Psychology IA

HL

Internal Assessment
An Experimental investigating of dual code theory by using either abstract or concrete words
Psychology HL

Candidate name School: Nrre Gymnasium 0598 Candidate number: Date of submission: January 5th 2010 Word count: 1,997

Psychology IA

HL

Abstract

According to Paivios (1969) dual-code theory words that evoke a mental image should be easier to recall than abstract words, due to the use of imagery. This investigation attempted to investigate this theory by designing a study that compared the recall of concrete and abstract words. It was hypothesised that the amount of recalled words would be significantly higher when participants were presented with concrete words than when they were presented with abstract words. A repeated measures design was used, and the participants (N=10) were chosen using the opportunity sampling method. A list of ten concrete words was read out to the group of participants, who was subsequently given a filler task and asked to recall as many of the words as they could. The same procedure was then repeated with a list of abstract words. The Wilcoxon statistical test was applied and the results were significant at P 0. 01 so the research hypothesis was accepted. . The conclusion was that the number of concrete words recalled was greater than the number of abstract words recalled indicating that imagery does in fact enhance recall, thus supporting Paivios dual-code theory.

Word count: 191

Psychology IA

HL

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 Method ..................................................................................................................... 6 Design: ................................................................................................................. 6 Participants: ........................................................................................................ 7 Materials: ............................................................................................................. 7 Procedure: ........................................................................................................... 8 Results ...................................................................................................................... 8 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 10 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 13 Appendices............................................................................................................. 13

Psychology IA

HL

Introduction

Cognitive psychologists study complex mental processes such as memory. The question of how knowledge is organized, for instance, is one that has led to several theorethical explanations, including Paivios (1969) dual-code theory1.Paivio suggested that the most powerful predictor of how well words will be learned is whether the word evokes a mental image. This is the basis for the dual-code theory, which proposes that visual and verbal information are processed differently and along distinct channels. Furthermore, both visual and verbal codes for representing information are used to organize incoming information, which can then be used, stored and retrieved. Evidence for the dual-code theory comes from a series of experiments conducted by Begg and Paivio (1969)2, where the main variable being manipulated was the classification of words as abstract or concrete. One such study aimed to test how wording and meaning of abstract and concrete sentences could affect their recognition. An example of a concrete sentence is The spirited leader slapped a mournful hostage, while an abstract sentence is The arbitrary regulation provoked a civil complaint. After presenting these two types of sentences in a short text, participants were given a recognition test which contained distracter sentences that resembled one of the original sentences. These distracter sentences had a different wording or meaning than the original sentences; for instance, The spirited leader slapped a mournful captive would be a distracter sentence with a different wording, and The spirited hostage slapped a mournful leader would be one with a different meaning. Results showed that, for concrete sentences, subjects recognized changes in

1 2

In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.100 In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.100

Psychology IA

HL

meaning better than changes in wording. In the case of abstract sentences, on the other hand, word changes were recognized better than meaning changes. These findings can be interpreted in terms of supporting the dual-code theory by illustrating that the ability of a word to evoke a mental image, as is the case with concrete words, plays an important role on its recall. These findings are corroborated by research conducted by Anderson and Bower (1973)3 that showed that memory for some verbal information is improved when a relevant visual stimuli is presented or when the learner can easily imagine a visual image to go with the verbal information, as is the case with concrete words. On the other hand, Richardson (1974)4, in a study consisting of the free recall of concrete and abstract words, indicated a limitation to Paivios theory. The results from Richardsons research indicated that concrete words were only recalled more when there was an interval between presenting the stimulus and recalling it. Since there was no significant difference in recall from short-term memory (STM), this suggests that the effect of imagery lies in long-term memory (LTM). In line with previous research, the aim of the experiment was to investigate if words that evoke a mental image are easier to recall than abstract words as predicted by Paivios dual code theory. The experiment was a variation of Anderson and Bower (1973), with the alteration of adding a filler task in order to test LTM instead of STM. Participants were presented with a list of concrete words and a list of abstract words. Considering the implication of the dual-code theory, a one-tailed hypothesis was chosen as it was expected that there would be a significantly greater recall of the concrete words because these can easily evoke a mental image to go with the given verbal information.
3 4

In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.104 In: Gross, R. (2001) p.257

Psychology IA

HL

H1: The amount of recalled words will be greater when participants are presented with concrete words than when they are presented with abstract words. H0: The amount of words recalled will be the same in both conditions or differences will be due to chance.

