XXX

XXX

Does organisation of information affect

the amount of the information we can
remember and successfully recall?

XXX
Candidate number: XXX

Higher Level Psychology

Words: 1911

XXX

XXX

Contents
1. Title Page
2. Contents
3. Abstract
4. Introduction
6. Method Design
7. Method Participants
8. Method Materials
9. Method Procedure
10. Results Descriptive
11. Results Inferential Statistics
12. Discussion
14. References
15. Appendix A Consent form
16. Appendix B Standardised Instructions
17. Appendix C Organised Hierarchy
18. Appendix D Disorganised Hierarchy
19. Appendix E Debrief
20. Appendix F Raw Data

XXX

XXX

Abstract
We replicated an experiment conducted by Bower in 1969, to try and find
similar results to support his conclusions. We investigated the effect of
hierarchical organisation on memory using 16 16-18 year old Bexley
Grammar School sixth form students. We proposed, like Bower, that those
given the organised structure of words would recall more words correctly
than those given an unorganised list of the same words.
We split the participants into two conditions, gave one condition an
organised list of words (Appendix C) and gave the participants on the
other condition the same words in a disorganised setup (Appendix D),
they were given two minutes to remember the words and then instructed
to count backwards from fifty out loud as a distracter task, and finally
given a further two minutes to write down all the words they could
remember.
Our results and statistical tests on our data (Appendix F) suggest to us
that hierarchy has a positive effect on memory in that the participants
recalled more words when given the hierarchy.
Our conclusion is that when given something in a hierarchy, we will
remember more of it correctly than if it is presented to us in a random
format.

XXX

XXX

Introduction
Craik and Lockhart proposed the levels of processing theory in 1972, this
theory suggests that the deeper we process something, the better we
remember it, although its hard to define deep processing and explain how
one type of processing is more deep than another, several studies have
tried to demonstrate this theory. We wanted to investigate this theory
further and relate it specifically to one thing, so we chose to investigate
whether structural organisation, whereby words are organised in a clear
and organised way in a hierarchy, has any relation to the effectiveness of
memory. We looked at how Mandler (1967) attempted to demonstrate
levels of processing using hierarchical organisation; he made the
participants create their own categories (between 2 and 7). Those who put
the words into 7 categories recalled more words accurately; this is
because this relies on two types of memory, recall memory to remember
the categories, and then the ability to link other words to the words
previously recalled due to the structure. We decided that Bower et al
(1969) would be a more appropriate study to replicate due to its
consistency between all participants, so we gave them words in a
hierarchy rather than asking them to create their own hierarchies. We
wanted to investigate the usefulness of memory and how we can
manipulate information in order for us to be able to remember more of the
information and we wanted to investigate the conclusions made by Bower
and Mandler ourselves.
Bower aimed to see how organisation affects memory, by comparing
memory of an organised list of words, with the memory of an unorganised,
random list of the same words by using 30 participants split randomly into
two groups, 15 participants in each condition. Each participant was given
a word list and another completely blank sheet. Participants were given
standardised instructions from the researcher to ensure some control
between the conditions, but they werent informed about the true purpose
of the experiment to prevent any fixing of results from the participants.
The participants in both conditions did the same thing from this point
onwards, they were given 2 minutes to memorise the list of words they
had been given, and then they had to count backwards from 50 out loud,
before writing the words down on the other sheet of paper.
The participants with the hierarchical structure remembered an average of
15 words, in comparison to the average of 13 remembered by those with
the random order of words.

XXX

XXX

This study shows that how information is presented makes a difference to

how memorable it is, and can therefore be used by educational facilities in
order to make some things easier to learn.

XXX

XXX

Hypotheses
H1 - Participants given the list of words in an organised hierarchical
structure will recall more words correctly than the participants given the
list of words in a random hierarchical structure.
H0- The change in conditions will have no significant effect on the number
of words recalled correctly.
We have a one tailed hypothesis as we are saying that by giving a
hierarchical structure there will be more words correctly recalled.

XXX

XXX

Method
Design
For this experiment we used independent measures; this was to
because we used the same words in each condition so participants would
already have seen the words had we used repeated measures. Our
independent variable was how the words were arranged, which differed
for each condition, whereas the dependent variable is the number of
words remembered correctly, for each word correctly remembered, we
gave 1 point, and then added points together for each individual. The
extraneous variables that we had to control were the ambient sound
levels and the number of other people in the room; these were controlled
by having both conditions taking part in the experiment in the same room
at the same time. Participants in the experimental condition were given
some words in an organised hierarchical structure (Appendix C), whereas
participants in the control condition were given the same words but in a
random hierarchical structure (Appendix D). All participants gave
informed consent (Appendix A) beforehand which therefore included
their right to withdraw, but they werent be told the complete aim of
the experiment at that point, in order to make the results as realistic as
possible, they were then debriefed afterwards (Appendix E), at that
point, all participants were informed of the true aims of the experiment as
well as anything we were unable to tell them before the experiment.

