PSYCHOLOGY INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

An investigation to find out the effect of decrease in rehearsal

on the number of words recalled

Candidate Name: Simran Vani

Candidate Number:
Subject: Psychology
Level: Higher Level
Session: May 2018
Word Count: 1999
Abstract
The experiment given below was conducted for my Internal Assessment for IB Psychology
Higher Level. The aim of the experiment was to find out the effect of decrease in rehearsal on
the number of words recalled. The experimental hypothesis is the number of words recalled
decreases with a decrease in rehearsal. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant effect
of a decrease in rehearsal on the words recalled. The independent variable for the experiment
is the increase in interval time and the dependent variable is the number of words recalled.
There were 30 participants who were divided in two groups: control and the experimental
group. The experimental group was shown a list of 15 trigrams (three-letter words which do
not make sense) and then they had to recall the words after intervals of 3, 6 and 9 seconds. In
each trial, they had a different filler task during the interval to prevent the rehearsal of words.
The control group was shown the same list of words but they had no intervals or any filler
task. Opportunity sampling was used. For the results, the mean of the number of words
recalled was calculated which showed that the number of words recalled with the decrease in
rehearsal. Standard Deviation was calculated too. To confirm the results, Mann Whitney U
Test was used. With the help of this, my null hypothesis was rejected. The final result was
that the number of words recalled decreased with the decrease in rehearsal.

Word Count: 248

Introduction
There are many definitions for the term “memory”. Memory is a cognitive process which
helps us to store and recall the information and the past experiences. Memory has three
functions: Encoding, Storage and Retrieval. 1
According to the past studies, there have been three models of memory such as Multi Store
Model (MSM), Working Model of Memory (WMM) and Levels of Processing (LOP). These
three models suggest that there are three stores of memory. They are: Short Term Memory,
Long term Memory and Sensory.
The short-term Memory is a temporary storage of information. According to Atkinson and
Shirin, the duration of the short term memory is 15-30 seconds. According to Miller, the
duration is 7.3 seconds for words. If the information is well rehearsed in the short-term
memory, it will move to the long-term memory. If the rehearsal time decreases, the
information will start to decay.
In 1959, Peterson and Peterson conducted an experiment to find out the duration of the
short-term memory and how does the rehearsal time affect the decay of the information.
This study states that, us as humans have a tendency to forget things we try to learn and that
is because of the rehearsal time given to it. When we try to learn something, we rehearse it a
few times to prevent the decay of information. In this experiment, 24 participants were
chosen to recall Trigrams (three-consonant syllable without any meaning). There were 6 trials
with the interval time of 3,6,9,12,15 and 18 seconds. They had to recall the words after the
interval time. The results showed that the decrease in rehearsal caused a decrease in the
number of words recalled. Similar kind of experiment was conducted by Brown J and he got
identical results. This proves that this theory of short term that decrease in rehearsal of
information can affect the decay of information.
Aim: Effect of decrease in rehearsal time on the recalled number of words
This will show that how humans tend to forget things if we don’t have enough rehearsal for
it.
Experimental Hypothesis: Decrease in rehearsal (increase in interval time) will cause a
decrease in the number of recalled words.
Null Hypothesis: Decrease in rehearsal won’t cause any effect on the number of words
recalled.

Method:
Design: For this experiment, independent measures design was chosen. This refers to using a
different set of participants in different conditions. There were two sets of people who were
chosen for the experimental group and for the control group. This avoids the rehearsal and the
practice of words as the lists of trigrams were same for both the groups. The order effect
won’t be introduced as each participant would be participating in a different condition and the
list of the trigrams is also different for each trial. This would avoid boredom. However,
finding such a great number of participants can be very time consuming.
There were a few confounding variables that had to be controlled, such as:

1
https://www.simplypsychology.org/memory.html
 • Participants copying from each other
• Distracted by other sounds around
• Hawthorne effect
The confounding variables were controlled by:
• All the participants were dealt individually
• They were taken into a designated room which was chosen only for this experiment,
away from all the sounds.
• The presentation was timed and I didn’t have to keep my eyes on them all the time.
They were also debriefed before the experiment to avoid any such problem.
The independent variable was Retention intervals. This interval was the time given
between the revelation of the trigrams and the recalling. They had to do a task in this interval
to avoid the rehearsal of the trigrams.
The Dependent variable was Recalling of words. This is the number of words recalled by
each participant after every retention interval.
Participants: Participants were found by opportunity sampling. This method was used so
that less time is consumed while choosing the participants as I had to find a large number of
participants. The target population were all IB 2, diploma students from my school in
Gurgaon which were about 100 students. The sample consisted of 15 students for the
experimental group and 15 for the control group. They were all between the ages of 16-18.
Materials:
• 30 consent forms2
• 30 sheets
• 35 pens
• Laptop with Microsoft Office
• Timed PowerPoint Presentation with the list of trigrams3
Procedure:
Experimental:
The participants were dealt individually with the same procedure. First, they were called to a
designated room where they were made to sit and were given the stationary items. Then they
were informed about the procedure of the experiment and were given the freedom to ask any
questions they wanted to. They were then informed that they had the choice to leave the
experiment at any time.
Once these formalities were done, they were exposed to the first trial. They were shown a
slide with a list of ten trigrams and were given a minute to go through them. After a minute,
the slide would automatically change to the interval task slide. The first interval task was to

