Running head: REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES

Effects of Rehearsal Techniques and Motivation on Memory

by

Nissa Fuller

BS Program in Psychology: Forensic and Counseling

Caitlin Strasser

BS Program in Psychology: General

Mansfield University of Pennsylvania

for

PSY 3368: Cognition & Memory

Dr. Karri Verno

December 9, 2019
 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 2

Effects of Rehearsal Techniques and Motivation on Memory

Working memory is important in the processes of both elaborative and maintenance

rehearsal, as it allows for higher order mental processing. Like short term memory, the process of

working memory involves temporarily holding information that will later decay after the

information is used or be held long enough to transfer to long term memory (Harris & Qualls,

2000). For instance, holding a telephone number in short term or immediate memory long

enough to dial it and then become easily forgotten. Specifically, working memory is a memory

system that incorporates different interactive processes that manipulate information (Kent, 2016).

These different processes include the manipulation and storage of verbal, auditory, and visual

information.

Elaborative rehearsal and maintenance rehearsal are “memory enhancing strategies,”

specifically, functions of working memory that allow for more active manipulation of

information (Harris & Qualls, 2000). The former is a memory strategy that involves processes

made to more deeply encode information (Harris & Qualls, 2000). It does that by connecting to

things that already exist in long term memory. It is possible to encode and store information by

using examples, imagery, and associations. In schools, for example, many are taught an

interesting mnemonic device to help remember the order of operations: (P)lease (E)xcuse (M)y

(D)ear (A)unt (S)ally. This mnemonic would be an example of an elaborative strategy that

allows the information to become distinct and meaningful resulting in deep encoding and thus

better remembered (Harris & Qualls, 2000). There has also been research suggesting that

elaboration plays a big role in the process of retrieval. Specifically, elaboration used during the

encoding stage allows for more detailed representations that help with the discrimination process

(Karpicke & Smith, 2012). Conversely, maintenance rehearsal is a simpler and less effortful
 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 3

process that results in shallow encoding and rapidly forgotten information (Harris & Qualls,

2000). Maintenance rehearsal is the continuous repetition of a specific representation to keep in

immediate memory which is then rapidly forgotten after use (Harris & Qualls, 2000). The phone

number example would be a good representation of maintenance rehearsal.

Previous research on these memory enhancing strategies has encompassed many different

areas of memory and subjects that may influence memory. In a study conducted by Harris and

Qualls (2000) different areas such as age, reading comprehension, and verbal working memory

performance were looked at in relation to elaborative and maintenance rehearsal. The study

included 54 participants (27 younger and 27 older) testing their reading comprehension and

verbal working memory (Harris & Qualls, 2000). Participants were asked to describe how they

went about recalling words which was then categorized as elaborative or maintenance rehearsal

(Harris & Qualls, 2000). The findings for this study suggested that when elaborative rehearsal

was used younger adults did better on working memory measures and older adults did better on

reading comprehension measures (Harris & Qualls, 2000). These results suggest that elaborative

rehearsal is the superior memory enhancing strategy that improves different areas of performance

despite, for example, age working against the older adults.

In another study on elaborative and maintenance rehearsal, the researchers wanted to

investigate whether time pressure would disrupt the processes of either memory strategies

(Benjamin & Bjork, 2000). The study spanned across three experiments looking at recognition

accuracy under time pressure and different dynamics of retrieval (Benjamin & Bjork, 2000). The

findings of this study suggest that there can be a cost to elaborative rehearsal as it can be

disrupted by time pressure (Benjamin & Bjork, 2000). The researchers reasoned that this is

because elaborative rehearsal allows unique associations that it is likely to be the most time-
 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 4

consuming to retrieve such information (Benjamin & Bjork, 2000). The study also found that

time pressure allowed for full retrieval for maintenance rehearsal but incomplete retrieval for

elaborative rehearsal (Benjamin & Bjork, 2000). This suggests that maintenance rehearsal is not

affected by time pressure while elaborative rehearsal is, the researchers reasoned that this

difference between the strategies could matter in situations where stress conditions exist.

