Download - 311 Paper 3

Running head: THE EFFECT OF TYPICALITY AND ORGANIZATION ON WORD

RECALL

The Effect of Typicality and Organization on Word Recall

004587335

California State University San Bernardino

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Department of Psychology,

California State University, San Bernardino 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino CA

92407-2318

1

THE EFFECT OF TYPCALITY AND ORGANIZATION ON WORD RECALL

Abstract

The memory structured that is being diagnosed in this paper is known and declarative memory,

which is comprised of either episodic or semantic memories.

What are you doing?

Identify your topic

What do we already know about the topic? (literature review)

Discuss what we already know and what questions remain to be answered

Why is it interesting, and how will it advance our knowledge?

Explain how our research will fill in some gaps in our knowledge

What do you expect to happen and why?

Provide the logic of your hypotheses

2


The Effect of Typicality and Organization on Word Recall

Semantic memory has been a theme of research throughout the history of cognitive

psychology. Understanding that memories are encompassed in either a person’s semantic or

episodic memory, allows for the human species to categorize different experiences. One must not

mistake semantic memory with episodic memory, because episodic memories are memories

recalled from past events in a person’s personal life. Semantic memory is a considered to be

general knowledge of the perceived world such as basic facts, dates, and definitions. (Yee,

Chrysikou, Thompson-Schill, 2010).(fix publication year). Selective pieces of information are

stored into a person’s semantic memory in order to alleviate irrelevant information in the

environment. This is relevant to a person’s cognitive economy, which does not want to be

overworked considering all the stimulating attributes in the perceived world. The concept of

mental categorization is an abstract concept that facilitates memory recall inconsideration to a

person’s semantic memory.

(Most of this paragraph is paraphrased, do I just site the author at the end of the

paragraph) The psychological principles of categorization are composed of five distinct

principles. First humans tend to categorize information exhilarates the least amount of cognitive

effort, and the second proclaims that the observed world is already structured rather than the

result of the subjective decision making of the human species. Furthermore, one must

understand the concept of cognitive economy, which is that humans categorize information that

is relevant to their experience. Specifically, cognitive economy is relevant to the first principle of

categorization, thus humans tend to only store relevant information into their long-term memory.

It is the subconscious behavior of finding a superlative mechanism that represents a category in

order to not exhaust cognitive energy. The second principle assets that structures in the perceived

3


world are initially correlational, which allows for categorization. The third part discusses how

humans develop prototypes in each formulated cognitive category, and the fourth speaks about

(continue to breakdown the abstract principles of categorization… (Rosch, Lloyd 1978)

In order to understand semantic memory categorization, one must consider how semantic

memory is structured. The abstract concept of semantic memory was originally considered to be

structured based on mental connections. Information is organized in a persons mind through

connected ideas. This mental concept is represented by nodes, which are connection points for

certain concepts stored in memory. Nodes are connected through links, which are metaphorical

strings that attach different concepts together. The relationship between concepts determines how

closely linked they are. There is a negative correlation between the length of the string and recall.

The longer the string, the more difficult recall will be…. It was originally generalized that

semantic memory was hierarchical, and that memory was constructed from broad categories to

specific concepts. For example, the category animal would be linked to bird because a bird is an

animal, and the category bird will be linked to different types of birds. Birds like chicken,

ostrich, and canary all fall under this category. Researcher believed that every individual should

be able to recall information in accordance with the above structure, but later researchers found

some different occurrences. Researchers found that memory recall is heavily influenced by

experiences. A hierarchical link will not be created for an item or concept a person has not been

exposed to. Furthermore, a person will not know that an ostrich is a bird if they have not been

exposed to that information. Content exposure also affects the recall of certain concepts or

categories. A person that has developed an ostrich as the prototype fro the category bird and had

not for a canary, will more readily identify that an ostrich is a bird in comparison to a canary.

(Cite and transitions… find the paper). Considering the relationship between variables as well as

4


how closely connected they are in a persons semantic network, brings the idea of semantic

clustering. Semantic clustering is the recall of a given item increases the likelihood of recall of

similar items rather than unconnected items (Manning, Kahana, 2012).

Next is to breakdown the idea of prototypically and mental schemas. Understanding the

structure of semantic memory, now the most optimal retrieval techniques will be discussed. As

shown above, the prototypes have the closest link to whatever category being retrieved. When

asking an individual to name a dog species, the person will first indicate the prototypical dog

species first. (Kahana, Wingfield, 2000)

Then we can talk about chunking and randomization, the likelihood of recall.

http://web.stanford.edu/~gbower/1980/memory_scripts_organized.pdf

Understanding that prototypes increase memory recall, research has also shown that the

organization of material in a free recall test increases the efficiency of memory recall as well…

(Bower, Meyers 1980)… another reference for randomization, (strand 1975).

