Dependent Variable and Number

Memory Recall Author(s) First, Middle Initial (if applicable) and Last Name(s) in Starting with the Individual who Made the Biggest Contribution (not alphabetical) This study examines the difference that categorization makes in memory recall exercises. It uses students from Queens College in an experiment in which categorized words are read aloud to one group and random words read aloud to a second group. The groups are then scored according to how many words they can recall correctly.

The findings indicate that categorization makes a difference as the first group recalled more words correctly than the second group after two trials were conducted. Limitations are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided. Memory Recall What is memory? Memory consists of long-term and short-term recollections; it is a temporary store that has limited capacity. Today, scientists are still testing memory in efforts to better understand how it works and what it is capable of doing. This study examines the outcome of an experiment based on memory recall.

The phenomenon of memory recall is typically measured by providing cues and then recording the extent to which participants are able to recall data. As Lewis (1971) notes, "presentation affects item organization in memory storage, and a cue is effective along a certain dimension only if information is stored in that dimension" (p. 131). This means that memory recall is facilitated by a relationship between information and cues that are entwined together within a specific dimension relevant to the act of recall. Or, in other words, categorization matters in recall.

Other variables that could potentially impact the outcome of recall are stimuli, such as sensory material (auditory, smell, taste, touch, etc.), surroundings (environment), and personal ability (habit) (Miller, 1956). Miller's (1956) study identified the number seven as having a "Pythagorean" significance with regard to recalling items -- as evidenced by the number of various lists of seven items, whether wonders of the world, deadly sins, or primary colors (p. 96).

Miller's findings indicated that integers themselves have a special resonance within the mind allowing individuals to recall items if they fit within a specific numerical category. Miller also discussed taste, pitch, loudness, etc. as variables. Lewis (1971) examined the difference between cued and non-cued lists and their effect on memory. Categorization helps to facilitate memory according to the study but in random lists there is no significant difference in total recall between cued and non-cued.

Dong (1972), likewise, examined the recall of words, using cues (category names) and partial cuing and found that there was no significant statistical difference between cued and random categories used in recall ability. Reddy and Bellezza (1986) studied the effect of mnemonic devices on recall, using 6 categories of 7 words each and noted that mnemonic devices did not help with free recall. They did conclude that categorized recall performed better than random recall.

This present study examines the effect of categorization on recall and its purpose is to examine the extent to which categorization impacts a person's ability to recollect information. This study builds on the work of previous studies -- namely those by Dong (1972), Reddy and Bellezz (1986), by exploring the relationship between categorization and memory. The hypothesis used in this study is that categorization will help individuals to have better recall than non-categorization. Method Participants Participants in the study consisted of 14 Queens College students (3 males and 11 females).

Ages ranged from 20 to 32 years old, with the mean age being 24.62. Participants demonstrated no memory defects or auditory defects that might have otherwise excluded them from this study. Their participation was prompted by academic requirement. Apparatus (Materials/Stimuli) Materials used for this experiment included four lists of 10 words each. Two lists contained words that were related/categorized and two contained words that were unrelated. A smart phone stop watch was also used to record times, as were a pen and paper.

Procedure The design of this experiment was simple and the procedure used is described herein: the experiment took place in the classroom; students were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group received category words and the second received unrelated word lists. The experimenter read the list of 10 words, 1 word every 2 seconds. A distraction task was utilized in which simple math was counted out by 3 or 4's out loud for 45 seconds. The experimenter said "go" to signal the participants to write as many words as they could remember.

After 75 seconds they were told to stop. The process was repeated for the second list of words. The groups were then given a score based on number of words that were correctly recalled. The variable used were words read aloud and noise (numbers said aloud) to serve as a distraction. The first variable's level 1 was categorized words given to group 1 and the level 2 of the variable was unrelated words given to group 2.

The dependent variable was the groups' ability to recall words correctly and this was measured by scoring the number of words that the groups were able to recall within 75 seconds of the words being said to them one after another. The mean of the words recalled using independent t-test analysis produced a mean of 14.57, 12.14 and an SEM of .65 and .34. p was less than .05 indicating statistical significance. Results "Group-mean recall scores varied as a function of the categorization of words read aloud." Figure 1 shows the extent of the scoring.

The mean recall was greater for the group who had the categorized list, with M=14.57 words compared to the group who received the random list with M=12.14 words. T-test analysis showed t (12) = 3.31, p = .006. Categorized words were recalled more easily than randomized words according to the findings. Discussion The findings indicated that categorization does make a difference in recall.