asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuioertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa

Serial position effect

Psychology HL

Meghna Burad

Candidate No. - 0022

11/18/2016

No. of words - 1915

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Method…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Works cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 Appendix i Standardized directions…………………………………………………………………………………...12 Appendix ii Informed consent letter………………………………………………………………………………….13 Appendix iii Informed parental consent letter…………………………………………………………………..14 Appendix iv Debriefing Notes…………………………………………………………………………………………….15 Appendix v List of words for the participant groups…………………………………………………………..16 Appendix vi Raw Data…………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 Appendix vii Serial position curves……………………………………………………………………………………..19 Appendix viii Processed data……………………………………………………………………………………………..20 Appendix ix Standard deviation values……………………………………………………………………………...23 Appendix vii Mann Whitney Calculations…………………………………………………………………………..24

1 | P a g e

Abstract

The Serial position effect, a cognitive bias, states that position affects recall. The loose replication of Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) was conducted to investigate this phenomena and how the alteration of the variables ‘Rate’ and ‘Interval’ affect the Recency effect. It was hypothesized that a bimodal serial position curve would be produced, representing the distinct short-term and long-term storage mechanism. It was hypothesized that rate is directly proportional to the recency effect, and the interval inversely. A list of 20 words was presented to 24 participants, divided into 2 groups. The first group was tested on Interval as experimental and Rate(S) as control with conditions 0-1S, 15-1S, 30-1S, with 4 participants performing the same condition. The second group was tested on Rate(S) as experimental and Interval as control with conditions 1S-15, 2S-15, 3S-15. The results produced a bimodal serial position graph allowing us to accept the relevant research hypothesis. With reference to the inferential statistics, the results disproved the research hypothesis, showing that the alteration of variables did not affect the recency effect as hypothesized. The findings partially matched those of the Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) experiment. Further improvements would result in more reliable results.

Word count: 195

2 | P a g e

Introduction

Serial position effect refers to tendency of the human brain to recall items present in the beginning/ending of a list with a greater probability, compared to the intermediate section [11]. It is regarded as evidence for Atkinson and Shiffrin’s[14][16] multi-store model explaining that items in beginning of the list are retained in the long-term memory store, owing to primacy effect, and items in ending of the list are retained in the short-term memory store, owing to recency effect.

A study conducted by Peterson and Peterson (1959)[15][10] aimed to determine and distinguish between duration of short-term and long-term memory store to present experimental proof for the multi-store model. Participants were asked to recall trigrams after different intervals. To evade rehearsal, Brown-Peterson technique[12] was used. Results showed that longer the interval, lesser the trigrams were recalled supporting the multi-store model as it states that short-term memory store has a limited duration when rehearsal is prevented.

Multi-store model of memory by Atkinson and Shiffrin[1] describes a distinction between three memory stores; sensory, short-term and long-term memory stores[8]. Sensory memory stores information retained long enough by our senses to be utilized, supported by studies Peterson and Peterson (1959)[15] and Miller (1956), regarding duration and amount of information that can be stored. The model stated that information stored in Short-term memory [15] could be transferred to Long-term memory if repetition occurs.

I partially replicated the experiment by Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) which aimed to determine whether the serial position curve consisted of two curves representing the output from distinct short-term and long-term storage mechanism[3][4]. It attempted to prove this by altering variables such as presentation rate, interval, repetition and no. of words that were hypothesized to affect either the short-term or long-term storage mechanism[11][13]. The original study found out that the rate at which words were presented, and interval between words presented and recalling of the words, affected short-term memory, affecting recency effect or end of the curve produced [3][4]. Manipulations made in the experiment conducted is choice of variables from original variables: Interval, No. of words, Rate and Repetition, with the focus primarily on Recency effect resulting in the choice of variables ‘Rate’ and ‘Interval’, and participant sample.

Aim: To investigate how position of words affects recall and how alteration of variables affects the Recency effect

Null Hypothesis: Curve produced will not represent two different curves or distinct storage mechanisms. Variables altered will have little or no significant effect on the recency effect curve.

