Title: An experiment to investigate the

effect of clustering on short-term

memory.

Student Name: Gartaganis Ioannis-Pavlos
Candidate Number: 000901-0023
Type of Assignment: Internal Assessment
Subject and Level: Psychology HL
Date of Submission: 28/11/2013
Word Count: 1.994



2

Abstract
The aim of this experiment was to investigate whether the grouping or random
presentation of words influence recall. The research hypothesis predicted that
more words would be recalled when they were categorized. The present study is
a partial replication of Tulving and Pearlstone (1966), who found that
categorization of words leads to better recall of words.
The sample was opportunistic and consisted of 20 participants (N=20), all being
Greek IB students from a private school. The dependent variable was the number
of words recalled, and the independent variable was whether these words where
presented in categories or randomly. In the first condition they were given a list
of 25 words (5 categories, each consisting of 4 words, with the category names)
either presented categorized or randomly. They were given 2 minutes to process
them. Then, 1 minute to recall as many as possible.
The results supported the hypothesis. The categorization of words is better than
presenting them randomly, as far as their recall is concerned.
Word Count: 165














3

Table of contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
Method ............................................................................................................................... 6
Design .........................................................................................................................................6
Participants ................................................................................................................................7
Materials .....................................................................................................................................7
Procedure ....................................................................................................................................7
Results: Descriptive ......................................................................................................... 8
Results: Inferential .......................................................................................................... 9
Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 10
Works Cited .................................................................................................................... 11
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix 1 ...............................................................................................................................13
Appendix 2 ...............................................................................................................................14
Appendix 3 ...............................................................................................................................15
Appendix 4 ...............................................................................................................................16
Appendix 5 ...............................................................................................................................17
Appendix 6 ...............................................................................................................................18
Appendix 7 ...............................................................................................................................19
Appendix 8 ...............................................................................................................................20
Appendix 9 ...............................................................................................................................21






4

Introduction
Cognitive psychology is the area of psychology that studies the way the human
brain processes information. Specifically, cognitive psychologists study cognitive
processes like language, learning, perception and memory. Memory is the ability
to perceive, store and recall information in the human mind, and it is the sum of
information we perceive and the capability to remember them as past
experience
1
. Memory is first perceived, stored in long term memory for a very
short period of time, and then if it is rehearsed, it is stored in long term memory.
Short term memory is the encoding of information acquired through our senses
and is stored temporarily for a period of fifteen to thirty seconds. Additionally,
short term memory has a very small capacity. Miller (1956) provided evidence
for the capacity of short term memory with the magic number 7. What he said
is that the number of objects that can be stored in short term memory is 7 plus or
minus 2 objects. In other words, he meant that there are about 7 slots in short
term memory that information can be stored
2
. Nevertheless, a criticism towards
that theory is chunking. Chunking is the cognitive process where people tend to
take small units of information and organize them to large groups. For example,
in a grocery store people will organize the things they have to buy in groups like:
Fruits, Vegetables, Grains and Dairy, rather than having to remember every item
individually. Chunking allows the better recall of information and specifically for
more than 7 items, which contradicts Millers magic number.
Furthermore, in 1953 Bousfield conducted an experiment where he asked
participants to try and learn 60 words consisting of 4 categories, (animals,
peoples names, professions and vegetables) with 15 examples of each in random
order. Bousfield found that when participants recalled without being in order,
they tended to cluster similar items. For example if they remembered a vegetable,
the participant would name more vegetables which were not necessarily in the
list of the words given, in other words, they remembered more words if they
were clustered. Bousfield called this trend categorical clustering
3
. In

1
Mastin, Luke. "What Is Memory? - The Human Memory." What Is Memory? - The Human
Memory. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. <http://www.human-memory.net/intro_what.html>.
2
McLeod, Saul . "Short Term Memory." - Simply Psychology. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.simplypsychology.org/short-term-memory.html>.
3
Hardy, Eleanor M., and Elizabeth Read Hayes. "Review: Memory." Review: Memory. N.p., n.d.
Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.scism.lsbu.ac.uk/inmandw/review/cogpsy/review/rev6916.html>.