2
Appendix 2
3
Appendix 1
say the alphabets backward for three seconds and then the slide would turn red. They were
then given a minute to write down the trigrams they remembered.
In the second trial, they had a different list of trigrams but the procedure was same. The
interval task was to say the table of 17 out loud for 6 seconds.
The third trial also had a different list of trigrams with an interval of 9 seconds. The task for
this trial was to say the 3-digit numbers backward.
Control:
The procedure for the control group was similar to the experimental group but they had no
intervals or interference. They had the same list of trigrams as the experimental group. They
wrote down the words exactly after they learnt them.

Results:4

Descriptive Statistics:

Mean: This is the average number of words recalled by all the participants. As the values are
different, mean is calculated to take the average as the other interpretations will be easy to
base on it.
Standard Deviation: Standard deviation is used to measure the dispersion of the data as the
data is in the interval form. This was calculated for more accuracy as the mean can be
influenced by the other values. That is why, calculation of the standard deviation is
important.
The mean and the standard deviation of both the groups are calculated using Microsoft Excel

The data given is summarised in the table below:

Mean Standard
Trial 1 (3 secs) Trial 2 (6 secs) Trial 3 (9 secs) Deviation
Experimental 5.4 3.466 2.666 1.328
Control 6.466 6.733 7.666 0.630

4
Appendix 4
 Average number of words recalled by the Experimental Group

Average number of words recalled

6
Mean number of words recalled

0
1 2 3
Trials

Graph 1

Average number of words recalled by Control Group

Average number of words recalled

7.8
Mean number of words recalled

7.6
7.4
7.2
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
1 2 3
Trials

Graph 2
 Standard Deviation between the two groups

STANDARD DEVIATION
1.4
1.328
1.2
Standard Deviation

0.8

0.6 0.63

0.4

0.2

0
Experimental Control
Groups

Graph 3

Inferential Statistics:
As my data is ordinal and the design used is the independent samples design, Mann Whitney
5
U Test was used to verify the data. The calculations were performed by an authentic website.
The value I achieved for U was 18.5 when the significance level was 0.05. This is a one-
tailed hypothesis, so the critical value is 72, U <72 at p < 0.05, therefore, the result is
significant at p < 0.05. This means that there is a some significant difference in the data at
values higher than 95%. This leads to the rejection of null hypothesis. This means that
increase in the interval time, meaning decrease in the rehearsal of information did have a
significant effect on the number of words recalled after.

Discussion:
This study was replicated from the original study which was conducted by Peterson and
Peterson in 1959. The aim of the study was to find the duration of the short-term memory. It

5
Appendix 5
was conducted to find the effect of increased interval time by using a filler task, on the
rehearsal of words. They also rejected the null hypothesis. This means that the increase in
interval time has an inverse relation with the words recalled.
In this experiment I conducted, I got a similar result. I rejected the null hypothesis. The
difference in my study and the original study are the numerical values as my sample was
different. The original study would be more accurate as there were a lot of measures taken to
ensure the reliability of results, but due to time constraint and the lack of resources, I did it
with opportunity sampling with the samples of just my grade. The original study had 8 trials
and mine had just 3, which could reduce the accuracy of my result.
Nevertheless, my experiment hypothesis was accepted just like original study. This could be
because of the way I conducted the experiment with the same procedure and fully controlled.
The trigrams were used as these words did not make sense and while learning, they could not
associate them with something they knew. This made it difficult for them to learn.
Opportunity sampling was used as my target population was very small and with the time
constraint and doing it in school hours, I could only ask the students who were available and
were willing to do my experiment. This also prevented gender bias and made it less time-
consuming.
Independent samples design was used to prevent the possible demand characteristics. This
was used to prevent the rehearsal of the trigrams as the list used was same for the
experimental and the control group.
The interval tasks used for each trial were different as that prevented the rehearsal of the task
which would make it easier for them to recall the words and that would have prevented the
accuracy of my experiment.
All ethical considerations were kept in mind:
• Informed consent: The participants chosen were the ones who were willing to do the
experiment. They were made to sign the consent forms.
• Debriefing6: After the experiment was conducted, each participant was made aware of
their results and they were given the freedom to ask any other information they
wanted to.
• Protection of participants: The participants were protected at all times. The
experiment was kept shorter so that participants did not get tired which would affect
their results.
• Deception: There was no form of deception. The participants were informed of the
procedure of the experiment. They were given all required information before the
experiment.
• Confidentiality: The confidentiality was maintained throughout. No information about
the participants was leaked out.
• Withdrawal from the investigation: The participants were given freedom to withdraw
from the experiment at any time.