Research Hypothesis: Bimodal serial position curve produced will represent the distinct short-term and long-term storage mechanism. Variables ‘rate’ and ‘interval’ will have a significant effect on the recency effect curve.

Hypothesis states that increase in variable ‘rate’ would display increase in recency effect. Increase in variable ‘Interval’ would decrease recency effect.

3 | P a g e

Method

Design

Research method is experimental. Independent measures design was used, eliminating confounding variables arising from using a participant twice. Type of data collected is nominal and will be converted to ordinal to be presented in the form of descriptive and inferential data.

Words with obvious connections to the surroundings weren’t included in the list. Each word consisted of 5 letters ensuring that words presented to participants weren’t difficult to be recalled. Words used were commonly used making them familiar to participants, diminishing confounding variables.

Participants viewed words on a Laptop screen in the same order. Variables altered were rate at which the words were presented, referring to the time each word was shown for, and interval, referring to the time participants view a blank screen before producing recollected words on a paper. The controls were no. of words participants were presented with, repetition of each word; which refers to number of times each word was presented; and time frame of 2 minutes for noting down words recalled.

Independent variable was position of words in the list of 20 words. Variables, ‘Rate’ and ‘Interval’ were also an independent variable.

Dependent variable refers to frequency of words remembered from Recency section.

First part of the list consisting of 7 words is referred as Primacy section, next 6 words as intermediate/middle section and last 7 words as Recency section.

Informed consent and parental consent was given to participants to ensure ethical considerations were made during conduct of the experiment. Debriefing was conducted by providing an explanation of aim of study and results, after the experiment and data analysis was completed. Ethical considerations such as protection from harm, confidentiality and right to withdraw were followed.

Participants

24 participants were derived from opportunity sampling as it was easier, faster and more efficient to employ participants. Target population was 15-18 year old, multicultural high school students belonging to collectivistic cultures. Students were randomly separated into two groups, each consisting of 12 participants, exposed to different conditions. All participants were fluent in English and consisted of 19 females and 5 males.

Materials

Standardized instructions for participants(appendix i)

Informed letter of consent(appendix ii)

Informed letter of parental consent(appendix iii)

4 | P a g e

Debriefing notes(appendix iv)

List of 20 words for participants(appendix v)

Paper and pen

Stopwatch

Quiet, well-lit room

Tabulated record sheet to record results

Procedure

Participants were informed of the experiment’s aim. They were provided with standardized directions(appendix i) and an informed letter of consent(appendix ii) that they had to sign to be able to take part in the experiment. Parents of participants under the age of 18 were provided with an informed letter of parental consent(appendix iii) to show approval of their child’s involvement in the experiment. Participants were asked about their age and fluency in English.

Both groups were shown a list of 20 words on a laptop screen using a presentation. For group 1, Rate was kept constant and Interval was altered. Rate was kept as 1S, where S consisted of 3 seconds. Intervals were kept at 0, 15 and 30 seconds. 4 participants were given the same condition for both groups. For group 2, Interval was kept constant and Rate was altered. Interval was kept at 15 seconds. The Rate was kept at 1S(3seconds), 2S(6seconds) and 3S(9seconds). During the Interval, participants were shown a timed blank-white screen. As the screen turned black, participants were asked to write down words they could recollect on paper within a 2-minute time frame.

After the experiment was conducted, participants were debriefed. After data analysis was conducted, they were informed of findings and implications of findings.

5 | P a g e

Results

E. Results: Descriptive data

Nominal data was converted to ordinal for analysis and Mann-Whitney U-test.

U-curve graphs reflect the first part of aim determining how position of words affect recall by displaying frequency of words with respect to their position on the word list.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Interval 0 Interval 15 Interval 30

position

frequency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.53

3.54

4.5

1S 2S 3S

position

frequency

U-curves prove research hypothesis as they represent bimodal serial position curve displaying two different curves as two distinct storage mechanisms. Null hypothesis for this section can be rejected.

