A Partial Replication of Lynn Hasher’s Position Effects

In Free Recall Study (1973)

Psychology

HL May 2024

Word Count:2321

1
Table of Contents

Introduction

Exploration

Analysis

Descriptive Statistics

Inferential Statistics

Evaluation

References

Appendices

Appendix 1:

Appendix 2:

Appendix 3:

Appendix 4:

Appendix 5:

Appendix 6:

Appendix7:

Appendix 8:

Appendix 9:

Appendix 10:

Appendix 11:

2
Introduction

The position effect in free recall study was performed to test the theory that memory is

stored in three different stores within the brain. In the multi-store model theory, each store

possesses a different purpose. One controls the amount of information that can be recalled,

another controls how the information is processed, and the last store controls how long the

information can be held for. Another one of these stores is for sensory information. It takes

information received from the five senses, and within each sensory register there is a store. When

new information is paid attention to, it gets moved from the sensory store to the short term store.

When information is first sent to the short term store, it can be held there for up to thirty seconds.

After thirty seconds in the short term store, the information is sent to the long term store, but

only if it has been repeated several times. After memories are stored in the long term store, they

can be recalled at any time, even after significant amounts of time. The Multi-Store Model

theory has been a hot-button issue between psychologists for quite some time. Some scientists

believe that memory is localized to a specific store in the brain, while others believe it is spread

throughout several stores.

The aim of the original study, Position Effects in Free Recall performed by Lynn Hasher,

was to reanalyze data from a previous experiment, whose results stated that when a subject is

given words from a list, they will be able to recall the most recently given words the easiest. The

experiment Hasher chose to reanalyze was chosen due to the fact that subjects were told to recall

the words under two conditions; one group was told to recall the words in an organized manner,

while the other group was given the opportunity to recall the words in any order they saw fit.

3
Hasher reanalyzed this experiment by having participants be randomly assigned to one of two

groups; standard instructions or subjective organization instructions. Each group was read a list

of the same 20 nouns, and were told to recall them. The standard instruction group was told to

recall them in the same order they were read from the list, while the subjective organization

instruction group was allowed to recall the words in any order they pleased. When the results are

shown on a line graph, a primacy effect is seen. But, when presented in other capacities, they are

seen as flat.

4
Exploration

The research design we chose was independent measures. We chose this because it is the

design that allows us to most accurately observe our independent variable. In our experiment

there will be two equally split groups, modeled after Lynn Hashers experiment. One group will

be given a set of subjective organizational instructions, while the other group will be given

standard instructions. We felt that using independent measures was most appropriate for our

experience due to the fact that if a group was to be exposed to both sets of instructions, their

results would be affected by order effects, and could be susceptible to demand characteristics if

they are able to figure out the aim of the experiment due to the difference in instructions.

For selecting our sample, we used convenience sampling. Although this method of

sampling can lead to some issues concerning bias, we felt it was the best choice due to time and

budget constraints. Our sample was thirty Carmel High School freshmen of any gender. We

selected our sample by going into freshman classrooms during SSRT and asking for any willing

volunteers. When a student volunteers, we will randomly assign them to either the experimental

group or the control group. All participants were required to be fluent in English, as the word list

is entirely in English, and proper comprehension of each word is crucial. Participants also could

not be visually or auditorily impaired, since it is crucial that participants can hear the words read

to them, and can write the words down.

We took many different measures to control for confounding variables. One possible

issue could have been order effects, but we controlled for that by using a repeated measures

design for our experiment, as stated above. We also kept the word list the same for each

5
participant, and kept the words at similar levels of difficulty, so there is not an issue of the

participants not understanding the words.

The materials used for our experiment were fairly simple. We needed a timer to make

sure every participant has the same time to complete the answers. We also had our scripts for

both the control groups and experimental groups. We had our word list, answer sheets, and

consent and debrief forms. We also provided pencils. We had slips of paper, on which students

could write their emails to receive updates on the progress of our experiment. We also gave

students candy as a reward for participating in the experiment.