5
conclusion, this study supports Bousfields theory of chunking and that it is
considered a criticism towards the pre-existing theory for capacity of short term
memory.
Moreover, a study conducted by Mandler in 1967 also had to do with
categorization of words and their recall. His theory supports that the
organization of words helps at their recall. The aim of the study was to examine
whether the organization of words really helps at the recall of words.
Specifically, they were given a list of words and they were given the choice to
sort them in to categories (2 to 7 categories). Mandler found that those who had
made only 2 categories of words remembered on average 20 words less than
people who had created 7 categories of words
4
. Therefore, he came to the
conclusion that the organization of words increases greatly their recall.
A study referring to short-term memory by Tulving and Pearlstone (1963)
examined how the categorization of words would help with their memorization
and how it would help the participants when they were asked to recall them. The
participants were given word lists of 12 words(one category), 24 words(two
categories) or 48 words (four categories) without headings or any organization
5
.
Additionally, there were two conditions. In the first condition, the answer sheets
only had lines in order to write down the words recalled, whereas in the second
condition the answer sheet had category headings. The participants showed a
significant increase in words encoding and recalling when the category headings
were present on the answer sheet. This study indicates that organizing
information in memory increases the amount of recall, in other words
how organization of information in the encoding stages affects retrieval of
information
6
.
The present study aims to partially replicate Tulving and Pearlstones
experiment and to investigate whether the organization of words in categories
affects their retrieval in a group of Greek IB students.

4
"Organisation of memory." Cognitive Psychology and its Applications. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
<http://socialscientist.us/nphs/psychIB/psychpdfs/OrganizationofMemory.pdf>.
5
"STEP: Scripts: Memory: Tulving and Pearlstone 1966." STEP: Scripts: Memory: Tulving
and Pearlstone 1966. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
<http://step.psy.cmu.edu/scripts/Memory/Tulving1966.html>.

6
"Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words." Availability versus
accessibility of information in memory for words. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537166800488>.

6

A one-tailed research hypothesis was selected for my experiment, because the
theories show that the organization of words would show a significant increase
on the recall of words. Additionally, because in one group the words are under
categories, there is a great possibility that the participants will tend to cluster the
words. Lastly, the theory about the capacity of short term memory supports that
the group that doesnt have the words organized will tend to forget many of
them.

Research Hypothesis H1 :
Greek IB students will remember significantly more words from the categorized
lists of words rather than from the non-categorized list.

Null Hypothesis H2:
There will be no significant difference in the number of words recalled from the
categorized list and from the non-categorized list.

Method
Design
The design of this experiment was an independent measures design, in other
words each participant was allocated to only one condition, in order to avoid
demand characteristics and participant expectancy effects. Moreover, the
independent variable was whether the words were arranged under categories (In
both cases, the list of the words included the names of the categories).The
dependent variable was the number of words they would recall. The controlled
variables were the standardized instructions (see appendix 5) and the same
number of words used in both conditions. Additionally, informed consent form
was given to the participants individually informing them that they had the right
to withdraw themselves and their data at whichever stage of the experiments the
desired. Unfortunately, the participants were not told the real aim of the study at
first, in order to avoid demand characteristics. After the experiment, the

7
participants were given the debriefing form where they were informed about the
real aim of the study.

Participants
The participants were Greek students of the IB program of a private school, aged
16-17 from which none were psychology students to exclude having demand
characteristics. Additionally, the number of students were 20, 10 on each
condition. The sample was opportunistic, meaning a non-representative sample
which is chosen by the experimenter and not randomly, because it was the most
convenient way to conduct my experiment, and they were randomly allocated to
the conditions. The were found in the school grounds and they were asked if
they would wish to participate in an experiment.

Materials
Informed consent form (Appendix 1)
List of words 25 words (categorized or not) (Appendices 2 & 3)
Debriefing form (Appendix 4)
Standardized instructions (Appendix 5)
Stopwatch


Procedure
Each participant was seen individually on different days in a classroom. They
were asked to sit at a desk where the informed consent form was placed, along
with the sheet containing the list of words facing downwards. The participants
were randomly allocated to each condition.

1. Take the participant to a classroom where there are no people.
2. Ask the participant to take a seat and hand the informed consent form and
ask him/her to sign it.
3. Start reading the standardized instructions.

8
4. Ask the participant to turn the sheet with the words and to start reading
them.
5. After two minutes interrupt the participant, collect the papers, and ask
him/her to recall as many words as possible by writing them down on a
paper.
6. Give the participant one minute to recall the words.
7. Collect the paper.
8. Give the participant the debriefing form.
9. Repeat steps 1-8 for each participant, each time changing condition.

Results: Descriptive

The raw data can be seen in appendix 6. Given that the aim of the study was to
investigate the effect of chunking on short term memory, a measure of central tendency
and a measure of central dispersion between group A (categorized words) and group B
(Non-categorized words) was calculated. The mean and standard deviation (shown on
table 1) were chosen because the level of measurement of the dependent variable
interval ratio.





Mean Standard Deviation
With Categorization 16,3 4,7
Without Categorization 10,5 2,8
Table 1: Mean number of words recalled and the standard
deviation for the two conditions.

