Forgot it all along

What methods did we employ in this experiment?

This was a quite complicated experiment. There were three parts. In Phase I, you saw a list
of word pairs, such as car-PORT. The first word (in lower case letters) was a cue, and the
second word (in UPPER CASE LETTERS) was the target. In Phase II, your task was to
produce the target (the second word) when shown the cue (the first word). You saw
something like car-P--T and were asked to type in two letters to complete the target with the
one that you saw in Phase I. In Phase III, you were given another test. Again, you saw a pair
of items, such as car-PORT, but this time you were asked whether you remembered
entering the UPPERCASE word as a response in Phase II.

The independent variable in this experiment was whether the context word presented during
the memory judgment task (Phase III) was the same as during the cued-recall test (Phase
II). The dependent variable was the percentage of times you said you remembered
remembering a word.

What do we predict participants will do? Why?

You should have been more accurate in remembering that you remembered the key word
when the cue was the same than when the cue was different between Phases II and III. In
other words, you should have forgotten that you remembered the target word more often in
the different context condition.

How robust is this effect? Are there limits to this effect?

The effect is quite robust and perhaps most surprisingly, it works well even when the
manipulation of context is quite weak, as it is in this experiment (i.e., changing the first word
in a word pair).
Student Information
Data Summary for MindTap1969-28
Date Completed 2020-12-29 20:54:16 Greenwich Mean Time
Time Spent On Lab 6 minutes
 
Task/Condition Proportion Correct
Cued-Recall, Same 0.000
Cued-Recall, Different 0.000
Memory Judgment, Same 0.591
Memory Judgment, Different 0.545
 
  Memory judgement

What methods did we employ in this experiment?

In Phase I, you saw a list of words, some shown in a large font, some shown in small font,
and some shown once and some shown twice. You were asked to judge how well you would
recognize the word on a later memory test. In Phase II, you were given a recognition test:
half the words were from Phase I and half were new.

The independent variables were the font size and the number of presentations. The
dependent variables are accuracy on the recognition test and accuracy of your memory
prediction.

What do we predict participants will do? Why?

You should underestimate the effect of number of presentations and should overestimate the
effect of font size on your memory performance.

How robust is this effect? Are there limits to this effect?

The basic effect is quite robust: in general, people are not very good at predicting which
variables will affect their memory and which will not. However, this is an experiment in which
previous knowledge of metamemory can affect the outcome.
Student Information
Data Summary for MindTap1969-28
Date Completed 2020-12-29 21:23:40 Greenwich Mean Time
Time Spent On Lab 28 minutes
 
Mean Predicted and Observed Accuracy
Font Studied Once, Studied Once, Studied Twice, Studied Twice,
Size Predicted Observed Predicted Observed
Small
30.00 12.50 27.50 25.00
Font
Large
36.25 25.00 41.25 12.50
Font
 

Lexical Decision

What methods did we employ in this experiment?

We presented words (e.g., "doctor") and nonwords (e.g., "blar") and asked you to determine,
as quickly and as accurately as possible, whether the presented item was a valid word. The
stimuli were actually pairs of items. The types of pairs were: related words (e.g., "doctor" and
"nurse"); unrelated words (e.g., "tree" and "butter"); and nonwords.

The words came from Nelson et al. (2004), who report a set of norms for how associated
certain word pairs are.
The independent variable is whether the first word was related to the second word. The
dependent variable is the time to respond correctly to the second item.

There are several other conditions that are not part of the summary. One condition had a
word followed by a nonword; a second condition had a nonword followed by a word; and a
third condition had a nonword followed by a nonword. These are necessary to ensure that
there were an equal number of words and nonwords shown, and that you could not predict
whether a word or nonword was likely to follow a particular stimulus.

What do we predict participants will do? Why?

The main data of interest are response times to the second stimulus when the stimuli were
words. In particular, people should respond more quickly to second word when it is
semantically associated to the first word than when it is unrelated.

How robust is this effect? Are there limits to this effect?

The effect is very robust. People whose native language isn't English may not show the
effect with these stimuli, but would if tested in their native language.
Student Information
Data Summary for MindTap1969-28
Date Completed 2020-12-29 22:47:06 Greenwich Mean Time
Time Spent On Lab 44 minutes
 
Mean Response Time
Condition RT (ms)
Associated 627.500
Unassociated 659.250
Nonword 845.500
 
 •  Word Superiority

What methods did we employ in this experiment?

On each trial, you saw two stimuli, either two words or two nonwords. The words or
nowwords could be the same or could differ by one letter. Your task was to indicate whether
they were the same or different.

The independent variable is whether the two stimuli were words or nonwords. Two
dependent variables were measured: The proportion of times you correctly responded same
or different and the mean time to make that response.

What do we predict participants will do? Why?

You should find that you were more accurate and faster to respond to the words than to the
nonwords.

How robust is this effect? Are there limits to this effect?

The effect is quite robust if English is your native language. If your native language is not
English, then the size of the effect will depend on how familiar you are with the particular
words used, but the effect would be observed if you were tested in stimuli appropriate for
your language.
Student Information
Data Summary for MindTap1969-28
Date Completed 2020-12-29 22:57:02 Greenwich Mean Time
Time Spent On Lab 4 minutes
 
Accuracy and Response Time
Stimulus Type Proportion Correct RT (ms)
Word 0.458 1015.82
Nonword 0.583 1213.79