Psychology HL

Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217

1
























Internal assessment
An experiment investigating how processing information using a shallow or deep level of processing
affects the free recall of words














Candidate name:
Psychology HL
Session: May 2012
Word count: 1995
Candidate number: 001217-
School: Sven Eriksonsgymnasiet
Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
2

Abstract

The aim of this experiment was to investigate whether the deep processing of 20 words lead to a
better memory of them than shallow processing. Independent measures design was used in this
lab experiment in which the 18 participants were randomly allocated to treatment groups. The
results showed that participants who processed the words at a deeper level (semantic processing)
remembered an mean of 8,11 words with a dispersion of 2,47 and those who processed the words
at a more shallow level (structural processing) remembered 4,78 words with a dispersion of 1,48.
A statistical test in the form of a Mann-Whitney U test was then administered to examine the
significance of the results. There was a significant difference between the groups at p0.05 which
additionally goes to show that words that are processed at a deeper level are remembered better.

From this one could conclude that the LOP used when handling information in the form of words,
does influence the amount of words remembered by Swedish high school students. The deeper
level of processing meant students took the actual meaning of the word into consideration when
applying them in the questions and therefore remembered the words to a greater extent.































Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
3

Contents

Introduction...............................................................................3

Method
Design..........4
Participants.......................................................4
Materials............4
Procedure...........5

Results.................7

Discussion................8

References....................9

Appendices
A.....Consent form..................................................10
B.....Parental consent form......................................11
C.....Evaluation form................................................13
D.....Standardized instructions..................................15
E.....Word list for semantic group..............................17
F.....Word list for structural group..............................18
G.....Answer sheet for both groups..............................19
H.....Debriefing notes...................................................20
I.....Raw data.................................................................21
J.....Mann-Whitney U test..............................................22




















Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
4

Introduction

Cognitive psychology investigates cognitive processes such as memory. Memory is the process
of acquiring, storing, retaining and later retrieving information. One theory about memory from
the early 70s is the Multi-store model of memory, which presented a simplistic view of memory
stating that it compromises two stores: the short-term store (STS) and the long-term store (LTS).
In order for information to enter the long-term store it had to be rehearsed. The theory generated
new research and two researchers by the name of Craik and Lockhart introduced a new theory
regarding memory called the level of processing theory (Gross, 2008), which emphasized the
depth of processing. The theory claimed that information needs to be processed on a deeper level,
in which a semantic analysis is done and hence meaning understood, in order for it to be
remembered. Furthermore, instead of linking STSs limited storage capacity to the amount of
words that could be rehearsed the theory claimed it to be a consequence of its limited processing
capacity.

Craik and Tulving (1975) tested this theory by conducting a lab experiment to investigate how
different levels of processing affected the recall of words. They had a directional hypothesis
stating that words (common nouns) processed on a deeper level will be better remembered than
words processed on a more shallow level. The independent variable was the different types of
processing and the dependent variable was the amount of words remembered. Participants were
tested individually and minor deception was used as the researchers told them that the study
concerned perception. They used three types of processing: superficial structural processing,
phonological processing and semantic processing, operationalized by asking different types of
questions. The first treatment group were asked if the words were written in lowercase/capital
letters, the second if the words rhymed with a provided word and the third if the word was a type
of food. The words were shown for 200 milliseconds, and after every word in the list had been
shown they were given an unexpected retention test. The results showed that the semantic
processing group recalled the most words and the structural processing group the least.

This is a partial replication of Craik and Tulving (1975) in which the two different levels of
processing were used. The orienting task representing the semantic level of processing was to
decide whether a word could fit into the missing gap of a sentence, which induces the role of
meaning. The orienting task representing the structural level of processing was to identify
whether a word was written in capital or lowercase letters, which merely requires one to look at
the structure of the words. The aim of this experiment was to investigate how processing
information using a deep or shallow level of processing affects the free recall of words.




Research hypothesis H
1
: The number of words remembered will be significantly higher when
performing semantic processing than structural processing.

Null hypothesis H
0
: There will no difference in the number of words remembered, between the
group performing semantic processing and structural processing.


Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
5

Method

Design

Independent measures design was used in order to avoid effects of practice, demand
characteristics, instrumentation and diffusion of treatment. Furthermore the same words
(appendix E & F) could be used avoiding the extraneous variable of words influencing the
results. Standardized instructions were used, participants were separated and one-syllable nouns
were used to ensure that the words were equally easy to remember.

Ethical guidelines were followed by obtaining consent (appendix A & B), in addition they were
informed that they could withdraw at any time and that their data would be kept confidential. A
debriefing was carried out after the participants finished their task (appendix H).