Possible ethical considerations we had to address were ability to withdraw data, and

informed consent. To counteract these, we gave participants consent forms to sign that included

crucial details of the study. We also gave students a debriefing form with methods of contacting

us if they would like to have their taken obstructed from the final results of the study, alongside

allowing students the chance to leave at any point during the procedure.

Analysis

6
 Descriptive Studies

Group Type Standard Instruction Subjective Instruction

Mean Number of Words 2.9 5.5

Recalled in Order

Standard Deviation (# of 2.8 4

words)

The processed data above shows that the mean number of words recalled in order was

significantly higher in the subjective instruction group than in the standard instruction (2.9

compared to 5.5). The subjective instruction group also had a higher standard deviation in the

number of words correctly recalled in the order they were listed (2.8 compared to 4). The amount

of words recalled in the subjective instruction group are spread farther from the mean than that of

the standard instruction group. In turn, this decreases the reliability of the results seen in the

subjective instruction group. Since there is a significant difference between the values of the

mean and the standard deviation across both groups, it is unlikely that there is an overlapping of

data.

7
 Inferential Statistics

To process the data further, it was tested with the Mann-Whitney test. This test takes the inputted

ratio data and transformers it into ordinal data. Using the results of this test, the following

conclusions can be made. The U value of the data is 44 at p<0.5. The value indicating

significance of U is 45 when at p<0.5 within a two-tailed hypothesis test, indicating that the data

collected is significant. This allows us to reject the null hypothesis at the p<0.5 level. This means

we can conclude, with a low margin for error, that being instructed to recall words in a certain

order affects the amount of words one can recall. As a result of our study, it can be concluded

that at the p<0.5 level, being instructed to recall words in a certain order negatively affects one's

ability to recall the words in that order, rather than being instructed to recall the words in any

order they would like.

8
Evaluation

The data collected from our experiment re-affirms the results seen in the original study

conducted by Lynn Hasher. In the original study, it is concluded that when the subject is

instructed to account for position in recalling information, it can impede on the recall process

over all. The controls put in place within this experiment minimize the effect of outside variables

affecting the recall process, therefore increasing the reliability of the results, as it is less likely

that the results were produced by external variables. These results support the hypothesis,

therefore supporting the multi-level processing model. In relation to the model, the standard

instruction group stored the information learned from the word list in the sensory memory store

for a lesser amount of time than the subjective instruction group. This can be attributed to the

interruption of attention. The participants gathered information into the sensory store through the

iconic component of memory that controls visual input, or in other words, they saw the words

and moved them to the sensory store. For the information to reach the short term memory store

and be remembered, it must be rehearsed. If this rehearsal is interrupted, the information can be

lost or forgotten. It can be gathered that this occurred in the standard instruction group. In this

group, the participants had to remember not only the words, but the order they came in. Due to

this, the store’s capacity was reached, making it difficult to retain the information. The rehearsal

was also interrupted by the amount of information that needed to be processed. This was not a

problem in the subjective instruction group due to them only needing to focus on the words, not

the order. Due to this, they ultimately recalled the information in the correct order more often

than the group that was told to do so.

9
Using an independent measures design was helpful in several ways. It helped us easily measure

recall under different circumstances and conditions. Having the two groups allowed us to easily

compare data and draw conclusions from it. This design also prevented the effects of several

biases on the results. If the participants had gone through the experiment twice, the results would

be affected by testing effects. Since they would have already been exposed to the list of words

and attempted to memorize them, it would be much easier to memorize the words the second

time. This design also eliminates the risk of demand characteristics. If the participants knew both

questions being asked, they would be able to figure out the aim of the experiment, and could use

demand characteristics. Despite this, the independent measures design is susceptible to having

limitations. One example of this is any natural differences between participants’ ability to

memorize and recall. Although unlikely, due to our use of random sampling, it could have

occurred that one group happened to have more people with a high ability to memorize

information, therefore skewing the data. A modification to solve this problem would be to

instead use a matched pairs design, and determine the pairs by assessing their memory ability

through a preliminary test. Despite the extra time used, it would increase the reliability of the

results.

