Background: Aim: Reliability:
-Context dependent memory = improved recall of specific To investigate if + Internal reliability as all ptts wore headphones so was another element
episodes when context at encoding and retrieval are the environmental context of control.
same. can have a more positive +High in reliability as there was high levels of control. For example each
-Godden + Badley = effects of context change on memory affect on performance, ppt has 2 minutes between reading article and testing to reduce memory
retrieval are much greater in recall tests than recognition either in matched or recall from short term memory.
test. mismatched conditions.
Method: Materials: Validity:
-Lab experiment -Recorded background noise from lunchtime + Ecological validity because university lunchtime cafeteria noise is a natural environment
-Independent measures in a university cafeteria. Consisted of distinct for students, so you can generalise to real world.
design. words/phrases embedded with general +Internal validity as it can easily be replicated as there was high levels of control.
-IV’s = Silent-silent conversation. +Criterion validity as results were significant for a wide range of ages so can replicate out
Noisy-silent -2 page article on psychoimmunology to be of study if tested in the future.
Silent-noisy studied. -External validity as although everyone having headphones increases control, headphones
Noisy-noisy -16 multiple choice questions (tested are not allowed in actual exams.
DV = performance on memory) -Population validity as there was only 39 pts that took part, so some would argue that the
short answer recall and -10 short answer questions came first. sample size is too small and not representative of the target population.
multiple choice . Order of questions followed order of points
made in article. Grant (1998) Ethics:
Sample: + Addressed informed consent as they told ppts what they were taking
39 ppts age ranging Procedure: part in.
from 17-56 Were allowed to read article once and annotate etc. + Debriefed ppts at the end of the experiment to make sure ppts fully
8 members recruited 5 All wore headphones whilst they read – silent or background understood aim of the experiment and that they didn’t undergo
ppts. noise. psychological harm.
Snowball sampling Reading times were recorded by experimenters. -Could have caused psychological harm, as ppts may have been
1 person was omitted. 2 minutes between reading and testing to reduce short term disappointed with their scores on memory recall tests, which may have
memory recall. made them lose confidence in themselves.
Findings:
Short answer test was given followed by multiple choice.
-Ppts roughly spent
Informed of condition before testing.
same amount of time
Debriefed at end.
studying material.
-Studying and testing in Conclusions:
same environment -Studying and testing in the same environment leads to
produced better enhanced performance.
results. -Likely to perform better with little background noise, as
-There was no overall although no overall effect on performance, there was evidence
effect of noise on for context-dependency suggests they are better off studying
performance. without background noise as it will not be present in tests.
-Context dependent memory = improved recall of specific To investigate if + Internal reliability as all ptts wore headphones so was another element
episodes when context at encoding and retrieval are the environmental context of control.
same. can have a more positive +High in reliability as there was high levels of control. For example each
-Godden + Badley = effects of context change on memory affect on performance, ppt has 2 minutes between reading article and testing to reduce memory
retrieval are much greater in recall tests than recognition either in matched or recall from short term memory.
test. mismatched conditions.
Method: Materials: Validity:
-Lab experiment -Recorded background noise from lunchtime + Ecological validity because university lunchtime cafeteria noise is a natural environment
-Independent measures in a university cafeteria. Consisted of distinct for students, so you can generalise to real world.
design. words/phrases embedded with general +Internal validity as it can easily be replicated as there was high levels of control.
-IV’s = Silent-silent conversation. +Criterion validity as results were significant for a wide range of ages so can replicate out
Noisy-silent -2 page article on psychoimmunology to be of study if tested in the future.
Silent-noisy studied. -External validity as although everyone having headphones increases control, headphones
Noisy-noisy -16 multiple choice questions (tested are not allowed in actual exams.
DV = performance on memory) -Population validity as there was only 39 pts that took part, so some would argue that the
short answer recall and -10 short answer questions came first. sample size is too small and not representative of the target population.
multiple choice . Order of questions followed order of points
made in article. Grant (1998) Ethics:
Sample: + Addressed informed consent as they told ppts what they were taking
39 ppts age ranging Procedure: part in.
from 17-56 Were allowed to read article once and annotate etc. + Debriefed ppts at the end of the experiment to make sure ppts fully
8 members recruited 5 All wore headphones whilst they read – silent or background understood aim of the experiment and that they didn’t undergo
ppts. noise. psychological harm.
Snowball sampling Reading times were recorded by experimenters. -Could have caused psychological harm, as ppts may have been
1 person was omitted. 2 minutes between reading and testing to reduce short term disappointed with their scores on memory recall tests, which may have
memory recall. made them lose confidence in themselves.
Findings:
Short answer test was given followed by multiple choice.
-Ppts roughly spent
Informed of condition before testing.
same amount of time
Debriefed at end.
studying material.
-Studying and testing in Conclusions:
same environment -Studying and testing in the same environment leads to
produced better enhanced performance.
results. -Likely to perform better with little background noise, as
-There was no overall although no overall effect on performance, there was evidence
effect of noise on for context-dependency suggests they are better off studying
performance. without background noise as it will not be present in tests.
