Cover Page

Name: Jason McDonnell

Course: Applied Psychology

Student ID: N00061044

Module: Research Methods and Stats Year 2

Lecturer: Brendan Rooney

The Narrative Story Method: Efficacy of a Mnemonic Technique in a List Memorisation Task
Jason McDonnell

Method Design
The present study employed a 2 x 2 within subjects experimental design, with the use (or lack thereof) of a mnemonic technique and gender serving as the independent variables and participants scores on a word-list memorisation task serving as the dependent variable. Means, standard deviations and N values were compared upon completion of the experiment and dependent t-tests were then used in order to determine whether there was any statistically significant increase in performance both between conditions and between genders.

Participants
47 second year psychology students, comprising 18 males and 29 females with an average age of 20, were selected using convenience sampling. All participants took part in both conditions.

Materials/Apparatus
The two word lists used (see Appendix A and B) each consisted of 20 words, with a balance between highly visual concrete words (e.g. giraffe) and non-visual, abstract words (e.g. hopeful). Answers were recorded on blank sheets of paper, and a stop watch was used to measure time elapsed. Participants were directed to a memory improvement website (see Appendix C) in order to familiarise themselves with the narrative story mnemonic technique, which requires the person in question to mentally form an elaborate series of highly visual interconnected images which make up a story pertaining to the list they wish to memorise.

Procedure
Before the experiment commenced, participants were brought into a computer lab on the college campus and instructed to space themselves out evenly and to try to avoid proximity to other students in order to prevent any collaboration. Participants were then instructed to take out a blank sheet of paper to record their answers on. It was explained to participants that they would be read a list of 20 words, and that following this they would be allowed 5 minutes in which to attempt to recall and record as many of the words as possible, in any order they wished. The researcher then proceeded to recite the initial list of 20 words, but immediately following this, participants were instructed to write down as many foods they could think of that began with the letter P, in order to prevent any rehearsal and ensure participants reliance on delayed free recall. Participants were given 2 minutes in which to attempt this, after which they were instructed to record as many words from the list as they

could remember. After 5 minutes had elapsed, participants were shown the list of words and asked to record the amount of correct answers they had written down. Following this, participants were directed to a memory improvement website and given 15 minutes to familiarise themselves with the narrative story technique, and were instructed to employ the technique in question when attempting to remember the next list of words. The second list of words was then called out, followed by another exercise designed to prevent rehearsal, similar to the first. Participants were again asked to recall as many words from the list as they could, after which they were shown the list of words and asked to record the number of correct answers. The amount of correct answers from both conditions was then handed over to the researcher.

Results
Table 1: Summary of Conditions, N values, Means and Standard Deviations. Condition Recall Mnemonic N 47 47 Mean Score 9.66 11.66 Standard Deviation 2.496 3.390

As can be seen from Table 1, on average participants recalled two more correct words in the mnemonic condition vs. the recall condition. This appears to support hypothesis #1, that use of a mnemonic memory aid would result in participants being able to recall more words correctly. Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality indicated that scores were not normally distributed in the recall condition [S-W (47) = .950, p < 0.05], but were distributed normally in the mnemonic condition [S-W (47) = .976, p > 0.05]. A dependent t-test was carried out in order to determine whether the use of a mnemonic technique resulted in a significantly different score. Results of the t-test indicated a significant difference between conditions [t (46) = -3.848, p < 0.025, d = 0.671, r = 0.318], and as such null hypothesis #1 is rejected as on average there was a significant improvement in participants scores in the mnemonic condition. Table 2 illustrates gender differences between conditions, and appears to show a greater degree of improvement between conditions among females, with males scores improving only slightly on average. This appears to support hypothesis #2, that there would be a difference in improvement between genders. Tests for normality indicated that data was normally distributed between genders across conditions, and dependent t-tests were carried out in order to determine whether there was a difference in improvement between the genders. Results of the t-tests indicated no significant improvement between conditions for males [t (17) = .521, p > 0.05, d = 0.148, r = 0.074], and a significant improvement between conditions for females [t (28) = 4.954, p < 0.05, d = 1.032, r = 0.459]. Thus, null hypothesis #2 is rejected, as use of the mnemonic technique resulted in significantly improved scores for females but not for males.

Table 2: Gender Breakdown of Conditions, N values, Means and Standard Deviations. Gender N Mean Score (Recall) Male Female 18 29 10.44 9.17 Mean Score (Mnemonic) 10.89 12.14 Std. Dev. (Recall) 2.770 2.221 Std. Dev. (Mnemonic) 3.306 3.409