Method Design: The design chosen as most appropriate for this experiment was the repeated measures design, so the same set of participants (N=10) was used for both conditions. This was because fewer participants are needed, and the related design also controls for participant variables thus avoiding a decrease of reliability of results by having participants with a better capacity of recalling words in one condition than in the other. Furthermore, in order to avoid order effects, we counter-balanced the participants so that five participants would be tested in one condition first while the other five were tested in the other condition first. Moreover, ethical considerations were followed in that all participants signed an informed consent form5 and were assured that their anonymity would remain protected and that they could withdraw from the experiment at any moment. Choosing the experimental method made it possible for variables to be manipulated and, therefore, to establish a cause-effect relationship. The independent variable of this experiment was whether concrete or abstract words were presented, while the dependent variable was the amount of words recalled in each condition.

See Appendix 1

Psychology IA

HL

Participants: The target population of this experiment was International Baccalaureate students of Nrre Gymnasium of both sexes. IB students were ideal for this experiment since a fluency of English was necessary to ensure understanding of the words presented for recall. All ten participants were over the age of eighteen (age range 18-20) and thus able to legally consent their participation. The sample (N=10) was chosen through opportunity sampling, because it was the most convenient method.

Materials: Consent form6 Standardized briefing and debriefing instructions7 List of ten abstract words8 List of ten concrete words9 Blank sheets of paper Two similar filler tasks10

6 7

See Appendix 1 See Appendix 2 8 See Appendix 3 9 See Appendix 4 10 See Appendix 5

Psychology IA

HL

Procedure: Before commencing the experiment, participants were read out the standardized briefing instructions3 and then given a consent form2 to sign.

The participants were randomly divided into two groups of five participants by drawing their names out of a box so that counterbalancing could take place. Each group was lead to a quiet classroom by one of the experimenters. Two different experimenters were used so that both groups could be tested simultaneously, in different classrooms, in order to avoid sharing of information between participants of different groups. Afterwards, the experimenter warned that he/she will now begin to read out the first list, and did so. One group of participants had the list of concrete words11 read out to them first, while the other group had the list of abstract words12 first. Participants were then asked to do the filler task13, which had previously already been set on their desks. Once everyone had finished, the filler tasks were collected, and a blank sheet of paper was given out to each of them on which they were asked to write down the previously read out words, in any order. No time limit was set, and the lists were collected once every participant claimed to be finished. The procedure was then repeated, yet with the second list. The group which had the list of concrete words read out first was then read out the list of abstract words and vice-versa. Once all participants claimed to be finished, the papers were collected and the standardized debriefing instructions14 were read out.

11 12

See Appendix 4 See Appendix 3 13 See Appendix 5 14 See Appendix 2

Psychology IA

HL

Results Glancing over the raw data15, it can be noted that all participants recalled more concrete than abstract words. The mean of amount of concrete words recalled (6.1) was greater than the mean of amount of abstract words recalled (4.0). Furthermore, since a relatively low standard deviation was found, our results were consistent and not very spread out.

Table 1: Mean of amount of words recalled in each condition Mean of Standard amount of deviation (SD) words recalled Condition 1 (Concrete Words) Condition 2 (Abstract Words) 6.1 1.60

4.0

1.33

15

See Appendix 6

Psychology IA

HL

Figure 1: Mean of amount of words recalled in each condition

Comparison of Means
Mean of amount of words recalled 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Condition 1 (Concrete Words) Condition 2 (Abstract Words)

Since the experiment tested a difference, and a repeated measures design was used, and the data was at least ordinal, the Wilcoxon Sign test7 was chosen to test the statistical significance of the results. According to the table of critical values of the Wilcoxon test, the critical value for one-tailed hypothesis is 5 and since the test statistic (0) is much smaller than the critical value, then the level of significance is P 0.01. This indicates that the null hypothesis could be rejected, and that the research hypothesis was to be accepted at P 0. 01.