XXX

XXX

Participants
11 male and 5 female Bexley Grammar school sixth form students were
used, (Experimental condition had 6 males and 2 females and control
condition had 5 males and 3 females). All participants were within the age
range 16-18. Our target population is the sixth form students at Bexley
Grammar School. We used a convenience sample; we used this type of
sampling as we could only use people available at the time the
experiment took place. Participants were randomly allocated into each
condition by randomly giving people an envelope with one of the two
different conditions therefore avoiding any inbuilt bias by selecting certain
people for each condition.

XXX

XXX

Materials

Consent form
(Appendix A)

Standardised Instructions
(Appendix B)

Organised Hierarchy of Words

(Appendix C)

Disorganised Hierarchy of Words

(Appendix D)

Debrief
(Appendix E)

Raw Data
(Appendix F)

XXX

XXX

Procedure
We used the same stimulus material in the experimental condition
(Appendix C) as used by Bower et al in their original experiment (mineral
hierarchy), and then to create our control condition stimulus material
(Appendix D) we put the same words as from the previous stimulus
material into a hat and the order in which we pulled out the words was the
order that they were put on the list, in the same structure as the
organised stimulus material.
Each participant read and signed an informed consent form so they were
aware of the rights they had after deciding to take part in this study.
We gave the participants an envelope each and read out the standardised
instructions in stages. Firstly we told them that they had two minutes in
which to remember these words, in silence.
We removed the word lists from the participants after the allotted time
and asked them to count backwards from fifty out loud.
We then gave the participants another sheet of paper and once they had
reached zero, the participants were given a further two minutes to recall
as many words as they could, again in silence.
We collected in their answer sheets and gave each of the participants a
copy of the debrief (Appendix E) so that we adhered to all ethical
considerations.

10

XXX

XXX

Results
Descriptive Results (Raw data and calculations in Appendix F)
Some words could potentially be more memorable than others for each
individual in the experiment; therefore we cant treat it as ratio data, and
so must treat it as ordinal. As a result of our data being ordinal, measures
of central tendency and dispersion most suitable are median and range
respectively.
A table to show: the number of participants; measure of central
tendency and measure of dispersion in each condition.

Organised
Hierarchy
Random Hierarchy

Number of
Participants in
each condition
8

Median

Range

18.5

11

Units measured are the number of words measured correctly (1 word

measured correctly = 1 point)

11

XXX

20

XXX

18.5

18
16
14
12

11

10
8

4
2
0

Median

Range

Median

Range

A
graph to show median number of correctly remembered words
and the range of these values for each condition.
Organised Hierarchy

Random Hierarchy

In the organised hierarchy, participants recalled more words correctly

(median of 18.5 compared to 11 in control condition or unorganised
hierarchy) and the dispersion was fairly similar in each (range of 6 in
experimental condition and 5 in control condition).

Inferential Statistics
Number
of
correctly
remembe
red
words

Because our data are ordinal and our design is unrelated, the
appropriate statistical test to identify significance is the MannWhitney U test. In order for our result to be classed as significant,
either our UA or UB values must be less than the critical value, which
is 13 for two groups of 8 participants. One of our U values was 0,
meaning that we can state that the difference is significant and we
can reject our null hypothesis and therefore accept our experimental
hypothesis.

12

XXX

XXX

Discussion
We were aiming to find a difference between the numbers of words recalled
when participants were given an organised hierarchical structure (Appendix
C) compared to when participants were given a random hierarchical structure
(Appendix D).
Our experimental hypothesis stated that participants given a list of words in a
clear organised fashion would recall more words than if participants were
given the same words in an unorganised way. This was also concluded by
Mandler (1967) who investigated organisation, like Bower et al (1969) but a
slightly different aspect of it. This idea is based on the levels of processing
theory proposed by Craik and Lockhart in 1972 due to the fact that by placing
the words in a structural way, we would have to process them more by linking
them and creating mental links between each of them, and thus, by doing
this, they become encoded into our memory. Our results show clearly that the
median of the experimental condition (18.5) was greater than that of the
control condition (11) suggesting validity of our results and also the ranges of
both conditions (6 and 5 respectively) are fairly low and also very similar,
therefore the comparison of the two samples is fair because the low range is
means the median is representative of the sample. The Mann Whitney U test
confirmed the significance of our results at greater than 95% therefore we
can reject our null hypothesis and hence accept our experimental hypothesis.
The majority of participants in the experimental condition recalled the words
in the same format as it was presented to them (i.e. in the hierarchy),
whereas no participants from the control condition did this, therefore
supporting Bowers claim that the hierarchy would be used as a cue for
retrieval.
We had two main weaknesses, the first being that memory techniques such
as those demonstrated in this task, using cues, is common among a highly
examined population, such was that from which our sample was taken. This
means that we have findings which are only relevant and generalisable to
this specific group of people.
The second weakness is that all participants were A level students, which
means it wasnt representative of the entire target population and therefore
the results arent generalisable to all Bexley Grammar School sixth from
students, the next time this experiment is repeated a stratified sample should
be taken to ensure people of all types in population are represented.
Another important thing to note is that the success of this experiment
depends on how well the participants understand the categories in the
hierarchy, because if they dont understand one of the headings, it wont act
as a cue for other words.