One strength of the sample is that all participants understood English, ensuring that they could

understand any instructions given, and not have any conflicting thoughts about translating the

words on the list, affecting the ability to recall them. This allows us to ensure that the results of

our experiment were not skewed by any issues with understanding the instructions or word list.

However, our sample did have limitations. Due to our time and budget constraints, we only had

the ability to use participants from our school, and only including those in the high school age

range. This decreases the generalizability of our experiment, in turn, decreasing the validity of

10
our results. Since we used random sampling, there could have been a potential issue with

participants having background knowledge of psychology, leading to demand characteristics, as

they would be able to gather the aim of the experiment and make a greater effort to memorize the

words. This would lead to inviable results. To rectify this would be to ask participants before

conducting the experiment if they have background knowledge on psychology, and prevent them

from participating.

In all, there were several strengths within our procedure as it allowed us to collect results that can

be applied to our aim, and eventually support our hypothesis. When explaining the instructions to

the participants, we made sure not to reveal what we were testing for. This helps eliminate the

risk of demand characteristics that would decrease the reliability of our results. We also used the

same materials and followed a script (different materials and scripts for experimental and control

groups). This prevented any issues of differences in instruction creating a different interpretation

of the procedure. This would make our results unreliable, as the participants would have gone

through the procedure differently from the other participants. In a similar vein to that, we also

made sure all participants had a full understanding of the experiment and what they needed to do.

This increased internal validity as we were able to ensure that any differences in the instructions

within one group did not affect the participants recall. Despite this, there are multiple limits

within our experiment. For example, when conducting the experiment, we could not control the

noise level as they were memorizing the words, which could have impacted the participants’

ability to learn and remember the words. This would ultimately impact the results of the

experiment. We also struggled controlling for experimenter bias. It was difficult to keep the

answer sheets organized into their respective groups, and generally keeping track of our data.

This could have affected our results by misplacing one piece of data into the wrong group, and

11
skewing our results. To solve this problem, we could have modified our organization system or

labeled each response sheet with what group it is for. Another limitation we encountered was the

issue of the learning environment not accurately representing a real-life situation, reducing the

ecological validity of our study.

In conclusion, memory is difficult to study due to the fact that it cannot be directly observed.

Therefore, we can never truly ensure that participants underwent the level of recall, and only

that. Despite this, the control of multiple variables that would skew the results, we concluded that

subjective instructions led to better recall within our sample, thus supporting the multi-store

model of memory.

12
References

13
Appendices

Appendix 1: word list

14
Appendix 2: Subjective Instructions

Hello, our names are xxxxxx, xxxx, xxxxxx, and xxxxxx, and we are conducting an

experiment for our IA in IB Psychology.

First, we will give you an informed consent form which we ask you to carefully read. If

you agree to participate in this study, please sign the form. If you do not wish to participate, feel

free to head back into the classroom. After you read and sign the consent form, please place it

down in front of you.

(wait until the student is done. After the student is done, collect the consent form and

make sure the student is fluent in english.)

Thank you. The aim of our experiment is to study memory, and should take around ten

minutes. We will now hand out an answer sheet with sixteen blanks. Please write your first and

last name on the paper, and do not write in the other blanks until instructed to.

(Hand out answer sheets.)

This is how our experiment will proceed. First, we will read sixteen words off of a

predetermined list. After we have read the words, a bell will sound, indicating the start of a

two-minute timer. In these two minutes, you will try your best to recall the words in any order

you would like. Write one word in each blank until either the timer stops, or you fill all sixteen

blanks. Please remember that this is individual work and should be completed silently. If you are

confused on any aspect of the procedure, do not hesitate to ask any clarifying questions, as it is

essential that everyone has a full understanding of the instructions.

(Answer any relevant questions.)