Discussion Paivios dual code theory predicts that it is easier to recall concrete words than abstract words due to their ability to evoke mental images. The results of this investigation support this theory, by showing that there was a highly significant difference, where p 0.01, between the amount of words recalled by the participants in each condition. Considering that the study conducted by Begg and Paivio (1969)16 showed that subjects were able to recall more concrete than abstract words, our findings corroborated their results.

16

In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.100

10

Psychology IA

HL

Similarly, our findings also corroborate those of Anderson and Bower (1973)17, since they concluded that memory for some verbal information is improved when the learner can easily imagine a visual image to go with the verbal information. The concrete words presented in our experiment could easily evoke a mental image, while the abstract words could not. Moreover, Begg and Paivios (1969) study indicated the meaning of concrete sentences is stored more in the form of images than by words. This was interpreted to mean that changing the wording, but not the meaning, of a concrete sentence will not affect its image representation and the change will not be noticed. Although our experiment only dealt with words instead of complete phrases, similar results were obtained in that concrete words were recalled more efficiently, suggesting that an image (evoked mentally by the word) is an effective way to store the meaning of a word (or sentence). Some of the limitations of this experiment were made clear as it was being conducted. In the briefing instructions, participants were told they would be asked to recall the words after completing the filler task. Possibly due to experimenter bias, some participants seemed to dismiss the filler task and focus solely on remembering the words that had been read out to them. This was especially so after the participants had already completed one condition, and at this point were quite convinced of the purpose of the experiment. This experimental weakness could be avoided in a future experiment by changing the briefing note so that the filler-task is not mentioned; therefore participants might not be able to suspect the aim of the research from the beginning. Nevertheless, counterbalancing, which was a noticeable methodological strength, was used in order to avoid such order-effects, meaning that they should not have affected to reliability of the results to any great extent.

17

In: Maglennon, K.(1996) p.104

11

Psychology IA

HL

Still, considering that the aim of this investigation was to research the effect of imagery on long-term memory, and the filler tasks appeared to not be very effective, it might be questionable if this procedure tested LTM at all. It could just have tested the effect of imagery on short-term memory instead. Nevertheless, according to Richardson (1974)18, imagery only has an effect on recall from LTM. Therefore, since our findings showed that imagery did affect word recall, it would be reasonable to believe that we did in fact test LTM. Another noted limitation was that no fixed time was set for the filler tasks. If in one condition participants took significantly longer to finish the filler task than in the other, the interval between stimulus and recall may have affected the number of words recalled in each condition. This variable could easily be controlled to improve further research by setting a time limit to the filler task. In conclusion, the aim of this experiment was to investigate the effect of imagery on word recall, and this was successfully accomplished even though some methodological limitations were perceived. By using the Wilcoxon Sign test as a statistical measure, it was calculated that the obtained results were highly significant and thus supported the experimental hypothesis; hence suggesting that words that evoke a mental image are in fact easier to recall.

18

In: Gross, R. (2001) p.257

12

Psychology IA

HL

Bibliography Gross, R. (2001). Memory and Forgetting. In The Science of Mind and Behaviour (pp 243-265). London: Hodder & Stoughon Maglennon, K. (1996). Imagery and Rehearsal, In Essential Practical psychology. (pp 100-105). London: Collins Educational Appendices Appendix 1 Consent Form I have been informed about the nature of the experiment I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and that any information/data about me will remain confidential. My anonymity will be protected as my name will not be identifiable. The experiment will be conducted so that I will not be demeaned in any way. I will be debriefed at the end, and have the opportunity to find out the results.
I hereby give my informed consent to participating in this experiment, NAME and date____________________________________________ Contact number____________________________________________