With attention to time-pressure acting as a sort of motivation in the previously mentioned

study, certain motivations or incentives can provide a desire to do or learn something that could

result in more engaging actions and attention. Reading, for example, is an activity that requires a

bit of attention from the reader and so it is possible to process the information differently. A

study investigated whether the purpose or motivation behind reading something could change the

way the information is processed. There were two conditions given the same material to read:

one was told to read as if they were reading an article that they found interesting in a magazine

while the second condition was told to read as if they were studying for exam (Linderholm,

2006). The findings of this study were that those reading for entertainment processed the text

more shallowly and recalled significantly less than those reading with a purpose (Linderholm,

2006). Even though both conditions were given the same material to read, the way they

processed the information differed based on the motivation.

There has been some exploration regarding age differences and what effect motivation

may have on memory performance. Research suggests that given the proper reward system

motivation can be used to increase working memory performance in children (Atkinson,

Waterman & Allen, 2019). Age differences have been studied in the area of working memory

due to the known fact that memory performance declines with age. A study conducted by

Tournier, Jordan and Ferring (2016) investigates the impact motivation has on memory
 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 5

performance between older and younger adults. The researchers mentioned that it could be

possible for older adults to become more selective in how they allocate their cognitive resources

which can, in turn, affect memory performance (Tournier et al., 2016). The findings of this study

suggest that while younger adults typically did better in memory performance it was possible to

see older adults match them when given proper motivation (Tournier et al., 2016).

The current study aims to build on previous literature by investigating elaborative

rehearsal and maintenance rehearsal in depth. There is little research on motivation in relation to

elaborative and maintenance rehearsal so we will introduce a motivational component to

investigate possible effects. Based on the review of literature, the following hypothesis is

proposed: memory recall will increase when motivation is high and when elaborative rehearsal is

utilized compared to when maintenance rehearsal is utilized, and low motivation is present.

Method

Participants

Participants included 20 undergraduate students (85% Female and 15% Male) enrolled in

a First Year Seminar course at Mansfield University.

Design

The experiment was a 2 x 2 factorial design with independent variables being motivation

(reward or no reward) and memory technique (elaborate rehearsal or maintenance rehearsal) and

the dependent variable being memory which will be measured using a test that assesses recall of

words.

Materials

Materials included a list of thirty words with definitions, a pre-test that measures

familiarity with words, and a post-test that measures recall of words in a multiple-choice format.
 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 6

Procedure

Participants were given a multiple-choice pretest to determine their familiarity with the

word list. They were then given a list of thirty words and told to spend some time learning the

definitions. Two groups were told that there would be a prize given to the top scorer on the

posttest quiz. One group from these two groups were asked to utilize elaborative rehearsal

processes (connecting the words to other words they know or finding a way to mentally envision

the words) to learn the words. The other group was asked to utilize maintenance rehearsal

processes (simply rereading the words and definitions) to learn the words. Each of the two

groups who were not told about a prize for the highest score were also asked to utilize either

elaborative or maintenance rehearsal processes. After 5 minutes of looking at the words,

participants were given a posttest to assess their memory.

Results

The mean scores of both the pretest (M = 7.95, SD = 3.32) and posttest (M = 8.65, SD =

2.78) were calculated. Twelve out of 20 participants scored better on the posttest compared to the

pretest.

A 2 (Motivation: Reward, No Reward) X 2 (Memory Technique: Elaborative,

Maintenance) ANOVA was conducted. The analysis showed no significant main effects of

motivation on posttest score, F (1, 19) = .293, p = .596. Participants with motivation had a

slightly higher mean score (M = 9.0, SD = .915) compared to participants who did not experience

motivation (M = 8.3, SD = .915). There was no significant main effect of memory technique on

posttest score, F (1, 19) = .484, p = .497. Participants that used elaborative rehearsal as the

memory technique did slightly better (M = 9.1, SD = .915) compared to those who used

maintenance rehearsal (M = 8.2, SD = .915). There was no significant interaction between

 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 7

motivation and memory technique on posttest score, F (1, 19) = .722, p = .408. Participants that

use elaborative rehearsal and experienced motivation had higher mean scores (M = 10, SD =

1.29) than those in the other conditions. Although these results are not significant, they are

consisted with the proposed hypotheses.

