form of descriptive and inferential data.

A list of 24 words was prepared. During the preparation of the list, it was ensured that words with obvious connections and recognitions weren’t inputted in this list. For example the word ‘Laptop’.

The word Laptop would have had an obvious connection as a Laptop was part of the equipment used. Each word present in the list consisted of 6 letters. This was done to ensure that the words shown or recited to the participants were able to be stored in the short term memory store of the brain. The first group read these words on a laptop screen. The first control group read these words and then immediately began to write down the words they recalled provided a time of two minutes. The first experimental group however did the same, but before writing the words, they were exposed to a distraction for 45 seconds. The second control group listened to the same words as the first group and too immediately began to write down the words they remembered on a sheet of paper. The second experimental group did the same; however before writing down the words, they too were exposed to a distraction for 45 seconds. The distraction took care of the participant’s mental health as it aimed to relax the participant and make them laugh. The distraction involved the presentation of funny gags and memes. This distraction would divert the participant’s attention to something else and it was hypothesized that this would cause the number of words remembered by the participants to be lower. It was hypothesized that this distraction would cause the Recency effect to strongly weaken as well. The dependent variable was the words remembered by the participants and their positions. Additional factors may potentially lead to confounding variables such as the participants becoming disinterested and paying less attention or losing their focus and shifting it to something else. These variables could potentially lead to outliers in the results. The time given to all the participants for writing the words they remembered was two minutes, and the intervals between each word was also the same for all participants and all groups which was 3 seconds. Informed consent was given by participants to provide the ethical standards necessary for the experiment. Debriefing, an explanation of the aim of the study and the results, was conducted with the participants before and after the experiment took place. The participants were also informed of their results and their results were kept anonymous in order to ensure confidentiality and participant protection. Other ethical considerations were also taken care of and the participants were protected from all means of mental, psychological and physical harm.

Participants

In this research, 40 participants were separated in different groups with consideration to their age. The four groups: first control group, first experimental group, second control group and second experimental group, each had 10 participants each. These ten participants consisted of 5 males and 5 females. These five males and 5 females were further divided into 2 male adults and 2 female adults ranged from ages 32-49, and 3 female teenagers and 3 male teenagers ranged from ages 15-19. Random sampling and different age groups were used as they would representative of the whole population. The limitation of this sample was that it was not thoroughly representative of the whole population. The total number of participants, being 40, would have also been a limitation as this small number could not have been representative of the whole population and therefore, random errors could not have been limited. These 40 participants had an equal chance of being selected in either group.

Materials

Standardized instructions for the four groups (appendix i)

Informed letter of consent for the adult group (appendix ii)

Informed letter of parental consent for the teenager group (appendix iii)

Debriefing notes (appendix iv)

Wordlist of 24 words for the participants (appendix v)

Paper and pens for the recording of data by the participants

Stopwatch to time the participants

A quiet and well-lit room with no other disturbances to minimize the chances of participants shifting their focus to undesired objects and thoughts that might result in outliers in the data. It was also ensured that unnecessary items weren’t present in the room.

A tabulated record sheet to record the results for analysis and discussion.

Comment forms from the participants who did the experiment

Procedure

This experiment was carried out on 40 participants. The participants were given consent forms. Only the younger participants between the age range of 15-17 were given parental consent forms as well. 10 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups. The participants were explained what the experimenter would do and given instructions on what they were supposed to do. After the experiment was carried out on the participants, the participants were debriefed by informing them about the purpose of the experiment, who had carried out the original experiment and in which year, and what the original results were. The participants were then assured that they would receive their results as soon as possible.

The first control group was shown a presentation with 24 slides with 3 second intervals between each slide. Each slide had a word which the participant was required to read carefully. After the slides were shown, the participants were given two minutes to note down the words they remembered from the presentation. After the duration of two minutes was completed, the participants were debriefed.

The first experimental group was also shown a presentation with 24 slides with 3 second intervals between each slide but at the end of the presentation there was a distraction task for the participants. Each slide had a word which the participant was required to read carefully. After the slides were shown, the distraction task was immediately carried out and it consisted of gags, memes and jokes which would succeed in distracting the participant and yet ensuring the safety of their mental and psychological health.

The second control group listened to the words spoken by the experimenter with 3 second intervals measured by a stopwatch. This was difficult to be controlled; however, it was practiced several times before to ensure that no errors were made during the experiment. After the words were recited out to the participant, they were handed out a paper and a pen and wrote down the words they remembered within the duration of two minutes. They were then debriefed.