9
Mean words recalled on each condition (with or without categorization of
words)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
With Categorization Without Categorization
M
e
a
n

w
o
r
d
s

r
e
c
a
l
l
e
d



Results: Inferential
(Inferential statistic calculations can be found in appendices 6-8)
The level of measurement of the dependent variable is interval/ratio, and this is why the
mean and standard deviation were chosen to present the results. However, the data do
not fulfill the requirement for probability tests and therefore a test of ordinal level of
measurement was chosen. The Mann-Whitney U Test was chosen for the analysis of the
data and in order to find their significance, since the design is independent samples
design. The UA (the smallest value) was set as U and was found at the Mann-Whitney U
Test table (Appendix 6) in order to see if the value of U is significant. According to the
table, for 10 participants at each condition the value of U has to be below 23 in order to
be significant. So based on this, the value I found (14) according to the data of my
experiment shows that the data collected were reasonable and there is a possibility less
than 0.5% (p 0.05) for these results to be random or by chance. This means that the null
hypothesis is rejected and the research hypothesis is accepted.

10

Discussion
The aim of this experiment was to determine if different processing tasks can
alter the accuracy and extent of information that can be recalled. Firstly, by
comparing the mean words recalled on each condition, it is noticed that the
group that had the words categorized, recalled significantly more that the group
that did not have the words categorized. Additionally, the standard deviations
are not so great and this means that the results are reliable and representative.
The results (see appendices 7,8,9) show that the average of the scores of the
condition A is greater than the average scores of condition B. Additionally, the
sum of the scores of condition A is about 60 larger than the sum of scores of
condition B. Furthermore, the standard deviations show that there is greater
variability in the data of condition A compared to condition B, as the sum of
standard deviations in condition A is greater than the sum of standard deviations
in condition B. From the results it can be concluded that the research hypothesis
was supported and the number of words recalled at each condition is
significantly different, as shown by the Mann-Whitney U Test of statistical
difference.
These results of the present study also support the studies of Tulving and
Pearlstone (1966). The results of course were mostly expected since the
experiment was a replication of the study done by Tulving and Pearlstone.
Additionally, Mandlers study helped to understand the significance of
categorization of words as far as recalling is concerned. The present experiments
results greatly support the theories and studies of Miller, concerning the capacity
of short term memory, Atkinson and Shiffrins Multi store model and lastly
Bousfields theory and experiment on clustering.
The primary strength of my experiment was that I was able to manipulate the
independent variable and therefore be able to reach a conclusion about the effect
of organization of information in their recall. Additionally, the independent
samples lead to not having demand characteristics. Also, the participants were
undergoing the experiment alone in a room, so there werent other factors
affecting their performance. Nevertheless, there were several limitations in the
experiment. Firstly, there are participant variables, like the fact that some
participants might have a better ability in memory. For example, there was a case
of a participant who recalled all the words in the group where the words were
categorized. Additionally, because the experiment took place in a school

11
environment and the participants were children of this school, the purpose of the
experiment could have been discussed between children.
For further modification, a more representative sample could have been chosen
(not only IB students)and a purposive sample, rather than an opportunistic one.
Additionally, all participants could have undergone the experiment the same
time, so there wouldnt be external discussion of the experiment.

Works Cited

"A Study Investigating the Effects of Categorisation on Recall :: Papers." A Study
Investigating the Effects of Categorisation on Recall :: Papers. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov.
2013. <http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=147910>.
"Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for
words." Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. N.p., n.d.
Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537166800488>.
Hardy, Eleanor M., and Elizabeth Read Hayes. "Review: Memory." Review:
Memory. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.scism.lsbu.ac.uk/inmandw/review/cogpsy/review/rev6916.htm
l>.
Kahana, Michael. "Result Filters." National Center for Biotechnology Information.
U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22646657>.
"Levels of processing: A framework for memory research." Levels of processing: A
framework for memory research. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002253717280001X>.
McLeod, Saul . "Short Term Memory." - Simply Psychology. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec.
2013. <http://www.simplypsychology.org/short-term-memory.html>.
"Multi Store Model of Memory - Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968." Atkinson and
Shiffrin. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.simplypsychology.org/multi-store.html>.

12
"Organisation of memory." Cognitive Psychology and its Applications. N.p., n.d. Web. 12
Feb. 2013.
<http://socialscientist.us/nphs/psychIB/psychpdfs/OrganizationofMemory.pdf>.
"Rehearsal processes in free recall: A procedure for direct observation." Rehearsal
processes in free recall: A procedure for direct observation. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov.
2013. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537170800159>.
"Review: Memory." Review: Memory. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.scism.lsbu.ac.uk/inmandw/review/cogpsy/review/rev6916.htm
l>.
"STEP: Scripts: Memory: Tulving and Pearlstone 1966." STEP: Scripts: Memory:
Tulving and Pearlstone 1966. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
<http://step.psy.cmu.edu/scripts/Memory/Tulving1966.html>.
Tulving, Endel. "Subjective organization in free recall of "unrelated"
words." PsycNET. Psychological Review, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
<http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/69/4/344/>.