(this study is a free recall study with a rehearsal distraction) The purpose of this paper is

to analyze the psychological principles of categorization in consideration to prototypical

information in oppose to non-prototypical information. The present study will analyze memory

recall based on the typicality of information presented in correlation with the way the

information is organized to the receiver. It was first hypothesized that typical information will

have a greater recall than non-typical information. Specifically, information that is highly

prototypical will have a higher recall rate than materials that are non-typical. Secondly it was

hypothesized that there will be a higher recall rate for block list in comparison to randomized list

of information. Particularly, information that is presented pre-chunked will have a greater recall

5



than random information. Lastly it was expected that there would be an interaction between

information typicality and organization of the present material.

6


Methods (Past tense)

Participants (who were they?)

For this study, there were a total 203 participants (males=73; females 111; missing 19)

who contributed to the current study. All participants were recruited from California State

University, San Bernardino, San Bernardino and Palm Desert campuses. Participants were all

English speaking and over the age of 18. A convenient sample was utilized, and no incentives

were offered to participants. All participants were treated in accordance with the Ethical

Principles of Psychologist and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2010).

Materials (What did you use?)

1. Describe the general environment

2. To describe the things we used

3. The function of the things we used

(ask him where exactly should I say the experiment will be conducted) Experiments were

conducted in quiet environment inside of the California State University, San Bernardino library.

Participants are considered a convenience sample and were selected at the arbitrary discretion of

the researcher (how do we document this considering all the students were researchers).

Experiments were conducted in a secluded quiet environment to resist distraction. An informed

consent form was presented to each participant before beginning. A test booklet was provided to

each participant, which were comprised of the different conditions. It consists of an instruction

page, two word presentation pages, two word rehearsal-prevention task, two test recall pages,

and finally a debriefing sheet. The four conditions are separated according to typicality and

organization (see Appendix 1). Each test booklet consists of different conditions (see Table 1).

7


(Can I do this above) The test booklet was used to gather data on memory recall considering the

four different conditions.

Procedure (What did you do?)

The experiment consists of one male of female researcher, whom acted as the

experimenter. Participants were chosen from around the San Bernardino or Palm Desert

community. The experimenter was conducted in a quiet location using paper, pencil, and a

stopwatch. There were a total of four conditions within the experiment, which are illustrated

from the booklets (see Table 1). (see if I can use a table here) At the beginning of each condition

the researcher approached a random person and asked whether they would like to participate in

an experiment. Once approved, the researcher then provides the participant with an informed

consent. Once approved, subjects are then asked to read the instruction on the first page (might

want to breakdown instructions in the procedure section). Using a stopwatch, the experimenter

starts to facilitate the experiment. The participant is given two minutes to study the word list, one

minute for rehearsal prevention, one minute for recall task, and a two minute break. This

sequence is repeated once more to collect data for all experimental conditions. After completing

the task, participants were read a debriefing statement, and requested to not share information

about the experiment until the study is complete.

Design & Analysis (What did we do?)

There was a two by two-mixed design used to analyze the different conditions. There was

a total of four word list that all counterbalanced. Independent variable one, which is typicality of

the test items, had two levels (prototypical and non-prototypical). In consideration to the second

independent variable that is organization of test material also had two levels (blocked, random).

The dependent variable is the number of correctly recalled words. In order to test for main

8


effects of typicality and organization of test material, a two-way ANOVA was utilized. It was

also used to test for an interaction effect of typicality and organization. A t-test for independent

samples will be used to test for typicality effects for each type of organization (blocked or

random), and significance was set at a criterion of p<. 05.

Results

A 2x2 ANOVA determined there was a significant mean difference in item recall as a

result of prototypical items, F (1, 201)=153.992, p= .000, ηp²= .434. Participants who received

the prototypical booklet illustrated a greater recall (M=14.03) than participants who received the

non-prototypical booklet (M=10.66). A 2x2 ANOVA determined there was significant mean

differences in the item recall of blocked items, F (1, 201)=16.938, p= .000, ηp²= .078.

Participants who received the blocked list illustrated a greater recall (M=4.6100) than

participants who received the random list (M=2.1748). In consideration to the third hypothesis, a

2x2 ANOVA determined there was an interaction between typicality and organization F

(1,201)=19.839, p= .000, ηp²= .090. Recall for blocked prototypical items were greater than non-

prototypical items. In addition, recall for random prototypical items was greater than non-

prototypical items. Recall was greater for blocked prototypical list (M=15.62) compared to that

of random prototypical list (M= 12.50). Recall was greater for blocked non-prototypical list

(M=11.01) than random non-prototypical items (M=10.32). Finally a t-test was conducted, which

found a significant difference in typicality effects for blocked list than random list

t(201)=2.43524, p<.05. (feature overlap explain why typicality is greater then blocked condition

in comparison to the random)

Discussion

9

THE EFFECT OF TYPCALITY AND ORGANIZATION ON WORD RECALL 10


References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 65 (5), 493. Doi:10.1037/a0020168

Poppel, v. , Sweegers, C. , Cox, R. , Talamini, L. , & Coleman, G. (2015). Mental schemas hamper memory storage of goal-irrelevant information. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 629.