The second experimental group also listened to the words spoken by the experimenter with 3 second intervals measured by a stopwatch. After the words were recited out to the participant, the experimenter carried out a distraction task handed out a paper and a pen and wrote down the words they remembered within the duration of two minutes. They were then debriefed.

During the debriefing the participants were informed about the experimenter’s aim, results and implications of the findings.

Results

Descriptive data

Interval data was obtained in the experiment because of the Independent measures design. The mean (average) indicates that the first 8 and the last 8 words had a greater frequency of recall when compared to the middle 8 words. This supports the research hypothesis as it suggests that the words that were more likely to be remembered were the ones at the beginning and the ending of the list and the ones least likely to be remembered were the ones at the middle of the list.

Mean of recall for overall word recall, primacy, middle and recency

Groups Overall word recall (mean)

Primacy (mean) Middle (mean) Recency (mean)

Visual control 8.8 3.7 2 3.1Visual experimental

10.7 4.2 3.1 3

Verbal control 9.1 3.7 2.1 3.3Verbal experimental

8 3.2 2.7 2.1

Difference between Primacy mean and Recency mean:

Visual control – 0.6

Visual experimental – 1.2

Verbal control – 0.4

Verbal experimental – 1.1

Primacy effect more evident in Visual conditions as the difference between Primacy and Recency is greater for both visual groups. This shows that words are remembered more effectively in visual conditions rather than verbal ones with consideration to the fact that the Recency effect greatly weakens due to a distraction.

The median is the middle value in a set of data. The median of the set of data provided for this experiment allows us to understand the positions of words where the effects of both Primacy and Recency were cancelled out.

Median for each group and the positions for each word

Groups Median Position of wordVisual control 4 4,7,10,20Visual experimental 3.5 5,6,8,9,13,18,19,20,23,24Verbal control 3.5 4,7,8,14,18,20,21,22,23Verbal experimental 3 4,7,10,15,18,22,23

The mode is the value that occurs most often in a set of data.

Modes for each group and the positions for each word

Groups Mode Position of wordVisual control 4 4,7,10,20Visual experimental 3 5,13,18,19,23Verbal control 4 4,8,21,22,23Verbal experimental 3 4,7,10,15,18,22,23

Standard deviations for each group

Groups Standard deviationVisual control 2.6Visual experimental 2.2Verbal control 2.6Verbal experimental 2.4

The standard deviations vary from 2.2 to 2.6 for the 4 groups, being the same for the control groups, and with a difference of 0.2 for the experimental groups question how representative the means for the four groups are. Based on the descriptive data the null hypothesis can be rejected due to the large differences in the means. The raw data along with some of the processed data and graphs is present in appendix vi.

These values provide us with evidence of how evident the Primacy and the Recency effect was.

In all 4 cases, the Primacy effect weighs upon greater than the Recency effect. Its effect is greatest when for all the groups and conditions associated with each group.

However, in the case of the Recency effect, the Recency effect weighs on upon greater on memory than the middle words only in the control situations. The Recency effect is not evident for the experimental conditions where the participants were asked to write down the words they remembered after a 20 second distraction task.

The overall word recall is greater for verbal control and visual experimental suggesting which factors enhance memory greater. However, this data could also have been resulted from the extraneous variables that could not be controlled.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230123456789

10

Frequency vs position - visual control

frequency

Position

Frequency

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230123456789

10

Frequency vs position - visual exper-imental

Frequency

Position

Frequency

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230123456789

10

Frequency vs Position - verbal control

Frequency

Position

Frequency

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230

2

4

6

8

10

12

Frequency vs Position - verbal exper-imental

Frequency

Position

Frequency

The bar graphs provide further evidence of the density of the Primacy and the Recency effect and how the density of the Recency effect differs in the graphs for control and experimental groups.

These graphs provide the trend of the recall of words being like a downward facing curve.

Inferential data

The Mann Whitney test computed the level significance for the independent measures design and describes the data with the greatest accuracy because it focuses on the results of a small sample of data.

[Test results]

It can be assumed that chance affected the results, as in virtually every experiment. In the samples, the participants had varying degrees of effectiveness of memory and memorization techniques, grasp of the English language and hearing. Certain words may have also resonated significance for specific participants that enabled them to remember more effectively. The method the participants used to remember the words, and the amount of semantics involved in those methods, further affect the results as generally, concepts and words remembered through deeper methods of learning tend to be remembered more effectively. The results would undoubtedly be somewhat different had those factors not intervened. A causation, a cause and effect, can be determined, for the primacy and Recency effect caused a high recall of words when the words were at the start and the end of the list when compared to when the words were recalled from the middle of the list. Refer to Appendix vii for the Mann Whitney calculations.