The independent variable was the level of processing operationalized by asking different
questions allowing for the use of structural and semantic level of processing. More specifically,
one group were determining whether a word was written in capital or lowercase letters (appendix
F) and the other was deciding whether a word fit into a sentence (appendix E) provided. The
words were presented one at a time. The dependent variable was the number of words
remembered out of the possible 20.


Participants

Opportunity sampling was used in this experiment and the target population was Swedish high
school students. Opportunity sampling was economically easy and the only sampling method
possible with the IB time restraint.

Participants were allocated into treatment groups randomly by having them pick a number out of
a hat. The 18 participants (N=18) basic characteristics were their mean age, 15.8, gender which
was mixed (12 females and 6 males) and their second most frequently used language (English) as
the nature of the experiment required a certain understanding of the English language.

Materials

- Word list & correlating question list for both groups (appendix E & F)
- Consent form (appendix A & B)
- Standardized instructions (appendix D)
- Evaluation form (appendix C)
- Answer sheet (appendix G)
- Debriefing notes (appendix H)
- Stop watch
- Hat containing 18 slips of paper with equally many group-one slips as there were group-
two slips.
- Two prepared PowerPoint presentations including both word lists and correlating
questions (appendix E & F).
- Computer
Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
6


Procedure

The material was developed by creating two simple PowerPoint presentations which
allowed for the word-and-question lists for the two groups to be shown separately. There
were two second intervals between each slide in both presentations. The 20 words chosen
(appendix E & F) were one-syllable concrete words ensuring that they were all equally
easy to remember with no links between them. The 20 questions (appendix E & F) were
written in simple English and formulated so that the answer to the questions was either
obviously yes or obviously no.

The sample entered the classroom.
A brief introduction was followed by informing that the true aim of the study was not to
be revealed until after the experiment and that what they would have to do was to answer
questions to words appearing on a power point presentation in front of the white board.
They were also told that they would be debriefed (appendix H) after having answered the
questions and filled in the evaluation form (appendix C) (part 1 of appendix D).
Participants were asked to sit separately without anything lying on their desks with the
exception of a pencil (part 2 of appendix D).
Consent forms (Appendix A & B) were distributed and participants were informed
through the consent forms that if they were to participate in the experiment, they could
withdraw from the experiment at any time, their information would be anonymously
treated and that the results could be obtained in two weeks after the experiments
completion. They were also informed that they would not be exposed to any sort of
discomfort.(part 3 of appendix D)
The signed consent forms were collected (part 4 of appendix D).
The additional parental consent forms (appendix B) were also collected as participants
were informed how they could later retrieve the results of the study (part 5 of appendix
D).
The participants now got to pick a slip of paper out of a hat showing which of the two
groups they belonged to (part 6 of appendix D).
The deep level of processing group was asked to leave the room (part 7 of appendix D).
The shallow level of processing group were told that they were about to be shown a
number of questions related to each word to which they were supposed to answer a
simple yes or no, on a separate answer formulary (Appendix G). Furthermore they
were told that an example (appendix F) would be shown (part 8 of appendix D).
The example was explained and some additional information regarding the answer sheet
(appendix G) was clarified so that they would not lose themselves midway. Any questions
regarding the explanation were answered and the PowerPoint commenced.
During the PowerPoint presentation a single word was displayed for two seconds, then the
related question appeared for two seconds, after which three seconds of a blank page was
displayed in order for the participants to answer, before moving on to the next question
(appendix F) (part 9 of appendix D).


Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
7

After they had answered all the questions they were asked to turn their answer sheets
upside down and then immediately start writing all the words they could remember in any
order out of the words presented to them on a separate sheet. They received three minutes
to finish this final task (part 10 of appendix D).
The groups were switched after the first group had been informed not to talk to anyone on
their way out. The procedure was similarly repeated with a set of different questions that
were explained for the deep level-processing group (Appendix E) (part 11 of appendix D).
The first group was asked to re-enter the classroom (part 12 of appendix D).
A questionnaire was handed out concerning the experiment that could help the avoiding
of extraneous variables for future replications. It was answered anonymously (Appendix C) (part
13 of appendix D).
Debriefing was done stating the true aim of the experiment as well as explaining the
theory of level of processing (Appendix H).

































Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
8

Results

The results showed that there was a clear distinction in the amount of words remembered in the
two groups. The raw data can be found in appendix I.

Figure 1


Figure 1 shows the mean number of words remembered in the two treatment groups
(semantic/structural) and the standard deviation is represented by error bars.

As figure 1 shows, the mean number of words remembered in the semantic group (8,11) was
much greater than in the structural group (4,78). This means that on average, the participants who
processed the words deeply remembered more words than the participants that used a shallower
level of processing.