13
Appendices
Appendix 1

Informed Consent Form
I am conducting an experiment for my psychology class. This experiment will
take approximately 5 minutes. Your name will not be published and your
responses will be anonymous. Additionally, you will not be subjected to any type
of psychological or physical harm. Moreover, you have the right to withdraw
whenever you wish during the experiment. Your participation is voluntary, so if
you are willing to participate, please sign this form.
If you have any questions pertaining to this study, please let me know!
Thank you!

Participant Signature

_______________________________________

Date :









14

Appendix 2

Word List Condition A
Color Alcoholic Beverages
Blue Beer
Yellow Wine
White Whiskey
Pink Rum

Musical Instrument Sport
Piano Tennis
Guitar Golf
Violin Water Polo
Saxophone Football

Fruits
Banana
Apple
Pineapple
Kiwi





15

Appendix 3

Word List Condition B
Blue Fruits
Football Violin
Pink Musical Instrument
Tennis Yellow
Color Whiskey
Saxophone Golf
Piano Apple
Sport White
Wine Alcoholic Beverages
Banana Beer
Pineapple Guitar
Water Polo Kiwi
Rum









16

Appendix 4
Debriefing Sheet
The purpose of this experiment was to test how people can memorize things
when these are categorized or not. This experiment is based on a study
replicated by Tulving and Pearlstone in 1966. This study shows that people who
have the words categorized, will recall them more easily than those who dont
have the words organized. Nevertheless, there will be confidentiality of your data
and your name wont be published. If you are interested to know the results of
experiment, feel free to ask the experimenter.
Your participation was very helpful.
Thank you!
















17

Appendix 5
Verbal Instruction Sheet
1. Please come in and take a seat.
2. If at any point of this experiment you wish to withdraw yourself or the
results, you have the right to, and let me know.
3. When I tell you to turn the paper with the list of the words, you will have
exactly 2 minutes to memorize as many as possible so do your best.
4. You may now turn over the paper.
5. (2 minutes pass)
6. Please stop reading the words and place the paper upside down.
7. You now have one minute to recall as many words as you can and write
them down.
8. (1 minute passes)
9. If you wish your results to be withdrawn, please tell me now.
10. Thank you very much for your time.











18


Appendix 6
Raw Data
With Categories Without Categories
Participants Words found (out of 25) Rank Participants Words found (out of 25) Rank
Participant 1 17 15 Participant 1 8 3.5
Participant 2 14 12.5 Participant 2 11 7
Participant 3 19 18.5 Participant 3 14 12.5
Participant 4 12 9 Participant 4 12 9
Participant 5 18 16.5 Participant 5 7 1.5
Participant 6 25 20 Participant 6 10 6
Participant 7 8 3.5 Participant 7 12 9
Participant 8 19 18.5 Participant 8 9 5
Participant 9 13 11 Participant 9 15 14
Participant 10 18 16.5 Participant 10 7 1.5
Ra 141 Rb 69
Mean 16.3 Mean 10.5

Calculation of Means
1
= x/N = (17+14+19+12+18+25+8+19+13+18)/10 = 16.3
2
= x/N = (8+11+14+12+7+10+12+9+15+7)/10 = 10.5







19




Appendix 7
Processed data for Condition A (categorized words)

Sample calculations
Mean = (17+14+19+12+18+25+8+19+13+18) / 10
Mean = 16.3

Deviation= mean score
(for score=17) Deviation= 16.3 -17 = -0.7

x = 16.3+16.3+16.3+16.3+16.3+16.3+16.3+16.3+16.3+16.3 = 163
With Categorization
Score - x Mean - xr Deviation - d (xr-x) Squared Deviation - d
17 16.3 -0.7 0.49
14 16.3 2.3 5.29
19 16.3 -2.7 7.29
12 16.3 4.3 18.49
18 16.3 -1.7 2.89
25 16.3 -8.7 75.69
8 16.3 8.3 68.89
19 16.3 -2.7 7.29
13 16.3 3.3 10.89
18 16.3 -1.7 2.89

x 163
d 200.1

20




Appendix 8
Processed data for Condition B (non-categorized words)
Without Categorization
Score - x Mean - xr Deviation - d (xr-x) Squared Deviation - d
8 10.5 2.5 6.25
11 10.5 -0.5 0.25
14 10.5 -3.5 12.25
12 10.5 -1.5 2.25
7 10.5 3.5 12.25
10 10.5 0.5 0.25
12 10.5 -1.5 2.25
9 10.5 1.5 2.25
15 10.5 -4.5 20.25
7 10.5 3.5 12.25

x 105
d 70.5









21




Appendix 9
As seen on appendices 7 and 8, I wrote down the data, I ranked them, and found
the overall rank for both conditions. Then, I used the formulas below to do the
Mann-Whitney U Test:



I found that UA= 14 and that UB= 86.