Discussion
The present study aimed to explore two hypotheses; firstly that use of a mnemonic technique would result in improved performance in a memorization task (hypothesis #1), and secondly that there would be a difference in improvement between genders through use of the mnemonic technique (hypothesis #2). In both cases, the null hypotheses were rejected. With regard to hypothesis #1, results indicate a clear improvement in participants scores when the narrative story mnemonic technique was employed. Despite tests for normality indicating a non-normal distribution of scores in the control condition, a dependent t-test was deemed appropriate due to its robust nature which allows it to withstand small violations in normality; distribution of scores need only be approximately normal. Values for Cohens d and effect size r lend further credence to the efficacy of the mnemonic technique in recall, both indicating a medium strength effect size resulting from its use. It should be noted however that this difference may result from an order effect, as participation in the control condition may have resulted in higher levels of alertness or concentration which carried over to the treatment condition. The non-normal distribution of scores in the control condition may have further impacted the results, if only slightly. When the data is broken down in terms of gender, it becomes apparent that despite males performing stronger in the control condition, females outperformed males in the treatment condition, displaying a relatively large increase in average score compared to the control condition. Scores for each gender were shown to be normally distributed, and dependent t-tests indicated a significant level of improvement between conditions for females, while improvement among males was non-significant. Again this is further illustrated by the values for d and r, with a strong effect size present between conditions for females and a particularly weak effect size for males. These results would seem to indicate that female participants were more adept at successfully employing the mnemonic technique immediately after learning it, but again it is difficult to determine whether this is owing to the technique itself or whether the results were confounded by the number imbalance between the gender groups. In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that the use of a mnemonic technique, in this case the narrative story method, results in a significant improvement in participant performance in a word-list memorisation task. Gender differences are also illustrated, with females appearing to employ the technique more successfully than males. Despite these findings, the presence of a time-order effect is possible, and this should serve as a direction for future research.

Appendices
Appendix A: Word List 1 Appendix B: Word List 2 Appendix C: Excerpt from Memory Improvement Website

Appendix A

Condition 1 Handout Practical 1: Improving your Memory 1. WATER 2. LAMP 3. THOUGHT 4. JOYOUS 5. TABLE 6. DREAM 7. HEAVY 8. PENCIL 9. ORANGE 10.ANGRY 11.GENTLE 12.ANKLE 13.OPAQUE 14.HAPPY 15.GIRAFFE 16.WONDER 17.PRESENT 18.PATIENT 19.BICYCLE 20.MONKEY

Adapted from Carlson, Martin and Buskist: Psychology, 2nd European edition Lecturers Resource Manual

Appendix B

Condition 2 Handout Practical 1: Improving your Memory 1. CHICKEN 2. EASY 3. PEANUT 4. MONEY 5. CHEEKY 6. AMUSED 7. TANKARD 8. DELAY 9. FLOWER 10.HOPEFUL 11.TROUSERS 12.CANDLES 13.TRANQUIL 14.LOVELY 15.STEEPLE 16.MOTIVE 17.CURTAIN 18.ERECT 19.GINGER 20.DESIRE

Adapted from Carlson, Martin and Buskist: Psychology, 2nd European edition Lecturers Resource Manual

Appendix C

Taken from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTIM_01.htm

The Link and Story Methods Create a memorable story to help you remember information. The Link Method is one of the easiest mnemonic techniques available. You use it by making simple associations between items in a list, linking them with a vivid image containing the items. Taking the first image, create a connection between it and the next item (perhaps in your mind smashing them together, putting one on top of the other, or suchlike.) Then move on through the list linking each item with the next. The Story Method is very similar, linking items together with a memorable story featuring them. The flow of the story and the strength of the images give you the cues for retrieval. How to Use the Tools: It is quite possible to remember lists of words using association only. However it is often best to fit the associations into a story: Otherwise by forgetting just one association you can lose the whole of the rest of the list. Given the fluid structure of this mnemonic (compared with the peg systems explained later in this section) it is important that the images stored in your mind are as vivid as possible. See the introduction to this section for further information on making images strong and memorable. Where a word you want to remember does not trigger strong images, use a similar word that will remind you of that word. Example: You may want to remember this list of counties in the South of England: Avon, Dorset, Somerset, Cornwall, Wiltshire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, and Surrey. You could do this with two approaches, the Link Method and the Story Method: Remembering with the Link Method This would rely on a series of images coding information: An AVON (Avon) lady knocking on a heavy oak DOoR (Dorset) The DOoR opening to show a beautiful SuMmER landscape with a SETting sun (Somerset) The setting sun shines down onto a field of CORN (Cornwall) The CORN is so dry it is beginning to WILT (Wiltshire) The WILTing stalks slowly droop onto the tail of the sleeping DEVil (Devon). On the DEVil's horn a woman has impaled a GLOSsy (Gloucestershire) HAM (Hampshire) when she hit him over the head with it Now the Devil feels SoRRY (Surrey) he bothered her. Note that there need not be any reason or underlying plot to the sequence of images: only images and the links between images are important.

Appendix C (cont.)

Remembering with the Story Method

Alternatively you could code this information by imaging the following story vividly: An AVON lady is walking up a path towards a strange house. She is hot and sweating slightly in the heat of high SUMMER (Somerset). Beside the path someone has planted giant CORN in a WALL (Cornwall), but it's beginning to WILT (Wiltshire) in the heat. She knocks on the DOoR (Dorset), which is opened by the DEVil (Devon). In the background she can see a kitchen in which a servant is smearing honey on a HAM (Hampshire), making it GLOSsy (Gloucestershire) and gleam in bright sunlight streaming in through a window. Panicked by seeing the Devil, the Avon lady screams 'SoRRY' (Surrey), and dashes back down the path.

Key Points: The Link Method is probably the most basic memory technique, and is very easy to understand and use. It works by coding information to be remembered into images and then linking these images together The story technique is very similar. It links these images together into a story. This helps to keep events in a logical order and can improve your ability to remember information if you forget the sequence of images. Both techniques are very simple to learn. Unfortunately they are both slightly unreliable as it is easy to confuse the order of images or forget images from a sequence.