The standard deviation also shows that the dispersion around the mean was much larger in the
semantic group than in the structural (2,47 as compared to 1,48). An independent measures
design was used in the replication and a one-tailed hypothesis was defined, which is why the
significance of the result was examined using the Mann-Whitney U test (appendix J). N, the
number of participants in the study was 9 in each group making the critical value 21. Since the U
value was 7.5, this makes p0.05 and the results 95% certain that the difference in results were
not due to random errors or chance. Hence, the research hypothesis can be accepted, confirming
that participants using a deeper level of processing will on average remember more words, and
the null hypothesis can be rejected.



N=9 N=9
Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
9

Discussion

The results of this replication suggest that those in the semantic group memorised a greater deal
of words than the participants in the structural group (8,11 as compared to 4,78 in mean values).
The Mann-Whitney U test also concluded with 95% certainty that this difference was statistically
significant. This supports the hypothesis presented by Craik and Tulving in their series of
experiments (1975) that using deeper levels of processing causes participants to have a better
memory of the words from a list, as well as the L.O.P theory proposed by Craik and Lockhart.

The use of opportunity sampling resulted in a non-representative group of participants in
conjunction to the target group which was high school students in Sweden. The IB students are
known to be more motivated and possess a higher prestige than the average high school student
in Sweden. The sample also had a gender bias, making the generalizability to the target group
even more difficult. Furthermore there was no control of participant variables as the sample was
culturally biased seeing as foreigners constituted a majority of the sample, once again making it
more problematic to generalise the results to the target group. Hence, in future replications an
equal amount of females and males should be used, as well as obtaining more Swedish
participants.

A lab experiment lacks ecological validity because they involve testing memory using artificial
tasks. An independent measures design could be a limitation as students at high school level
differ in memorizing ability. At the same time, using a repeated measured design would cause the
participants to learn the words by rehearsal. An independent measures design also allowed the
use of the same list of words, ensuring that the difficulty level was the same and preventing
diffusion of treatment.

One consideration is that the PowerPoint slides were switching fast, making it difficult for the
participants to read the words. This could explain the outlier who memorized 13 words, showing
the importance of participant characteristics. The participants speed of reading could then
become a confounding variable. The wide dispersion around the mean in the semantic group
could have been due to extraneous variables such as the PowerPoint slides switching too fast,
which many of the participants mentioned in the evaluation (appendix C). This lowers the
validity of the results as both groups suffered from this and especially as the sample was so small.
However in Craik and Tulving (1975) they showed the words for 200 milliseconds so that
rehearsal was impossible which could have been a variable in our partial replication as our words
were shown for two seconds. If this was the case some of the participants could have remembered
the words not due to the level of processing but rather through rehearsal. Nevertheless the
retention test was unexpected which should disregard this variable. The Mann-Whitney U test
concluded that there was a clear distinction between the words remembered in the semantic group
and the structural group, illustrating that the L.O.P does influence memory.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this replication is that a deeper level of processing causes
an enhanced performance in the free recall of words in Swedish high school students.



Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
10


References

Craik, F., and Lockhart. R. (1972). Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory
Research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior Volume 11.6: 671-84

Craik F.I.M. & Tulving E. (1975) Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic
Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1975, Vol.104, No. 3, 268-294

Gross, R. (2008). Key Studies in Psychology. London: Hodder & Stoughton


































Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
11

Appendix A consent form

Consent form approval from the participants to participate


Name:__________________________ (the name will not be published, It will only be
used so that the researchers can take away, if requested, that specific persons result)


Age:_______________


Male Female


Most frequently used language:______________________


Second most frequently used language:____________________


Rights:
All data collected will be kept in a confidential and responsible manner, in other
words the data collected will be anonymous and will not be divulged (given out) to
any other person
The experiment is voluntary, meaning that participants do not have to take part in
the experiment if not wishing to do so. If this is the case we ask you to remain
seated throughout the experiment without disturbing others.
The experiment will not create anxiety, stress, pain or discomfort in any way so the
participant will be in the same physical and mental condition as they were when
they entered/ started the experiment.
The participants will be debriefed (told the true aim of the experiment) when the
experiment is over, in addition the participant will on request receive the results of
the study in a few weeks.


I have read and understood my rights as a participant and I accept to participate in the
experiment.

___________________________________
Participants signature


Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
12

Appendix B Parental consent form (English version)

Bors, 2011-08-19

Hello!

My name is Zorica Zarkovic and I am your childs psychology teacher. Our IB year threes tend to
use the year one students as subjects in simple memory studies every year in the beginning of the
fall term. The students that have chosen psychology in year two have as an assignment to perform
a controlled study and write a report that is graded by IB. The work constitutes for 20% of their
grade and is therefore rather important to them. The ethical rules concerning the treatment of
their subjects are very strict and because of ethical reasons IB does not allow for students under
the age of 16 to be used without the consent of their parents. Therefore I wonder if you would
like to give your consent so that your children may participate in these studies.