Mean, a measure of central tendency, derived from processing raw data for each condition and section of the word list represented the probability a word from a section of the list would be

6 | P a g e

recalled. Graphs for mean(Appendix viii) visually displayed the mean for recency section of the word list in different conditions. This determined the effect alteration of variables had on probability of word recall from the recency section, reflecting the second part of the aim.

Condition Recency mean Standard deviation

Group 11S and 0 0.54 0.1861S and 15 0.68 0.1381S and 30 0.46 0.470Group 215 and 1S 0.39 0.35815 and 2S 0.25 0.13915 and 3S 0.57 0.162

For group 1, hypothesis states that as intervals increase, recency mean would decrease. Mean for interval 0 was 0.54, 15-0.68 and 30-0.46. This was true for conditions 0-30, 15-30. For 0-15, mean increased, disproving research hypothesis.

For group 2, hypothesis states that rate is directly proportional to recency mean. Mean for 1S was 0.39, 2S-0.25 and 3S-0.57. Hypothesis was proven for 1S-3S, 2S-3S. For 1S-2S, the means disproved the research hypothesis, similar to the first group’s results.

Standard deviation values, a measure of dispersion, ranged from 0.138-0.470 for group and 0.139-0.358 for group 2.

Based on descriptive data, it is difficult to determine if null hypothesis for this section can be rejected or not, as part of the results support research hypothesis and some disprove it.

Inferential data

Independent measures design, ordinal level of measurement and Mann-Whitney U-test was used. Due to the size of sample and lack of a standard distribution of data, the level of data was reduced to ordinal, and therefore the U-test was used. Mann-Whitney U-test computes level significance for independent measures design and represents data of small sample with greatest accuracy allowing us to reject/accept the null hypothesis and thus was used [5]. Values used for comparison with the U values were 0.05 directional test values[6].

The test was conducted to determine the effect alteration of variables had on recency effect by analysing the data. Results showed that UA value of 44 was greater than 0.05 lower limit value of 42, and UB value of 99.5 was smaller than 0.05 value of 102. P values amounted to 0.0594 and 0.1188 which were greater than the limit value of 0.05.

Inferential data rejected the research hypothesis. U values don’t match critical values of significance, and P values and are not statistically significant, therefore, results may be due to chance and confounding variables[5][6].

7 | P a g e

Discussion

Results differ from the Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)[3][4][7] experiment. Production of bimodal serial position curve was similar to findings of original experiment[9], proving part of the research hypothesis. For part of the research hypothesis not proven, there were similarities in descriptive data; however, the inferential data accepted the null hypothesis eliminating similarities with original findings. Large standard deviation values questioned reliability and credibility of data.

Peterson and Peterson (1959) distinguished between two-storage mechanisms, similar to Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) and my study, and proved that greater the interval, the lesser was recalled, to which results from my study differed. Atkinson and Shiffrin[16] provided a greater distinction between storage mechanisms, supported by Miller (1956).

A major limitation was the absence of a technique to prevent rehearsal during the interval greatly affecting results as words retained in short-term memory could be transferred to long-term memory due to rehearsal. Brown-Peterson technique could be used to prevent rehearsal.

Other limitations present in methodology were noise levels and distractions that participants may have experienced, as the setting was a school. Improvements would involve a soundproof room with no possible distractions. Participants weren’t representative of entire population as they were students, from a specific age range, belonging to collectivistic cultures. Sample size was small, consisting of 19 females and 5 males. Further improvements could include a larger and diverse sample in terms of age, culture and gender. Improvements would provide a definite causation and relevant results.

Confounding variables, such as effectiveness of memory, memorization techniques, fluency in English, familiarity with words, concentration, state of mind, intervened in the working of the experiment affecting results.