Discussion

The analysis failed to yield significant results concerning the initial hypothesis that

memory recall will increase when motivation is high and when elaborative rehearsal is utilized

compared to the use of maintenance rehearsal and the presence of low motivation. Despite a lack

of significant findings, participants with motivation scored slightly higher overall than those

without motivation. Participants who used elaborative rehearsal scored slightly higher than those

who used maintenance rehearsal techniques. Participants who had the motivation stimulus and

used elaborative rehearsal strategies scored the highest overall.

Harris and Qualls (2000) found that participants who utilized elaborative rehearsal

techniques performed better on working memory assessments compared to those who used

maintenance rehearsal. The current study did not find significant results to match these findings.

Linderholm (2006) found that performance on an assessment varied based on motivation

(reading for pleasure versus studying for an exam), which was not supported by significant

results from this study.

Limitations

The non-significant findings within this study are likely due to a small sample size.

Running the same study across a larger sample size would likely produce significant results.

There were mistakes in the instrumentation of the study as pre-tests were printed with the

answers indicated on them. White-out was used to try to cover the answers. The answers may not
 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 8

have been completely covered, leading to higher scores on the pre-test for some participants.

Additionally, participants were not asked what specific technique they utilized to study the word

list within the elaborative strategy. Those in the elaborative rehearsal condition, may not have

utilized any strategy and there was nothing in place to see if that was the case.

Future Directions

Future studies should focus on specific types of elaborative rehearsal techniques to see if

one type is stronger than other types for learning information. Additionally, the effects of both

rehearsal strategies on short-term and long-term retention of information should be assessed. The

difference in performance for a general motivation (a prize) versus a more straight forward one

(a specific prize, such as money) could also be analyzed. The motivation used in the current

study may not have been strong enough to be effective since there was no significance between

the group with motivation compared to the group with no motivation.

The results of this study show that being motivated may enhance performance, and

studying using elaborative rehearsal techniques, such as mnemonic devices or connecting

information to already known information, may be superior to using maintenance rehearsal

techniques, such as simple repetition of information, especially for short term retrieval of

information. More research is needed to understand which rehearsal strategy is superior in long

term retrieval of information and how motivation influences this process. This study provides

insight for high school and college students regarding the best way to study for exams along with

influencing factors such as motivation.

 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 9

References

Atkinson, A. L., Waterman, A. H., & Allen, R. J. (2019). Can children prioritize more valuable

information in working memory? An exploration into the effects of motivation and

memory load. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 967–980.

Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2000). On the relationship between recognition speed and

accuracy for words rehearsed via rote versus elaborative rehearsal. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 638–648.

 REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES 10

Harris, J. L., & Qualls, C. D. (2000). The association of elaborative or maintenance rehearsal

with age, reading comprehension and verbal working memory performance. Aphasiology,

14(56), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/026870300401289

Karpicke, J. D., & Smith, M. A. (2012). Separate mnemonic effects of retrieval practice and

elaborative encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(1), 17–29.

Kent, P. L. (2016). Working memory: A selective review. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 5(3),

163–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2016.1167491

Linderholm, T. (2006). Reading with purpose. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 36(2),

70–80.

Nida, R. E. (2015). Effects of motivation on young children’s object recall and strategy use. The

Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 176(3),

194–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2015.1031207

Tournier, I., Jordan, O., & Ferring, D. (2016). Motivation and memory: Impact of emotional

content and age relevance on recall. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and

Geriatric Psychiatry, 29(3), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000153.