Appendix 2 Standardized Briefing Instructions: Part 1: A list of ten words will be read out for you. You should then turn over the sheet of paper in front of you and fill in as much as you can. Afterwards, you will be given another sheet on which you should try to recall and write down as many of the previously read out words as you can, in any order. Please remember that if at any time during the proceedings of this experiment you wish to withdraw, you have the right to do so. If you have any questions, please ask them now. Part 2: Another list of ten words will now be read out to you, and the same process will take place. Standardized Debriefing Instructions: The experiment is now over. This was an experiment on memory, and the difference between recalling abstract and concrete words. Thank you for your participation, your identity will remain confidential. If you wish to learn more about the results of this study, feel free to ask any questions. You are also welcome to see the results of the experiment and to read the final report upon its completion. Thank you again. Appendix 3 Stimulus: List of abstract words

13

Psychology IA

HL

Concept Success Knowledge Freedom Racism Cooperation Hate Obedience Trauma Attraction Appendix 4 Stimulus: List of concrete words Violin Pineapple Ice-cream Book Bracelet Dentist Flower Computer Highlighter Elephant Appendix 5 Filler task #1:
1. 225 / 25 = __ 2. 15 + __ = 3 3. 69 + 19 = __ 4. 40 x 5 = __ 5. 100 / 4 = __ 6. 1_ + _8 = 39 7. 102 = ___ 8. 12 + 13 = __

Filler task #2:

14

Psychology IA 1. 65 12 = __ 2. 85 / 5 = __ 3. 82 =__ 4. 2_ + _3 = 56 5. 91 17 = 6. 81 x 2 = __ 7. 17 + 59 = __ 8. 0 45 = __

HL

Appendix 6 The Raw Data - Table for condition 1 (Concrete words): Participant Scores Mean Scores
X

Square of Mean scores

XX
-2,9 1,1 1,1 2,1 1,1 1,1 -0,9 -0,9 -1,9 0,1 -

(X X )2
8,41 1,21 1,21 4,41 1,21 1,21 0,81 0,81 3,61 0,01 25,9

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Total

9 5 5 4 5 5 7 7 8 6 61

15

Psychology IA

HL

Table for Condition 2 (Abstract words): Participant Scores

X

Mean Scores

Square of Mean scores

X X
-2 2 0 1 1 0 -1 2 0 1 -

(X X )2
4 4 0 1 1 0 1 4 0 1 16

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Total

6 2 4 3 3 4 5 6 4 3 40

Appendix 7 Calculations for the Wilcoxon Sign test: First, the scores are paired up and the difference between them is calculated. Participant Score of Condition 1 (Concrete words) A 9 5 5 4 5 5 7 7 8 6 Scores of Condition 2 (Abstract Words) B 6 2 4 3 3 4 5 6 4 3 Difference (A B)
3 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 3

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

16

Psychology IA

HL

The differences are then ranked by size. Difference Order (A B) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 2 5 2 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 10 The rank can then be added to the previous table. Rank 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.5 5.5 8 8 8 10

The value of N is then calculated by adding all the pairs of scores where there was a

Participant

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

Score of Condition 1 (Concrete words) A 9 5 5 4 5 5 7 7 8 6

Scores of Condition 2 (Abstract Words) B 6 2 4 3 3 4 5 6 4 3

Difference (A B) +3 +3 +1 +1 +2 +1 +2 +1 +4 +3

Rank

8 8 2.5 2.5 5.5 2.5 5.5 2.5 10 8

difference. In this case, a difference was obtained in every pair of scores, so N= 10. The sum of the ranks of the positive signs was then calculated: 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 3 = 21 The sum of the ranks of the negative signs was then calculated:

0 = 0 (There is no rank with a negative sign) From the two figures (21 and 0) the smallest one is the test statistic T.

17

Psychology IA Hence, T = 0. According to the critical values of Wilcoxon test, for a one-tailed test:

HL

N 10

0.05 10

0.025 8

0.01 5

By reading the values specific for N = 10, it can be noted that the T value (0) is smaller than all the given values ( 0 < 5) , meaning it is significant even at a 1% level of significance.

18