Design and procedure consisted of strengths. Demand characteristics and participant bias couldn’t occur as hypothesis and working of experiment was not provided with. It was ensured that participants were calm, but this still served as a confounding variable as it could not be determined. Participants were informed that the experiment wasn’t labelling their memorizing capabilities, reducing any form of anxiety. 5-lettered and commonly used words were used allowing memorization to be easily possible regarding the short-term memory store. Words with obvious connections weren’t used further eliminating confounding variables. Participants understood instructions, and both groups performed identical tasks allowing direct comparison.

In conclusion, results accepted null hypothesis regarding the effect alteration of variables had on recency effect and rejected null hypothesis regarding the bimodal serial position curve representing two distinct storage mechanisms. Several improvements could be made to ensure that confounding variables didn’t affect the working and results of the experiment, providing more reliable and accurate results.

8 | P a g e

Works cited

[1] Atkinson, R.C. and Shiffrin, R.M. (2011) HUMAN MEMORY: A PROPOSED SYSTEM AND ITS CONTROL PROCESSES! Available at: http://apps.fischlerschool.nova.edu/toolbox/instructionalproducts/edd8124/fall11/1968-Atkinson_and_Shiffrin.pdf (Accessed: 19 October 2016).

(Atkinson and Shiffrin, 2011)

[2] Cowan, N. (2008) ‘What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?’, 169.

(Cowan, 2008)

[3] Glanzer, M. and Cunitz, A.R. (1966a) ‘Two storage mechanisms in free recall’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), pp. 351–360. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(66)80044-0.

(Glanzer and Cunitz, 1966a)

[4] Glanzer, M. and Cunitz, A.R. (1966b) ‘Two storage mechanisms in free recall’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), pp. 351–360. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(66)80044-0.

(Glanzer and Cunitz, 1966b)

[5] GraphPad statistics guide (no date) Available at: https://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/6/statistics/index.htm?how_the_mann-whitney_test_works.htm (Accessed: 14 November 2016).

(GraphPad statistics guide, no date)

[6] Ltd, L.R. (2013) Mann-Whitney U test using SPSS statistics. Available at: https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/mann-whitney-u-test-using-spss-statistics.php (Accessed: 14 November 2016).

(Ltd, 2013)

[7] McLeod, S. (2008) Serial position effect. Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/primacy-recency.html (Accessed: 14 November 2016).

(McLeod, 2008)

[8] Multi store model of Memor (2007) Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/multi-store.html (Accessed: 19 October 2016).

(Multi store model of Memor, 2007)

[9] New page 1 (no date) Available at: http://www.appsychology.com/IB%20Psych/IBcontent/Studies/Glanzer%20and%20Cunitz.htm (Accessed: 14 November 2016).

(New page 1, no date)

[10] Peterson and Peterson (1959) (2008) Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/peterson-peterson.html (Accessed: 19 October 2016).

(Peterson and Peterson (1959), 2008)

[11] Revolvy, L. (no date) ‘Serial position effect’ on Revolvy.Com. Available at: http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Serial%20position%20effect&item_type=topic (Accessed: 17 October 2016).

9 | P a g e

(Revolvy, no date)

[12] Ricker, T., Vergauwe, E. and Cowan, N. (2014) ‘Decay theory of immediate memory: From brown (1958) to today (2014)’, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)., 69(10), pp. 1969–95.

(Ricker, Vergauwe, and Cowan, 2014)

[13] Serial position effect (2008) Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/primacy-recency.html (Accessed: 17 October 2016).

(Serial position effect, 2008)

[14] Shiffrin, R.M. and Atkinson, R.C. (1969) ‘Storage and retrieval processes in long-term memory’, Psychological Review, 76(2), pp. 179–193. doi: 10.1037/h0027277.

(Shiffrin and Atkinson, 1969)

[15] Short term memory (2009) Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/short-term-memory.html (Accessed: 14 November 2016).

(Short term memory, 2009)

[16] The Atkinson-Shiffrin model - A theory of memory (no date) Available at: https://explorable.com/atkinson-shiffrin-model (Accessed: 19 October 2016).(The Atkinson-Shiffrin model - A theory of memory, no date)

10 | P a g e

Appendix i Standardized directions

Standardized directions for all participants:

1. Before you begin the experiment, ensure that you are calm.2. Be ensured that this is not a memory test, so do not be stressed about how much you can

remember. 3. Read the 20 words presented on the laptop screen, placed in front of you.4. Begin writing down the words you remember on the empty sheet of paper given as soon as

you see a dark screen saying ‘end of slideshow’. 5. Write down as many words as you can remember within a two minute time frame.

11 | P a g e

Appendix ii Informed consent letter

Dear participant,

I am a student from Wells International School and am replicating and modifying a previous psychology experiment for an internal assessment for my IB Psychology HL class. The purpose of this study is to investigate the Recency effect in free recall. If you wish to participate in this experiment you should know that during this experiment:

No psychological or physical harm would be caused. All data collected will be kept confidential. Taking part is voluntary.

If you have any further questions you can contact me using this number: ########

You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records

Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I provide consent for myself to take part in the study.

( (Please tick box for agreement)

Participant’s Full name ______________________________

Participant’s Signature ___________________

Date _________________

12 | P a g e

Appendix iii Informed parental consent letter (for participants under the age of 18)

Dear parent/guardian,

I am a student from Wells International School and am replicating and modifying a previous psychology experiment for an internal assessment for my IB Psychology HL class. The purpose of this study is to investigate the Recency effect in free recall. If you allow your child to participate in this experiment you should know that during this experiment:

No psychological or physical harm will be caused. All data collected will be kept confidential. Taking part is voluntary.

If you have any further questions you can contact me using this number: #########

You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I provide consent for my child to take part in the study.

( (Please tick box for agreement)

Parent/Guardian Full name _________________________________________________

Parent/Guardian Signature _________________________________________________

Participant’s Signature ___________________________________

Participant’s Full Name ___________________________________

Date ________________________

13 | P a g e

Appendix iv Debriefing notes

Dear participants,

We would like to thank you for participating in our study. This experiment was based on the Primacy and Recency effect theory, which suggests that when people try to recall a list of words they have tried to memorize, the first and the last words in the list have a higher chance of being recalled.

The Recency effect was investigated. The Recency effect occurs due to the words from the ending of the list being remembered as they are hypothesized to be stored in the short-term memory store.

All the participants were divided into two groups. The participants in the first group were investigated for the effect of Interval on the Recency effect. The participants in the second group were investigated for the effect of Rate on the Recency effect. The rate refers to the rate at which words were presented and the interval refers to the time between the end of the presentation of words and the time during which participants record the words they can recall.

The results show that position affected recall, as participants were more likely to remember words from the beginning and ending of the list.

However, regarding the effect the alteration of variables had on the Recency effect, our results disproved our research hypothesis, displaying that the variables did not affect the Recency effect significantly.

The results derived from our loosely replicated experiment are partially similar to the results derived from the original experiment. We would like to remind you that your data shall remain confidential, I am very thankful for your participation in my study.

14 | P a g e

Appendix v List of words for the participant groups

The word list was the same for all groups which further allowed us to eliminate confounding variables.

1. Baker2. Quick3. Joker4. Zebra5. Climb6. Amaze7. Click8. Brace9. Crash10. Slide11. Catch12. Broad13. Mixed14. Cream15. Weigh16. Peach17. Night18. Crane19. Shape20. Juicy

15 | P a g e

Appendix vi Raw data

S as control, Interval as experimental

Participant nRate Interval age words remembered position wiseP1 1S 0 17 1,2,3,14,18P2 1S 0 18 1,3,4,5,10,15,17,18,19,20P3 1S 0 17 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,13,15,17,18,20P4 1S 0 18 1,2,3,5,6,7,10,12,14,17,18,19

P5 1S 15 181,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,19,20

P6 1S 15 17 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,14,16,19,20P7 1S 15 17 1,3,4,13,14,17,18,20P8 1S 15 17 1,2,3,14,15,16,17,18,20P9 1S 30 17 1,2,3,4,7,11,13,14,15,16,17,20P10 1S 30 17 1,4,6,7,18,20P11 1S 30 17 1,2,3,4,9,11,14,16,17,19P12 1S 30 17 1,2,5,7,9,10,14,16,20

Interval as control, S as experimental

Participant nRate Interval age words remembered position wiseP13 1S 15 17 1,2,5,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20P14 1S 15 17 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10P15 1S 15 17 1,2,3,4,5,8,16,18,20P16 1S 15 17 1,2,4,5,6,14,20P17 2S 15 17 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,14,16,20P18 2S 15 15 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,12,13,16,20P19 2S 15 17 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,13,14P20 2S 15 17 1,2,3,4,6,7,10,12,13,16P21 3S 15 15 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,14,16,20P22 3S 15 16 1,2,3,4,7,11,12,14,15,16,17,20P23 3S 15 16 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,20P24 3S 15 15 1,2,3,5,6,10,11,13,17,18,20

S as control, Interval as experimental (words remembered by individual participants)

1S and 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

16 | P a g e

4 3 4 2 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 2 1 2 2 0 3 4 2 2

1S and 151 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 1 3 3 3 2 3

1S and 301 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 3 2 3 1 1 3 0 2 1 2 0 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 2

Interval as control and S as experimental

15 and 1S1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 4 2 3 4 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3

15 and 2S1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 0 3 0 0 0 2

15 and 3S1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 4 4 3 3 3 1 1 0 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 0 4

17 | P a g e

Appendix vii Serial position curves

S as control, Interval as experimental (serial position curves)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Interval 0 Interval 15 Interval 30

position

frequency

Interval as control, S as experimental (serial position curve)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1S 2S 3S

position

frequency

18 | P a g e

Appendix viii Processed data

S as control, Interval as experimental (total words remembered by participants)

1S and 0primacy total middle total recency total

19 6 15

1S and 15primacy total middle total recency total

19 11 19

1S and 30primacy total middle total recency total

17 6 13

Interval as control, S as experimental (total words remembered by participants)

Interval as control S as experimental15 and 1Sprimacy total middle total recency total

20 7 11

15 and 2Sprimacy total middle total recency total

24 11 7

15 and 3Sprimacy total middle total recency total

22 10 16

S as control, Interval as experimental (mean for each section)

1S and 0

primacy mean middle meanrecency mean

0.68 0.25 0.54

1S and 15

primacy mean middle meanrecency mean

0.68 0.46 0.68

1S and 30primacy mean middle mean recency

19 | P a g e

mean0.61 0.25 0.46

1S and 0 1S and 15 1S and 300

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Recency mean - S as control, In-terval as experimental

Interval as control, S as experimental (mean for each section)

15 and 1S

primacy mean middle meanrecency mean

0.71 0.29 0.39

15 and 2S

primacy mean middle meanrecency mean

0.86 0.46 0.25

15 and 3S

primacy mean middle meanrecency mean

0.79 0.42 0.57

15 and 1S 15 and 2S 15 and 3S0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Recency mean - Interval as control, S as experimental

20 | P a g e

Mean was calculated using the formula:

Total no .of wordsremembered∈desired sectionno .of words∈desired section

∗1

4=mean for desired section

Appendix ix Standard deviation values

Condition Standard deviation for Recency mean

Group 11S and 0 0.1861S and 15 0.1381S and 30 0.470Group 215 and 1S 0.35815 and 2S 0.139

21 | P a g e

15 and 3S 0.162

Calculation for standard deviation:

s=√ Σ(x−x)2

n−1

S = standard deviation

x = mean of the x

x = each of the values of the data

n = number of samples

Appendix x Mann Whitney Calculations

1. To determine whether the alteration of variables had an effect on the Primacy effect.

22 | P a g e

23 | P a g e