Please remember to write your answers with as much accuracy as possible. We will now

start the experiment.

15
 (Begin reading words, experiment takes place.)

(Timer ends, experiment is over.)

Thank you for participating. We will collect the answer sheet and hand out a debrief

form. This form gives you more details of the experiment. You may take this form home with

you today, as we will not be collecting it. If you would like to be updated on the results of the

experiment, please print your emails onto the slip of paper my partner is handing out and hand it

back to us when you are done. Thank you for participating in our experiment.

(Hand out debrief forms, then hand out and collect email slips.)

16
Appendix 3: Standard Instructions

Hello, our names are xxxxxxx, xxxx, xxxxxx, and xxxxxx, and we are conducting an

experiment for our IA in IB Psychology.

First, we will give you an informed consent form which we ask you to carefully read. If

you agree to participate in this study, please sign the form. If you do not wish to participate, feel

free to head back into the classroom. After you read and sign the consent form, please place it

down in front of you.

(wait until the student is done. After the student is done, collect the consent form and

make sure the student is fluent in english.)

Thank you. The aim of our experiment is to study memory, and should take around ten

minutes. We will now hand out an answer sheet with sixteen blanks. Please write your first and

last name on the paper, and do not write in the other blanks until instructed to.

(Hand out answer sheets.)

This is how our experiment will proceed. First, we will read sixteen words off of a

predetermined list. After we have read the words, a bell will sound, indicating the start of a

two-minute timer. In these two minutes, you will try your best to recall the words in the same

order we read them to you. In the blank labeled “one,” write the first word we read. In the second

blank, write the second word, and continue this pattern to the best of your ability until either the

timer stops, or you fill all sixteen blanks. Please remember that this is individual work and

should be completed silently. If you are confused on any aspect of the procedure, do not hesitate

to ask any clarifying questions, as it is essential that everyone has a full understanding of the

instructions.

(Answer any relevant questions.)

17
 Please remember to write your answers with as much accuracy as possible. We will now

start the experiment.

(Begin reading words, experiment takes place.)

(Timer ends, experiment is over.)

Thank you for participating. We will collect the answer sheet and hand out a debrief

form. This form gives you more details of the experiment. You may take this form home with

you today, as we will not be collecting it. If you would like to be updated on the results of the

experiment, please print your emails onto the slip of paper my partner is handing out and hand it

back to us when you are done. Thank you for participating in our experiment.

(Hand out debrief forms, then hand out and collect email slips.)

18
Appendix 4: Consent Forms

Consent Form

Circle one
Female
Male
Other

Our group is conducting an experiment for our IB Psychology project. We are investigating
cognition and memory within Freshman students. This experiment will take 5 minutes after fully
explaining the instructions.

Please be aware that if you agree to participate, all data collected will be kept confidential and
completely anonymous. Understand that participation is fully voluntary, and you may withdraw
at any time during the experiment. If withdrawal occurs, your data will be discarded from our
study.

I, ______________ agree to voluntarily participate in this research study, and give full, informed
consent for the researchers to use my data for part of my experiment, unless I decide to withdraw
during, before, or after the experiment.

Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: ______

19
Appendix 5: Answer Sheet

Name:_____________________________________

1. ___________________________________________________________

2. ___________________________________________________________

3. ___________________________________________________________

4. ___________________________________________________________

5. ___________________________________________________________

6. ___________________________________________________________

7. ___________________________________________________________

8. ___________________________________________________________

9. ___________________________________________________________

10. ___________________________________________________________

11. ___________________________________________________________

12. ___________________________________________________________

13. ___________________________________________________________

14. ___________________________________________________________

15. ___________________________________________________________

16. ___________________________________________________________

20
Appendix 6: Subjective Instruction Debriefing Form

Control Debriefing Form

Thank you very much for participating in our study. We hope that you enjoyed the experience.

