| Aim | - To test the effect of noise on the studying and retrieval of meaningful material in an academic context |
| Theory the study is based on | - CONTEXT DEPENDENT MEMORY
- The idea that retrieval is best when in the same environment as when the learning happened |
| Why did grant carry this study | - To see whether amount of noise would affect tests because exams are held in silent conditions but students tend to study in noisy conditions/listening to music |
| Research method | - Lab study
- Independent measures – individual differences though |
| Data | - Quantitative data |
| Independent variable | - The 4 conditions: silent silent, noisy noisy, silent noisy, noisy silent |
| Dependent variable | - The test scores of the short answer 10Qs and the multiple choice 16Q |
| Sample | - 39 participants from 17yrs-56yrs |
| How was the sample recruited | - 8 psychology students recruited 5 acquaintances each (one participant was excluded from results)
- OPPORTUNITY SAMPLING |
| Procedure | - Each participant was asked to read 2 page article ONCE
- Reading time was recorded
- Participants either read in noisy conditions or silent
- After 2 minutes they were given 2 tests:
-10Q short answer to test RECALL
-16Q multiple choice to test RECOGNITION |
| How was the 'noisy' condition achieved? | - Wore headphones of a recording of cafeteria at lunchtime |
| Why was the short answer test given before the multiple choice test? | - To ensure material was being recalled from article and not the multiple choice test |
| What article did they read? WHY? | - PSYCHOIMMUNOLOGY
- Its an interesting read but not a familiar subject |
| Results | - Silent-Silent: average of 6.7 and 14.3
- Noisy-Noisy: average of 6.2 and 14.3 |
| Evaluation of results | - Differences in reading time
- For both tests, results better in MATCHING conditions
- No significant pattern for performance on test with individual condition |
| Conclusions | - No overall effect of noise on performance
- As context-dependent affects retrieval in both tests, students should study in quite surroundings (like test environment) |
| Valid | - Highly controlled lab experiment, high design validity
- Standardised
- Theory, control, evidence, replication |
| Ecologically valid | - Article ecologically valid, educational
- Not part of a lesson, some heard artificial background noise which reduced the ecological validity
- They were not typical examination conditions |
| Reliability | - Standardised procedure eg. the recording and use of headphones
- But reading time varied and so may lead to different results |
| Sampling bias | - Opportunity ample
- Convenient especially in a uni situation
- Good age spread
- The sample may have been bias as only friends of the experimenters were used, demand characteristics |
| Ethical issues | - Consent
- Briefed + debriefed |
| Ethnocentricism | - Conducted in America
- Findings may have been different to individuals who has not had western education |
| Not ethnocentric | - Cognitive processes such as reconstructive memory is the same in all cultures |
| Psychology as a science | - Controlled laboratory experiment, had theory, control, evidence + replication |
| Individual vs situational debate | - The situation/environment in which we revise affects the performance on exams
- As opposed just to individual factors |
| How does research by Grant et al relate to the cognitive area | - Cognitive process of memory + context dependent memory
- Showed that context dependency effect on both recall and recognition |
| How does research by Grant et al. relate to the key theme | - Memory
- Retrieval is best when in the same environment as when the learning happened, context dependent memory |
| Similarities in both studies | - Both highly controlled laboratory experiments
- Uni
- Independent measures design
- Conducted ethically
- Quantitative data |
| Differences | Loftus and Palmer
- Larger sample
- Reconstructive memory
- Fixed durations of films
Grant
- Smaller sample
- Context dependent memory
- Reading time differed |
| How does the study of Grant improve our understanding of memory? | - Investigated different aspects of memory - context dependent memory
- So we now know that retrieval is best when in the same environment as when the learning happened |
| How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? INDIVIDUAL DIVERSITY | - Focuses on how the memory of individuals can be improved or distorted
- Grant found that recall is also affected by cues + settings, compared to L+P would only focused on post-event info |
| How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? SOCIAL DIVERSITY | - Danger in eyewitness testimony as it relies on accuracy of memories
- Led to changes to the criminal justice system
- Doesn’t further our understanding of social diversity, both used America uni students |
| How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? CULTURAL DIVERSITY | - Can both explain cultural differences, factors that influence memory recall
- Both ethnocentric but nomothetic explanation of behaviour that can be applied to different cultures
- Further research would need to be carried out in other cultures to establish if these are nomothetic |
| + Background to the study | - Godden and Baddeley (1975, 1980) showed that context effects recall tests more than recognition tests
- Suggesting there are differences in the retrieval process involved in the two types of tests |