13

XXX

XXX

Our results were significant due to the way we controlled our experiment and
the fact we made sure the participants were unaware that there were two
conditions. In the future, research should be done to investigate whether
there is a difference between cultures in terms of utilising the hierarchy,
whether students from a different type of school would react differently to the
hierarchy and more generally, whether some types of people are affected
differently by the hierarchy and why.
To conclude, our experiment went particularly well, so our results support
previous findings from Bower, therefore we can suggest that Bowers
explanation is acceptable.

14

XXX

XXX

References
Bower, G.H., Clark, M.C., Lesgold, A.M. & Winzenz, D. (1969). Hierarchical
Retrieval Schemes in Recall of Categorized Word Lists. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 8, p. 323 - 343.
MANDLER, G. Organization and memory. In K. W. Spence and J. T. Spence
(Eds.) The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 1. New York:
Academic Press, 1967.
CRAIK, F. I. M., & LOCKHART, R. S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 671-684.

15

XXX

XXX

Appendices

Appendix A
Participant information sheet and consent form

Why do this study?

We are interested in how good the memory is of year 12 students,
participation in this study will be helping psychology students from your
school conduct an experiment measuring the power of year 12s memory.
What will participation involve?
The research, as mentioned above, will involve a short memory task.
How long will participation take?
The process will take approximately 20 minutes.
As an informed participant of this experiment, I understand that:
1) My participation is voluntary and I may cease to take part in this
experiment at any time without penalty.
2) I am aware of what my participation involves.
3) There are no risks involved in the participation of this study.
4) All my questions about the study have been satisfactorily answered.

I have read and understood the above, and give my consent to

participate:

Participants Signature: _________________

Date: ___________

I have explained the above and answered all questions asked by the
participant:
Researchers Signature: ________________

Date: ____________

16

XXX

XXX

Appendix B

Standardised Instructions

1. Today we will be doing an experiment to see how counting can have

an effect on our memory.
2. Firstly, in each of these envelopes there are some words that we
want you to attempt to remember, and you now have 2 minutes to
do so.
3. Now we want you to count backwards slowly from 50 out loud
altogether at a steady pace.
4. Now we need you to write as many words as you can recall as
possible on the blank pieces of paper provided and you have 5
minutes to do so.
5. Thats the end of the experiment; we would like to thank you for
your co-operation during this study.

17

XXX

XXX

Appendix C

Organised Hierarchy

Minerals
Metals

Stones

Rare

Common

Alloys

Platinum
Limestone

Aluminium

Bronze

Silver
Granite

Copper

Gold

Lead
Iron

Precious

Sapphire

Steel
Brass

Masonry

Emerald
Diamond

Marble

Ruby

Slate

18

XXX

XXX

Appendix D

Disorganised Hierarchy

Emerald
Precious

Sapphire

Aluminium
Platinum

Copper

Bronze

Lead
Brass

Alloys

Gold

Minerals

Iron

Limestone
Ruby

Granite
Steel

Diamond

Common

Slate
Rare

Stones

Marble
Masonry

Silver

Metals

19

XXX

XXX

Appendix E

Debrief
Thank you for participating in our experiment. We were attempting to
replicate a study conducted by Gordon Bower, Michal Clark, Alan Lesgold
and David Winzenz. This study was done to investigate the effect of
organisation, in particular on memory. The participants were split into two
groups for the two conditions used. Half of the participants were given a
list of words in a random order, the other half were issued with a list of the
same words but in a structured way, specifically in a hierarchy. The reason
for the counting out loud backwards from 50 was in order to eliminate the
possibility of memorising the word list by repeating it in your head. Bower
concluded, and therefore, we expected that those remembering the words
from the hierarchy will have correctly remembered more of the words than
those remembering the words from the randomly ordered list. Thank you
again for your participation and your time.

20

XXX

XXX

Appendix F

Raw data

Control Condition
9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11, 13, 14
Experimental Condition
15, 17, 18, 18, 19, 19, 20, 21

21