Discussion

Our results are similar to the findings in the loosely replicated study by Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) and the results prove that participants showed the Primacy and Recency effect in their word recall. The participants were provided with adequate time to process all the words in the list. Both the experiments cannot be directly compared as we did not strictly replicate the Glanzer and Cunitz experiment however, there were several similarities. Feldman and Allen (1975) and Terry (2005) both found that the Primacy effect was affecting the retaining of information, more so than the Recency effect, as did Glanzer and Cunitz (1966).

The overall word recall is greater for verbal control and visual experimental suggesting which factors enhance memory greater. However, this data could also have been resulted from the extraneous variables that could not be controlled. [more stuff please]

Limitations in the methodology exist, such as the voice and pronunciation of the announcer could have been more evenly paced and clearer, which may have affected how well the participants were able to hear and thus remember the words. Should the experiment be re-conducted, the words should be projected onto a screen rather than being presented on a laptop screen. The participant group was representative of the population up to a great extent as there were two age group ranges, one representing the adult population, and the other representing the teenager population. Furthermore, the teenager group wasn’t from the same school, and the adults weren’t from the same work background or workplace. However, one limitation of this study, which prevented it from being completely representative of the whole population, was the nationalities involved as participants. The sample was large enough; however, one major limitation of this experiment was the emotional and mental state of the participant during the time the experiment was conducted. This further affected their interest in the experiment and the attention they paid to the words announced or presented to them.

The design and procedure were mostly effective in producing results applicable to the aim the experiment had strengths. The participants did not know the aim of the experiment and thus demand characteristics did not arise other than remembering the most possible words as we had instructed The directions were clear and all participants seemed to have understood the procedure

judging by their performances. Standardized directions made their task easy to understand and the group’s results comparable for they both were doing an identical task with identical directions.

Therefore it can be concluded that the results were statistically significant and therefore the null hypothesis is rejected thus more words shall be retained when the group of words is the first one-third or the last one-third of the wordlist when compared to the second-third of the wordlist.

Works cited

Appendix i Standardized directions

Standardized directions for the first group:

1. Read the 24 words presented on the laptop screen which will be placed in front of you.2. Write down as many words as you can remember that were said by the caller at the front of

the room within a two minute time frame.

Standardized directions for the second group:

1. Listen to the 24 words that shall be called out by an announcer who will be standing in front of you.

2. Write down as many words as you can remember that were said by the caller at the front of the room within a two minute time frame.

Appendix ii Informed consent letter

Dear participant ,

I am a student from Wells International School and am replicating and modifying a previous psychology experiment for an internal assessment for my IB Psychology HL class. The purpose of this study is to investigate the Primacy and Recency effect in free recall. If you wish to participate in this experiment you should know that during this experiment:

No psychological or physical harm would be caused. All data collected will be kept confidential. Taking part is voluntary.

If you have any further questions you can contact me using this number: ########.

You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records

Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I provide consent for myself to take part in the study.

(Please tick box for agreement)

Participant’s Full name ______________________________

Date _________________

Participant’s Signature ___________________

Appendix iii Informed parental consent letter

Dear parent/guardian,

I am a student from Wells International School and am replicating and modifying a previous psychology experiment for an internal assessment for my IB Psychology HL class. The purpose of this study is to investigate the Primacy and Recency effect in free recall. If you allow your child to participate in this experiment you should know that during this experiment:

No psychological or physical harm will be caused. All data collected will be kept confidential. Taking part is voluntary. (Up to the participant)

If you have any further questions you can contact me using this number: #########

You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I provide consent for myself/child to take part in the study.

( Please tick box for agreement)

Participant’s Signature ___________________________________

Date ________________________

Participant’s Full Name ___________________________________

Parent/Guardian Full name _________________________________________________

Parent/Guardian Signature _________________________________________________

Appendix iv Debriefing notes

Dear participants,

We would like to thank you for participating in our study. This experiment was based on the Primacy and Recency effect theory, which suggests that when people try to recall a list of words they have tried to memorize, the first and the last words in the list have a higher chance of being recalled.

You all were divided into two groups each with an experimental and a control group. The first control group saw the words on a laptop screen and then attempted to remember the list of the words. The first experimental group too underwent the same procedure however, before attempting to recall the results, the experimenter carried out a distraction task with them.

The second control group and experimental group too underwent the same procedure except for the fact that they listened to the words. This allowed us to compare the results and understand which method allowed better recall to occur, listening to the words or reading them from a screen.