6
Appendix 3
However, there were several drawbacks of this study.
• Ecological Validity: This experiment lacked ecological validity as in general, not
many people find the need to learn trigrams. They would learn the words which they
could associate with some real-life situation and not trigrams which cannot be
associated with anything.
• The setting of the experiment could have affected the results as it was conducted in an
isolated room which made it less natural.
• Inference tasks were also introduced during the interval time which made it difficult
for the participants to rehearse the words.
The control group had no interval task and the intervals which made it easier for them to
recall the words. They had to write down the words immediately after they learnt it which
made them recall more words which is depicted in my results.
Descriptive and inferential statistics:
The mean of the data was calculated as the values would vary and finding the average would
make my further calculations and analysis easier. For the experimental group, the mean
reduced with each trial which supported my experimental hypothesis. This means that with
the increase in interval time, the number of words recalled decreased. For the control group,
the mean increased with each trial as they had no interference.
Standard deviation showed the deviance between the means both the groups. This means that
the increase in interval time, which decreased the rehearsal, has caused a higher deviation in
the means in compared to the standard deviation of the control group. The standard deviation
of the control group is lesser as the values that change are not affected by any factors which
are taken into consideration for the experimental group.
According to the Mann Whitney U Test, the value of U, 18.5, was lesser than the critical
value, 72, at p<0.05 which means the null hypothesis is rejected.

Conclusion:
Even though there are a few drawbacks, the results I achieved are similar to the results of the
original study. The descriptive and inferential statistics have helped to prove my results right
which is why the null hypothesis was rejected.
Therefore, an increase in the interval time causes a decrease in the recall of words as there is
a decrease in the rehearsal.
Bibliography:

• Lloyd Peterson - Margaret JeanPeterson - Journal of Experimental Psychology – 1959

<http://psych.indiana.edu/tradition/Peterson_and_Peterson_1959.pdf>
• Peterson and Peterson 1959, Simply Psychology, Saul McLeod published2008 <
https://www.simplypsychology.org/peterson-peterson.html >
• Mann Whitney U Test Calculator
<http://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/mannwhitney/Default2.aspx>
• Tdixon. “IB Psychology.” Wordpress <https://ibpsychologyblog.wordpress.com/>
• “The Mann-Whitney U-test -- Analysis of 2-Between-Group Data with a Quantitative
Response Variable” < http://psych.unl.edu/psycrs/handcomp/hcmann.PDF>
• Google docs
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UFy1MIP5s5BeNd6VEILk9AK_TgKEz4Gg
ooWQfpY4dvM/edit>
• Travis Dixon. “Lesson Idea: Inferential Statistics.” Ib Psych Themantic-Education
<https://ibpsych.themantic-education.com/2017/02/21/lesson-idea-inferential-
statistics/>
• Saul McLeod. “Memory, Encoding Storage and Retrieval.” Simply Psychology
<https://www.simplypsychology.org/memory.html>
• “Memory.” Psychology4a <http://www.psychology4a.com/memory.html>
Appendices

Appendix 1:
Trial 1
• HNW
• JCQ
• YKP
• MFE
• VYA
• DNO
• QHB
• ICX
• BRN
• FJO

Trial 2:
• WFU
• BYO
• MYF
• HVD
• KWZ
• TZH
 • PNS
• LTW
• BSQ
• ODN

Trial 3:
• YGC
• IJN
• TJB
• RGD
• WDV
• OHV
• WHM
• PHG
• WGB
• KHX

Appendix 2:
CONSENT FORM
• I have been informed about this experiment.
• Participation in this experiment is by my own will.
• I understand that my personal information will remain confidential.
• I understand that some facts about the experiment will not be known to me.
• I know and understand that I have the right to withdraw from this experiment at any
time.
• I understand that I have to maintain the decorum during the experiment.
• I know that I can find out the results after the experiment is conducted.
• I will be debriefed about the experiment later.
By signing this form, I give my consent to participate in this experiment
Name:
Age:
Email Id:
Signature:
Appendix 3:
Debrief:
This experiment was originally done by Peterson and Peterson in 1959.
I am doing this for my Psychology Internal Assessment.
The aim of this experiment is to find the effect of decrease in rehearsal on the number of
words recalled to find out the duration of the Short-term memory.
You will be shown a timed presentation and there will be three trials. You will be given a
minute to go through a list of words which do not make any sense. Then there will be an
interval task with the timings of 3, 6 and 9 seconds. This is to prevent the rehearsal of the
words you saw on the previous slide.
Then you will be given a minute to write as many words as you remember on the paper
you’re given.

Appendix 4:
Raw Data
Control Group:
Student Number Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
1 7 8 9
2 5 8 10
3 8 6 9
4 7 7 5
5 5 7 6
6 7 8 7
7 5 7 7
8 5 6 7
9 7 6 9
10 7 8 6
11 9 7 8
12 7 7 8
13 6 5 8
14 5 5 9
15 7 6 7
Experimental Group:
Student Number Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
1 6 4 2
2 6 2 2
3 7 5 3
4 8 7 5
5 6 2 2
6 5 0 0
7 3 5 4
8 3 3 0
9 4 3 1
10 2 1 1
11 8 7 8
12 5 5 6
13 5 1 4
14 7 4 4
15 6 3 1

Appendix 5: