Psychology IA First draft

Description

In a Psychology Internal Assessment (IA), you typically need to design and conduct an experiment, analyze the results, and provide a written report. Here are the key components you should include in your Psychology IA:

1. **Introduction:**

– Clearly state your research question or aim.

– Provide a brief review of relevant psychological theories or studies related to your topic.

– State your hypothesis.

2. **Methodology:**

– Clearly outline your research design, including the experimental procedure.

– Clearly describe the variables and how they will be measured.

– Provide details about your sample (participants), including how they were selected.

– Explain the ethical considerations and steps taken to ensure the well-being of participants.

3. **Procedure:**

– Detail the step-by-step process of your experiment.

– Include any materials used and the order of the experimental conditions.

4. **Results:**

– Present your data using appropriate graphs, charts, or tables.

– Perform relevant statistical analyses to interpret your data.

– Discuss any patterns or trends in your results.

5. **Discussion:**

– Interpret your findings in relation to your research question and hypothesis.

– Discuss the implications of your results and how they align with existing psychological theories or research.

– Address any limitations of your study and suggest areas for future research.

– Consider alternative explanations for your results.

6. **Conclusion:**

– Summarize your key findings.

– Revisit your research question and hypothesis.

– Reflect on what you have learned from the study.

7. **References:**

– Cite any sources, studies, or theories you referenced in your IA.

8. **Appendices:**

– Include any additional materials, such as surveys, questionnaires, or consent forms.

Ensure that your IA follows the guidelines and criteria provided by the IB program. Pay attention to factors such as clarity of writing, use of appropriate psychological terminology, and adherence to ethical guidelines. Check with your teacher or supervisor for specific requirements and guidance. i will put the study i chose and everything down below and it needs to be in a specific format i will attach an example that isnt related to my study but just for u to understant the fomrattinf and write based on my study and the analysis we got.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

[Type the document title]
Are Eye Witness Testimonies
Influenced by Leading
Questions?
Candidate Name:
Candidate Number:
Session: March 2009
Subject: Psychology
Level: Standard
Word Count: 1499
Date of submission: 09/03/‘09
[Type the document title]
Abstract
The aim of this experiment was to conclude whether leading questions influence recall of information. It
was replicated from Palmer and Loftus’ experiment regarding eyewitness testimonies and memory, an
area focused in cognitive psychology. After the participants watched a video of a car accident (the
independent variable) and had a distraction exercise, they were asked the speed of the car which included
leading questions. The leading questions comprised of different words such as ‘hit’ or ‘smashed’, as they
implied different speeds.
After analyzing the results, it can be concluded that the leading questions did influence the results as
participants chose higher speeds whereas the control group chose lower speeds. The dependent variable,
which was the responses to the leading questions, were unexpected to a certain degree but overall, these
results do support Palmer and Loftus’ experiment, the reconstructive theory and Barlett’s theory
regarding schemas which was developed through the distraction exercise.
Although some unexpected results were obtained, this experiment was successful as the first hypothesis
was accepted and a clear conclusion was reached: that eyewitness testimonies are not reliable since
factors such as leading questions can affect recall
Words count: 188
[Type the document title]
Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Methodology:
i. Design
ii. Participants
iii. Materials
iv. Procedure
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 Appendix A
 Appendix B
1
3
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
 Appendix C
 Appendix D
 Appendix E
 Appendix F
12
15
16
17
[Type the document title]
INTRODUCTION
The cognitive perspective examines internal mental processes including perception, language and focuses
greatly on memory. Memory is the ability to acquire and recover stored information later. Atkinson and
Shriffin (1968) proposed a theory suggesting that processing and storage of memory is in 3 different
stages: encode, store and retrieve in a consecutive and discontinuous way.
Everyday uses of visual reports are believed of being reliable, however, researchers are questioning their
reliability implying that eyewitness reports are overrated as they’re based on visual perception which can
be easily distorted. Retrieving information can be influenced by many factors such as race, clothing,
violence, misleading questions, schemas and reconstructive errors can occur often. It can also be affected
depending on context, the state/mood of a person and it usually needs prompting with clues.
Courtrooms depend on eyewitness testimonies when investigating crimes and can have severe
consequences. It is necessary that this area of memory should be investigated to test its accuracy as they
are vulnerable of being distorted after an event. Jurors are unaware of influencing factors and limitations
of memories and usually rely on eyewitness testimonies.
Studies have been carried out to investigate whether eyewitness testimonies should be trusted and has
influenced many theories; Palmer and Loftus’ experiment aimed to investigate how information given
after an event can influence memory. Their results support the reconstructive hypothesis which means
that a memory of an event consists of two types of information: one gathered from perceiving an event
and the second is the information that is given after the event, such as leading questions. Both types of
information combine and can then create a memory that differs from what was first perceived.
[Type the document title]
Palmer, Loftus’ and Barlett’s experiment is based on the reconstructive theory of memory and schemas.
“A schema is, broadly speaking, a set of mental expectations that accompany a situation.”1 Schemas can
form stereotypes, affecting eyewitness testimonies as it causes distortions in memories as existing
schemas conflict with new information. Schemas influence our memory and helps by filling in the gaps
when we have incomplete memories as we make “inferences or deductions about what could or should
have happened.”2 Fiske and Taylor (1991) verified that confusion can occur when a leading question may
be asked in an eyewitness testimony due to our schemas and stereotyped beliefs stored in our semantic
memory which is based on meaning.
To see whether information supplied to us, after an event can influence memory, we replicated Palmer
and Loftus’ experiment. Using leading questions, our experiment aimed to see if language affects and
influence recall and ultimately memory. The experiment carried out has plenty of scope for extending it
and repeating similar experiments will result in the most accurate results and ecological validity which
will help to conclude whether the reconstructive theory and leading questions have an influence on
memory. .
The hypotheses formed are:
H0 : Leading questions will not influence recall-there will be no difference between the control and
experimental groups.
H1 : Leading questions will influence recall.
Word count: 501
1
2
http://uk.geocities.com/selvrtanni/articles/eyewitness.htm
Richard Gross, Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 4th Edition, 2005, pg. 312
[Type the document title]
METHODOLOGY
i.) Design:
An independent measures design was used because each group, consisting of different participants,
received a different questionnaire. The different participants resulted in no order effects, which is an
advantage of this design. Although a disadvantage is that errors could be made due to the individual
differences in the different groups.
To ensure that we were not crossing ethical boundaries, the participants signed consent forms 3, they were
debriefed4 before and after the experiment, they had the right to withdraw from the experiment and they
were not harmed in any way, physically or emotionally (even the video of the car accident was not
severe).
The independent variables in this experiment were the different leading questions and the visual stimulus:
the video of the road accident. The dependent variable was the responses to the leading questions. The
controlled variables were the standardized instructions5, the video was shown only once to all groups, a
distraction exercise was given for 5 minutes to all groups (to allow for fading of memory trace) 6, silence
was requested throughout the video and participants were seated at a distance from each other.
A single blind experiment 7 was conducted so no participant biases occurred and the experiment was
conducted only once so that no order effects or participant biases could occur. The same experimenters
read out the standardized instructions and gave the debriefing so that participants were familiar with their
accent and voice (which minimized errors).
3
See Appendix A pg. 10
See Appendix B pg. 11
5
See Appendix B pg. 11
6
See Appendix B pg. 11
7
(i.e. the participants do not know whether they are in the control group or they are part of an experimental group)
4
[Type the document title]
ii.) Participants:
20 students (both genders) were used. The target population was grade 12 students from Emirates
International School. The mean age of the students was 16 years and 10 months. The 20 students were
split up into 3 groups.
Convenience sampling was used it was the most convenient and it the results are usually accurate for the
targeted population which can be considered as a strength. The nationalities of the students varied due to
an international school which can raise cultural biases in the experiment and is a limitation of
convenience sampling.
iii.) Materials:

Video of a road accident 8

Questionnaires9
iv.) Procedure:

The participants were debriefed 10 and given standardized instructions. 11

A video12 of a road accident was shown

They were divided into 3 groups

For 5 minutes, the groups had individual distracting questions 13 involving car accidents.
8
See Appendix D pg. 15
See Appendix C pg. 11-14
10
See Appendix B pg. 11
11
See Appendix B pg. 11
12
See Appendix D pg. 15
9
[Type the document title]

They were given questionnaires 14 to fill in.

After 5 minutes, the questionnaires were then collected.

The participants were thanked and debriefed 15 again.

Results were collated and statistically analyzed.
Word count of methodology: 407
13
See Appendix B pg. 11
See Appendix C pg. 12-14
15
See Appendix B pg. 11
14
[Type the document title]
RESULTS16
Table Illustrating the Statement of Results from the Experiment Including the Mean and Standard
Deviation
Control Group A
Experimental Group
B
Experimental Group
C
Mean
110 km
120 km
123.33
Standard
Deviation
19.2
22.4
5.7
Group C had the highest mean speed and group A had the lowest mean speed. Group B has the second
highest mean speed. The aim of this experiment was to see whether leading questions have an influence
on memory and whether eyewitness testimonies are reliable. There is a correlation between leading
questions and memories; control group A has the lowest mean speed whereas experimental group B and
C-which includes the leading questions-have higher mean speeds. It can be briefly stated that our
experiment has been successful since the results match our main expectations.
Bar Graph Illustrating the Mean Speed Results of Each Group from the Experiment
16
See Appendix E pg. 16
[Type the document title]
DISCUSSION
As per the results, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the first hypothesis (H1) is accepted because
the leading questions including the words “smash” and “hit” led to an increase in the number of
participants who chose a higher speed. The control group had the lowest average speed compared to the
experimental groups but unexpectedly, experimental group C had a higher mean speed than experimental
group B. We expected group B’s average speed to be higher than group C’s because the word “smashed”
implies a greater strength compared to “hit” and Palmer’s and Loftus’ experiment had a greater average
speed when the word smash was used rather than hit.
The unexpected results can explain that the appropriate leading questions are necessary to formulate the
desired response. It could be possible that the words “smashed” and “hit” were interpreted differently due
to the different nationalities and English may not have been the participants’ first language.
Limitations that restricted the accuracy of the results obtained include the small number of participants
that were used due to the lack of participants available which is a weakness of convenience sampling as 1
group had an unequal number of students. Improvements such as a larger group with less individual
differences like nationalities could have been made.
A response-bias factor17 could have occurred or perhaps the leading questions changed the participant’s
view of the accident. The participant might have recalled the accident as being more severe than it
actually was due to the leading questions. 18 The leading questions and the schema, that were present in
the participant’s memories that may have developed through the distraction exercises, could have also
meaning that if the participant was unsure what speed to choose, the word “smash” or “hit” biases his choice towards the
higher speed
18
https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/LoftusPalmer74.pdf
17
[Type the document title]
influenced their responses which supports Barlett’s schema theory.
Lawyers use leading questions with suspects to gain the correct response needed raising ethical
considerations as lawyers can manipulate suspects to win cases. Dr. Gary Wells 19 issued the national
guidelines concerning eyewitness testimonies: “like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be
contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect
reconstruction of the crime,” 20 and says that “Loftus’s model suggests that crime investigators need to
think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence.”21 For example,
the case of J.J. White22-an innocent man who was accused of rape and imprisoned for 27 years due to an
incorrect eyewitness testimony.
In conclusion, although the results obtained were slightly unexpected due to the diverse nationalities and
their own interpretation of the two words, it is clear that the use of any leading questions does have an
effect on recalling an event which supports Palmer and Loftus and Barlett’s experiments. This questions
the eyewitness testimonies produced in courtrooms as they have a large importance on producing a
verdict and has severe consequences. It is important that this issue should be considered as information
obtained from eyewitness testimonies should not be completely relied on as the memory can be
influenced easily by language and leading questions and by other factors.
Discussion word count: 499
19
Dr. Gary Wells is an experimental social psychologist and a member of the U.S. Department of Justice panel.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.html
21
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.html
22
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/splat/index.php/news/comments/innocent_man_freed_on_dna_evidence_after_27_years/
 See Appendix F pg. 17
20
[Type the document title]
References
Webliography: (all last accessed on 8th March 2009)
 http://blogs.news.com.au/news/splat/index.php/news/comments/innocent_
man_freed_on_dna_evidence_after_27_years/
 http://uk.geocities.com/selvrtanni/articles/eyewitness.htm
 http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.html
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2DS3RENDY0
 https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/LoftusPalmer74.pdf
Bibliography:
 Hugh Coolican, Introduction to Research Methods and Statistics in
PSYCHOLOGY, 2nd Edition, Hodder & Stoughton, 2004
 Phillip Banyard and Andrew Grayson, Introducing Psychology Research,
Second Edition: Revised and Expanded, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000
 Richard Gross, Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 4 th
Edition, 2005
[Type the document title]
Appendix A
PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT
 I have been informed about the nature of the research.
 I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the
research at any time, and that nay information/data about
me will retain confidential.
 My anonymity will be protected as my name will not be
identifiable.
 The research will be conducted so that I will not be
demeaned in any way.
 I will be debriefed at the end, and have the opportunity to
find out the results at a later date.
I give my informed consent to participating in this research.
Name:
Date:
Contact Number:
[Type the document title]
Appendix B
Standardized Instructions
 Thank you for participating in this experiment. We request you to be silent and not talk
to the person next to you. Please do not open the question paper which is faced down in
front of you.
 Please have a look at this video.
(the video of the car accident is shown)
Distraction Exercises
(after the video)
 All those with the letter A written at the back of your question paper, please join
Experimenter A who is holding a card with the letter A on it.
 All those with the letter B written at the back of your question paper, please join
Experimenter B who is holding a card with the letter B on it.
 All those with the letter C written at the back of your question paper, please join
Experimenter C who is holding a card with the letter C on it.
 Experimenters A, B and C will have group discussions. Control Group A will talk
about traffic on a local highway. Experimental group B will talk about how speed thrills
but kills. And experimental group C will talk about whether safe driving can ever be safe.
The distraction exercises not only distract the participants but also create a schema
in their mind about car accidents, speed and safety.
(after 5 minutes of the distraction exercise)
 Thank you. Now can you please fill out the questionnaire which is faced down in front
of you.
(after the questionnaires have been filled)
 Thank you for participating in this experiment. Your responses will remain confidential
and will be used for research purposes only. We will be happy to tell you the results if you
would like to know. Thank you
[Type the document title]
Appendix C
Questionnaire for Control Group A
Please answer the following questions:1. What is your nationality? _________________________
2. Please circle your gender:Male
Female
3. How old are you? _________________________
4. Do you think speeding on roads while driving is dangerous?
5. What was the colour of the car?
_________________________
6. Going back to the video clip that we showed you- How fast do you think the car was moving when the
accident took place?
90 km 120 km 130 km 150 km
7. Did you see the driver in the car?
Yes No
8. Do you want a driving license?
Yes No
9. Which car would you like to drive?
_________________________
10. How would you describe you mood in one word?
_________________________
[Type the document title]
Appendix C
Questionnaire for Experimental Group B
Please answer the following questions:1. What is your nationality? _________________________
2. Please circle your gender:Male
Female
3. How old are you? _________________________
4. Do you think speeding on roads while driving is dangerous?
5. What was the colour of the car?
_________________________
6. Going back to the video clip that we showed you- How fast do you think the car was moving, when it
smashed into the lorry?
90 km 120 km 130 km 150 km
7. Did you see the driver in the car?
Yes No
8. Do you want a driving license?
Yes No
9. Which car would you like to drive?
_________________________
10. How would you describe you mood in one word?
_________________________
[Type the document title]
Appendix C
Questionnaire for Experimental Group C
Please answer the following questions:1. What is your nationality? _________________________
2. Please circle your gender:Male
Female
3. How old are you? _________________________
4. Do you think speeding on roads while driving is dangerous?
5. What was the colour of the car?
_________________________
6. Going back to the video clip that we showed you- How fast do you think the car was moving, when it
hit the lorry?
90 km 120 km 130 km 150 km
7. Did you see the driver in the car?
Yes No
8. Do you want a driving license?
Yes No
9. Which car would you like to drive?
_________________________
10. How would you describe you mood in one word?
_________________________
[Type the document title]
Appendix D
 The video of the road accident was from this website:

[Type the document title]
Appendix E
Table Illustrating the Raw Results Obtained From the Experiments
Total
Control Group A
Experimental Group
B
Experimental Group
C
130 km
90 km
120 km
90 km
90 km
120 km
120 km
130 km
120 km
90 km
120 km
120 km
90 km
130 km
130 km
130 km
130 km
130 km
120 km
150 km
770 km
840 km
740 km
[Type the document title]
Appendix F
innocent man freed on DNA evidence after 27 years
WHOLE ARTICLE TAKEN FROM:
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/splat/index.php/news/comments/innocent_man_freed_on_dna_evidence_after_27_years/
Here’s the curious thing about eye-witness evidence in a court of law: on the one hand it is the most
convincing evidence that a jury can hear while, on the other, it is the most unreliable evidence that can be
tabled in court.
There was a psychological study done to check just how visually aware members of the public are on any
given Sunday… or maybe it was a Monday. A man stopped a passer-by in the street and asked for
directions to a nearby street that required a series of at least four instructions (straight, left, right, right
again). As the person gave the instructions to the lost passer-by two workers walked between them
carrying a double-door. Hanging from the double-door was another man and, out of sight for a moment,
he jumped down onto the street while the person who has initially requested directions jumped on and
disappeared. Once the double-doors has passed by less than half of the people giving instructions noticed
that they were now directing a different person, wearing completely different clothes.
Research has also shown that a person conducting a line-up can influence the witness, by asking leading
questions, and encourage them to identify any particular person in the line-up.
And yet time and again we see that nothing convicines a jury so much as a man or a woman standing in
court, pointing the finger at the accused and saying, “I saw that man shoot the victim.” Would that our
senses could be so reliable in real life.
There’s a story today about J. J. White, a 48 year-old American man who has just been released from jail
after being found guilty of rape 27 years ago. DNA evidence has proved that the eye-witness evidence
that put him away for life was not accurate. Mr White was released in 1990 after ten years in jail but was
sent back to prison in 1997 for arm robbery.
“I was raised on the chain gang,” Mr White said, “and I didn’t know how to make my way once I got
out.”
I don’t doubt that for a minute. I’m surprised Mr White survived the resentment that must have
threatened to destroy him over those ten years in jail.
Surely these kinds of cases are compelling arguments for the abolition of the death penalty, or should
Western democracies still be killing people for killing people? (Mr White was accused of rape, but the
eye-witness evidence could easily have been for murder).
Jana AlAhmad, Retaj AlArbash, Eman AlSabih, Munera AlKazemi
Dr Janitah Bah
IB Psychology
5 February, 2024
Exploration
Design:
We have carefully selected a repeated measures design for our study in order to
investigate the effect of word length on short-term memory. Each participant in this design
will encounter terms that are short, medium, and long in length. By reducing individual
variations, the repeated measures method improves the internal validity of our research. This
makes it possible to compare things directly within the same group and provides a solid grasp
of how word length affects short-term memory function. This design decision is in line with
our study goal and allows for a thorough examination of the variables being studied.
Choice of Participants:
A key component of our study is participant selection, with a focus on convenience
sampling. In order to preserve a relatively homogeneous sample, participants will be selected
from the American Creativity Academy school, with a focus on undergraduates between the
ages of 15 and 17. This age range targets the particular population of interest while
guaranteeing an appropriate level of cognitive development. Although convenience sampling
offers benefits that are useful given our limited resources, it is recognized that this method
may restrict how broadly our findings may be applied. In alignment with the original study on
Word Length and the Structure of Short-Term Memory by Baddeley, Thomson, and
Buchanan, it is important to note that convenience sampling was also employed in their
research, and this approach will be replicated in our study to maintain consistency in
participant selection.
Control of Variables:
Controlling the variables in our study will ensure the validity and reliability of it. The
speed at which words are presented to participants will be controlled and presented at the
speed of 1.5 seconds per slide to maintain consistency across conditions. Participant age will
also controlled within the selected range of 15-17. Additionally, we will carefully manage the
mental effort participants need by minimizing additional tasks or distractions. This ensures
that our study concentrates specifically on how word length affects short-term memory
without interference from other cognitive demands. These measures collectively contribute to
isolating the impact of word length on short-term memory, providing a focused and accurate
exploration of our research question.
Materials:
In addition to auditory and visual presentations, we will use white noise as an
experimental variable. We carefully chose terms for each word length needed, taking into
account their familiarity and frequency of use. By minimizing potential biases associated
with word features, this matching technique enables us to precisely attribute any observed
variations in memory recall to word length.
Method Clarity:
To make our study work well, we’ve set up a clear plan that participants can easily
follow. From introducing the study to collecting data, each step is designed with precision.
We pay special attention to preparing participants before the word presentation to keep things
fair. Our ethical standards, like getting consent and respecting participants’ rights, are crucial
for a well-rounded method. By sticking to this structured and ethical approach, we aim to
gather data that is not just enough in quantity but also collected in the right way, laying the
groundwork for solid conclusions.
Conclusion:
Our goal is to gather sufficient, high-quality data that allows us to draw insightful
conclusions. Selecting a repeated measures design allows us to manage individual differences
by exposing participants to all word lengths. Our study’s accuracy is increased by our
controlled variables, such as the participants’ age range and the speed at which words are
displayed. We are confident that the information we have gathered is accurate, impartial, and
directly related to the impact of word length on short-term memory by selecting words
carefully and presenting them in a consistent manner. Our goal is to produce an analysis that
genuinely advances our understanding of word length and memory recall by valuing both the
quantity and quality of our data.
Proposal for Internal Assessment – Psychology HL/SL
Group Name: Team 2
Names of group members: Jana AlAhmad, Retaj Alarbash, Munera AlKazemi, Eman
AlSabih
Experiment to replicate – Write reference in MLA style
If the article has several experiments, which one did you choose? We will be
replicating Baddeley, Thomson and Buchanan’s study on “Word Length and the Structure
of Short-Term Memory”, our reference being: Baddeley, Alan D., Neil Thomson, and
Mary Buchanan. “Word length and the structure of short-term memory.” Journal of verbal
learning and verbal behavior 14.6 (1975): 575-589.
Introduction
Which topic is your study related to? In our Internal assessment, we will discuss
“Memory Recall” a really interesting topic.
Write a short summary about the study to be replicated.
The study will be centered around studying younger IB Psychology students’ memory
recall. We will be presenting words on the board with a presentation, some long and some
short, and when we’re finished presenting, we will see what words they remember from the
presentation. The research conducted last year by IB Psychology year 2 students is being
replicated in this study.
Which theory is related to the study you are replicating? Describe it.
The study on memory recall is linked to schema theory, which suggests that people
interpret new experiences by fitting them to mental representations stored in long-term
memory. Schema theory consists of five processes: selection, abstraction, interpretation,
integration, and reconstruction.
Exploration
Aim of the study: This study aims to investigate the impact of word length on the
structure of short-term memory.
Independent variable and conditions:
● Independent Variable: Word Length
● Conditions: Short words (3-5 letters), medium words (6-8 letters), long words (9-12
letters)
Dependent variable: Short-term Memory Performance
Controlled variables:
● Presentation Rate: The speed at which words are presented to participants.
● Participant Age: Participants within a specific age range to control for age-related
memory differences.
● Cognitive Load: Minimizing external cognitive load to focus on the impact of word
length.
Explanation: In this study, we’re changing one thing (the independent variable) to see how
it affects another thing (the dependent variable). We’re making sure to keep other possible
influences (confounding variables) in check. Specifically, we’re looking at words of
different lengths to see how it impacts short-term memory performance. The goal is to
compare how well participants remember short, medium, and long words. This helps us
understand the relationship between word length and short-term memory while considering
and minimizing other potential factors.
Research hypothesis: There is a significant difference in short-term memory performance
based on word length, with shorter words being better remembered compared to longer
words.
Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in short-term memory performance
based on word length.
Research design: Independent measures or repeated measures
Explanation: The research design for this study is likely to be a repeated measures design.
Each participant will be exposed to all three word length conditions (short, medium, and
long words) to minimize individual differences and increase the statistical power of the
study.
Description and choice of participant and explanation: Participants will be recruited
from the American Creativity Academy school, students selected will be aged between
15-17 to ensure a relatively homogeneous sample. Individuals with known memory
disorders or cognitive impairments will be excluded to maintain the internal validity of the
study.
Sampling technique: Convenience sampling technique
Explanation: Convenience sampling is a simple and quick method of selecting
participants based on availability and willingness. We are using it in our study due to time
and money being limited, and it is easier to conduct and contact the subjects, but our
sampling technique unfortunately cannot guarantee representativeness.
Choice of materials and explanation: A set of words will be selected for each word
length condition, ensuring that they are matched for familiarity and frequency of use. The
words will be presented in a standardized format, and any potential confounding variables
will be controlled.
Step by step procedure, including when ethical standards will be applied:
1- We will start by giving an introduction about our study.
2- We will read them their rights for this study (right to confidentiality, right to withdraw at
any point, right to know results and withdraw data).
3- We will be asking them if anyone’s willing to volunteer and thank those who agreed to
participate.
4- We will be providing the participants the informed consent for them to sign.
4- We will then begin presenting a presentation containing words of a variety of lengths.
5- We will be asking the participants to prepare themselves before we begin the
presentation.
6- We will go through the presentation at a consistent pace, making sure that they got an
even amount of time for each word.
7- When we finish presenting the words, we will have them write down the words they can
remember.
8- We will gather their papers together and study each one, looking through what length of
words remembered.
Analysis
Currently, we are in the early stages of the process and haven’t conducted the experiment
yet. However, since this experiment is being replicated, previous studies found that the two
memory stores were cooperating, with the participants’ STM supporting their LTM. He
performed a second test in order to eliminate this complicating factor. This time, after
hearing the list of words, the participants would have to complete an interference task.
This appeared to be effective since it eliminated STM, resulting in the participants utilizing
just LTM to complete their memory tasks. In conclusion, Baddeley concludes that LTM
encodes semantically, at least primarily. His earlier experiments suggest STM encodes
acoustically.
Ethical considerations:
Items to consider (consent, deception, debriefing, confidentiality, psychological or
physical damage):
Informed consent:
1. Thank participation: Recognizing the participants’ contribution to the study,
participants should be acknowledged for their participation.
2. Main view of the experiment: Participants should be given a thorough
explanation of the experiment’s goals, design, and methods.
3. Voluntary participation: Make sure that participation is entirely optional and that
there are no repercussions for those who decide to stop at any time.
4. Right to withdraw:
5. Confidentiality: Stress the value of maintaining participant anonymity with
relation to the data gathered for the study.
6. There will be no physical or psychological har