Original Investigation: On average, participants who are exposed to audio clips linking to extra pieces of information will have more accurate recall than those who are given the words alone.

Sample

Investigation design: experimental

Variables

Method: quantitative objective data

Ethics

Independent: the amount of extra info given to a participant to aid memory of the list of words

  • group 1 received the list of 10 words alone
  • group 2 received the list of 10 words, along with a definition for each
  • group 3 received the list of 10 words along with a definition of each, as well as an emotive description

Dependent: the amount of accurately recalled words out of 10

Controlled:

  • the amount of time given to recall the words; each group was given 60 seconds to recall as many words as they could
  • the list of words given to each group; each group was given the same list and the same amount of words
  • the environment the practical was done in; each group had done their practical in similar if not exactly the same environment as each other
  • the audio quality/features; the narrator was the same person throughout all audios, and the audio quality was consistent throughout

Extraneous:

  • participant variables that could affect memory issues, such as lack of adequate sleep/poor sleep quality, emotional state, caffeine/sugar intake, etc.
  • participants' familiarity with certain words, allowing them to be able to recall them easier and lessening the impact of the IV on the DV

Informed consent:
participants were given information about the practical before volunteering/consenting.

Voluntary participation:
participants were given the option whether or not to participate. underage participants required a guardian's signature before partaking.

Size:

  • Year 10/11 SACE Stage 1 Psychology students in GIHS
  • Total of 39 students
  • Participants within the age range of 182-270 months

Limitations:

  • limited sample that is too small to represent a population of a larger size, either the general population or the student body
  • the participants involved are all psychology students, therefore their pre-existing knowledge may affect the outcome due to confirmation bias

Representativeness:

  • not representative of a larger population
  • participants are of a similar age range, attend the same school and all take SACE Stage 1 Psychology

Strengths:

  • sample groups were randomly allocated, eliminating the chance of selection bias

Strengths:

  • because of set IV, DV and CVs, this experiment is considered fair, with less uncontrollable variables, providing more accurate and consistent results
  • overall provides more accurate results which can be used to prove causation and/or correlation

Limitations:

  • each participant's memory recall will differ even by a slight bit, making it hard for researchers to account for to keep their results consistent; there is bound to be some form of an outlier

Validity:

  • gives a numeric form to compare results with; data in a non-quantitative form cannot be used to claim causation, only correlation

Strengths:

  • having results in a quantitative form helps with comparing data between experimental and control groups
  • data in a qualitative form can often be difficult to compare due to differences within participants, which is out of the experiment's control

Reliability:

  • results are collected and compared in a consistent manner, making it reliable
  • practical could be repeated the exact same way to collect more data if needed

Limitations:

  • participants in this practical could have easily forged their results to make them better/worse based on confirmation bias
  • quantitative data does not consider certain aspects (such as extraneous or participant variables) that could impact the outcome of the practical

Advantages:

  • experimental design investigations can be used to determine a cause and effect relationship
  • can be repeated to collect more data if needed because of the consistent structure and method
  • researchers have more control over the investigation due to the artificial setting

Disadvantages:

  • because this practical was done in a completely artificial environment, the results might be unrealistic and may differ when done in a more realistic/natural setting
  • validity could be decreased due to extraneous variables, which are uncontrollable factors, affecting outcomes

Confidentiality:
participants were assigned an ID number to remain anonymous during the practical and in the final results.

Right to withdraw:
participants were given the choice to withdraw at any point of the practical if necessary.

Accurate reporting:
participants were told to individuallly report their own results, therefore it is hard to determine accuracy.

Debriefing:
participants were debriefed at the end of the practical by researchers.