Ruiter, D. , Kesteren, M. , Henson, R. , & Fernandez, G. (2012). How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends Neurosciences, 35(4), 211-219.

Montez, P. , Thompson, G. , & Kello, C. (2015). The role of semantic clustering in optimal memory foraging. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1925-1939.

Ruiter, D. , Kesteren, M. , Henson, R. , & Fernandez, G. (2012). How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends Neurosciences, 35(4), 211-219.

Poppel, v. , Sweegers, C. , Cox, R. , Talamini, L. , & Coleman, G. (2015). Mental schemas hamper memory storage of goal-irrelevant information. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 629.

Morais, A. , Olsson, H. , & Schooler, L. (2013). Mapping the structure of semantic

memory. Cognitive Science, 37(1), 125-145.

http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/generals/papers/Tulving_memory.pdf

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization.

http://www.psych.upenn.edu/stslab/assets/pdf/

YeeChrysikouThompsonSchill_SemMemChapInPress.pdf


11


http://www.psych.upenn.edu/stslab/assets/pdf/YeeChrysikouThompsonSchill_SemMemChapInPress.pdf

http://www.psych.upenn.edu/stslab/assets/pdf/YeeChrysikouThompsonSchill_SemMemChapInPress.pdf

http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/generals/papers/Tulving_memory.pdf


Blocked Random0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18Prototypical Non-Prototypical

Organization of Test Materials

Mea

n N

umbe

r of

Item

s R

ecal

led

12


Table 1

_____________________________________________________________________________________Typicality of Test Items

_______________________________________________________________Prototypical Non-prototypical

_______________________________________________________________Organization of the Test Materials M SD M SD_____________________________________________________________________________________

Blocked 15.62 3.419 11.01 4.354

Random 12.5 3.965 10.32 3.524_____________________________________________________________________________________

Put an italicized title here

Note. Here are the mean scores that will report when results are significant. The totals

13


Appendix A

14


_____________________________________________________________________________________Typicality of Test Items

_______________________________________________________________Prototypical Non-prototypical

_______________________________________________________________Organization of the Test Materials M SD M SD_____________________________________________________________________________________

Blocked 15.62 3.419 11.01 4.354

Random 12.5 3.965 10.32 3.524_____________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2

Put an italicized title here

Note. Here are the mean scores that will report when results are significant. The totals

A two by two-mixed one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to facilitate the

understanding of the possibilities. While A series of one-way Anovas were sude to analyze our

predictions relevant to hypothesis one and two.

15


There was a significant mean difference in [dependent variable] as result of [independent

variable],F(between groups d. f., error d.f.)=xx.xx, p=.xxx or p <.001, ηp²=.xx. Participants who

[level 1 of independent variable] (M= xx.xx) were [direction] then participants who [level 2 of

independent variable] (M=xx.xx). Reporting ANOVA results

• Main effect for type of cheese

– There were significant mean differences in maze performance time as a result of

type of cheese eaten (swiss or cheddar) F(1, 102) = 58.01, p < .001, ηp²=.36(see

Table 1). Rats who ate swiss cheese were faster (M = 3.13) in their maze

performance time than rats who ate cheddar cheese (M = 6.81).

• Interaction effect

– There were significant mean differences in maze performance time as a result of

type of cheese (cheddar or swiss) depending upon type of maze (T-maze or

Radial), F(1, 102) = 4.68, p =.033, ηp²=.04 (see Figure 1). Within the T-maze,

performance was faster for rats in the swiss condition (M = 2.37) compared to

rats in the cheddar cheese condition (M = 7.00). Within the Radial maze,

performance was faster in the swiss condition (M = 4.08) compared to cheddar

condition (M = 6.67). The rats’ performance in either the T-maze or radial maze

was dependent upon whether they ate cheddar or swiss. Rats who ate swiss cheese

were able to run the T-maze significantly faster than rats that ate cheddar and ran

16


the T-maze maze. In addition, rats who ate swiss cheese ran the radial maze

significantly faster than rats who ate cheddar cheese and ran the radial maze.

Overall, rats in the swiss cheese condition did significantly better in both the T-

maze and radial maze compared to rats who ate cheddar with a more pronounced

difference in the T-maze.

17

Download - 311 Paper 3

Top Related