We looked at the results from both groups, and found out that both of the groups were able to remember more of the first and last words from the list.

Our findings are supported by the fact that we found that our independent variable, the words and their position on the list, had an effect on the dependent variable, which was the number of words you recall and their positions.

These results are consistent with the study that we were replicating, which was done by Glanzer and Cunitz in 1966. We would like to remind you that your data shall remain confidential, and your participation in our study is greatly appreciated.

Appendix v List of words for the participant groups

The word list was the same for all groups which further allowed us to eliminate confounding variables.

1. Bottle2. Carpet3. Switch4. Cowboy5. Swings6. Dollar7. Jacket8. Orange9. Inside10. Station11. Circus12. Temple13. Bowtie14. Delete15. Dinner16. Mother17. Island18. Plenty19. Yellow20. Square21. Sports22. Friend23. Letter24. Report

Appendix vi Raw data

Colour Key Major males Major Females Minor males Minor

Females

Visual Participant ## of words remembered Primacy Middle Recency

1 8 4 1 32 7 5 2 01 7 3 1 22 9 4 0 51 7 4 1 32 8 2 3 33 12 4 3 51 11 4 4 32 10 4 3 33 9 3 2 4

average 8.8 3.7 2 3.1

visual w/ distraction Participant ## of words remembered Primacy Middle Recency

1 4 2 1 12 5 4 0 11 6 3 1 22 7 3 2 21 24 8 8 82 7 4 2 13 20 7 8 51 5 3 1 12 12 4 3 53 17 8 4 5

average 10.7 4.2 3.1 3

verbal Participant ## of words remembered Primacy Middle Recency

1 10 2 3 52 8 4 1 31 14 5 4 52 9 4 1 41 9 5 2 22 9 4 3 23 19 8 6 51 7 1 1 52 2 2 0 03 4 2 0 2

average 9.1 3.7 2.1 3.3

verbal w/ distraction Participant ## of words remembered Primacy Middle Recency

1 7 2 2 32 7 3 3 11 6 3 2 12 11 3 6 21 4 1 2 12 9 5 1 33 6 5 0 11 8 2 3 32 9 4 4 13 13 4 4 5

Average 8 3.2 2.7 2.1

Occurrence of a particular word with comparison to its position

visual controlword bottle carpet switch cowboy swings dollar jacket orange insidePosition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9frequency 8 9 2 4 0 1 4 8 2

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230123456789

10

Frequency vs position - visual control

frequency

Position

Frequency

visual experimentalword bottle carpet switch cowboy swings dollar jacket orange insidePosition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Frequency 9 9 5 6 3 4 5 4 4

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230123456789

10

Frequency vs position - visual exper-imental

Frequency

Position

Frequency

verbal controlword bottle carpet switch cowboy swings dollar jacket orange insidePosition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Frequency 9 7 7 4 1 1 3 4 2

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230123456789

10

Frequency vs Position - verbal control

Frequency

Position

Frequency

verbal experimentalword bottle carpet switch cowboy swings dollar jacket orange insidePosition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Frequency 10 7 6 3 1 0 3 4 4

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230

2

4

6

8

10

12

Frequency vs Position - verbal exper-imental

Frequency

Position

Frequency

Histogram of Recall

Words and position

Data tables comparing Control group and experimental group

Group A – Control Group

Group B – Experimental group

Word Group A Group B

Bottle 19 9

Carpet 17 9

Histogram of Recall

Bowtie 14 5

Switch 13 0

Swings 5 3

Orange 3 5

Inside 3 5

Staion 5 3

Circus 5 2

Temple 3 1

Delete 4 1

Dinner 7 1

Mother 12 7

Island 6 2

Plenty 7 3

Yellow 18 3

Square 14 4

Friend 18 9

Letter 18 13

Report 20 15

Primacy

WordGroup A Group B

Bottle 19 9

Carpet 17 9

Bowtie 14 5

Switch 13 0

Swings 5 3

Orange 3 5

Inside 3 5

Middle

Word Group A Group B

Station 5 3

Circus 5 2

Temple 3 1

Delete 4 1

Dinner 7 1

Mother 12 7

Island 6 2

Recency

Word Group A Group B

Plenty 7 3

Yellow 18 3

Square 14 4

Friend 18 9

Letter 18 13

Report 20 15

Line Graphs comparing Primacy, Middle and Recency effects on both groups

Group A – Control group

Group B – Experimental group

Bar graphs comparing both groups in Primacy, Middle and Recency position

Group A – Control group

Group B – Experimental group

Appendix vii Mann Whitney Calculations

[DATA]