This experiment was a partial replication of the study conducted by Lynn Hasher in 1970 entitled

“Position Effects in Free Recall.” We are testing the multi-store model theory in psychology which states

that one’s ability to recall words from a list is affected by the position of said words in the list. You were

randomly assigned to the condition in which you had words read to you off of a list, and were then asked

to recall them in any order. Participants in the second group were assigned to a condition in which they

were read the same list of words, but were told to recall them in the same order as they were on the list.

Your responses will either prove or disprove the hypothesis of our study, the multi-store model theory.

If you felt uncomfortable in any way during this experiment, please let us know, so we can help better

support you. Do not hesitate to reach out to either of the emails listed below,

[email protected]

[email protected]

You have the right to withdraw your data from being used for the results of the experiment at any time. If

you wish to have your data excluded, contact the emails above.

If you would like to be informed of the results of the experiment, please print your email address into the

space here:

_____________________________________________________

Thank you again,

Xxxxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx

21
Appendix 7: Standard Instruction Debrief Form

Thank you very much for participating in our study. We hope that you enjoyed the experience.

This experiment was a partial replication of the study conducted by Lynn Hasher in 1970 entitled

“Position Effects in Free Recall.” We are testing the multi-store model theory in psychology which states

that one’s ability to recall words from a list is affected by the position of said words in the list. You were

randomly assigned to the condition in which you had words read to you off of a list, and were then asked

to recall them in any order. Participants in the second group were assigned to a condition in which they

were read the same list of words, but were told to recall them in the same order as they were on the list.

Your responses will either prove or disprove the hypothesis of our study, the multi-store model theory.

If you felt uncomfortable in any way during this experiment, please let us know, so we can help better

support you. Do not hesitate to reach out to either of the emails listed below,

[email protected]

[email protected]

You have the right to withdraw your data from being used for the results of the experiment at any time. If

you wish to have your data excluded, contact the emails above.

If you would like to be informed of the results of the experiment, please print your email address into the

space here:

_____________________________________________________

Thank you again,

Xxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx

22
Appendix 8: Contact Sheet

If you would like to be informed of the results of the experiment, please print your email address into the

space here:

_____________________________________________________

23
Appendix 9: Raw Data Tables

Raw Data Table Showing the Number of Words Recalled

In Order by the Thirteen Participants in the Experimental Group

Participant Number Amount of Words Recalled in Order

1 0

2 2

3 2

4 6

5 6

6 0

7 2

8 2

9 1

10 3

11 2

12 2

13 10

24
 Raw Data Table Showing the Number of Words Recalled

In Order by the Thirteen Participants in the Control Group

Participant Number Amount of Words Recalled

1 3

2 7

3 11

4 2

5 2

6 3

7 15

8 8

9 6

10 6

11 2

12 4

13 2

25
Appendix 10: Descriptive Statistics Calculations

All following calculations were taken from the following website:

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/

Screenshot Taken form an Online Calculator that Calculated the Mean Number of Words
Recalled in Order in the Structured Instruction Condition
(https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/statistics/mean-median-mode.php)

26
Screenshot Taken form an Online Calculator that Calculated the Mean Number of Words
Recalled in the Subjective Instruction Condition
(https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/statistics/mean-median-mode.php)

27
Screenshot Taken from an Online Calculator that Calculated the Standard Deviation of the
Number of Words Recalled in the Standard Instruction Condition
(https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/statistics/standard-deviation-calculator.php)

28
Screenshot Taken from an Online Calculator that Calculated the Standard Deviation of the
Number of Words Recalled in Order in the Subjective Instruction Condition
(https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/statistics/standard-deviation-calculator.php)

29
Appendix 11: Inferential Statistics Calculations

All of the following calculations were completed by undergoing a Mann-Whitney Test on the website:
https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/mannwhitney/default2.aspx

Screenshot of the Raw Data Inputted into an Online Mann-Whitney Test and the Level of
Significance and Type of Hypothesis

30
Screenshot of the Results from the Online Mann-Whitney Test

31
Appendix 12: Timer

32