With dear regards

Zorica Zarkovic
E-mail: zorica.zarkovic@edu.boras.se
Telephone: 033-358052




Parental consent

My child may / may not participate in the above mentioned studies.

Student name Guardians signature

_________________________________ ____________________________________














Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
13

Parental consent form (Swedish version)

Bors, 2011-08-19

Hej!

Mitt namn r Zorica Zarkovic och jag r ditt/ert barns psykologilrare. Varje r i brjan av
hstterminen brukar vra IB-treor anvnda ettorna som frskspersoner i enkla minnesstudier. De
elever som har valt psykologi i tvan har som uppgift att utfra en kontrollerad studie och sedan
skriva en rapport som bedms av IB. Arbetet utgr 20 % av deras betyg och r drmed ganska
viktigt fr dem. De etiska reglerna fr hur frskspersonerna behandlas r mycket strikta och just
av etiska skl tillter inte IB att man anvnder sig av elever under 16 utan ett medgivande frn
frldrarna. Drfr undrar jag om du/ni skulle vilja ge ert samtycke till att ditt/ert barn medverkar
i dessa studier.

Med vnlig hlsning
Zorica Zarkovic
E-post: zorica.zarkovic@edu.boras.se
Telefon: 033-358052




Frdramedgivande

Mitt barn fr / fr inte delta i ovan nmnda studier.

Elevens namn Mlsmans underskrift

_________________________________ ____________________________________






Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
14

Appendix C Evaluation form

The following is a few questions regarding the experiment. It would be highly appreciated if you
could answer them. You are not required to write your name.

I was in group: One


Was there any factors that affected your memory of the words, such as extra-ordinary words or
the power point slides switching too fast?:

If answer yes, circle the word(s) you didnt understand from the below provided:

Ball chair key tree wallet sun

bike candle watch dog cup ring

pool bridge map toy cave

knife bell tape


Develop your viewpoint regarding the word or power point presentation in general here
Answer:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________

I had problems understanding what was asked of me: No
If answer yes, what was difficult to understand?
Answer:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________








Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
15

I had problems focusing on the task:
If answer yes, develop your
problem bellow
Answer:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________


I experienced other problems:
If answer yes, what type of
problem did you encounter?
Answer:_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_



























Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
16

Appendix D Standardized instructions

1) My name is Michael Eliasson and I am to conduct a psychological study on your class today.
What you will be doing is simply watching and answering questions to corresponding words that
will be shown on my powerpoint presentation. The aim of the study and details on what it is all
about will be explained after the questions and an evaluation form regarding any difficulties you
might have had have been answered.

2) Firstly if you would please sit separately with one desk between you and remove everything
from your desks except for on pencil the study will proceed smoothly.

3) I will now hand out a consent form that briefly states your rights when participating in a study
of this kind, there is no reason to feel stressed or scared since this is quite simply a general
procedure that is always done. The first paragraph basically says that your information will not be
seen by anyone else than me. The second makes sure that youre aware that you do not have to
take part in this study and if you do not want to participate I kindly ask you to remain seated
without talking or disturbing anyone else throughout the short event. There will definitely not be
any sort of traumatizing activities whatsoever, you will feel the way you felt when you entered
the classroom when were finished.

4) I will now collect the consent forms and if anyone wishes not to participate you may leave
quietly now.

5) Also if you are under the age of 16 you should have been given a parental consent form that
your parents have signed, you may hand these in. Also, if you would like to see the results of this
study you can contact me in two weeks.

6) You will now be handed slips of paper on which it either is written the number one or two.
This number represents the group you have been placed in at random.

7) I would like for the group two students to leave the classroom in quiet manor and stay put until
I ask for you to re-enter the room.

8) You will now be shown a word, followed by a question related to that word, to which you will
be able to answer a simple yes or not. To show this more clearly and to ensure that everyone
understands what is asked of them you will now be shown an example before you start answering
the real questions.

9) As you see here you will be shown a word first, which I represented by simply writing
word, after which the question is stated, was the word written in lowercase letters?,
meaning is the word written in small letters in simpler English. The rest of the questions will be
exactly the same except that you could be asked if the word is written in capital letters instead,
which in simpler English means big letters. Furthermore know that the word is always presented
before the question, which means first a slide with a word, and then the following slide displays a
question relating the word on the previous slide. The questions are stated in numerical order to
help you out in case you lose yourself along the way, in which case you can just look at the
Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
17

number on the powerpoint and answer the same one on your answer sheet. Any questions before
we commence? Then lets begin.

10) Now that youre done with answering the questions you may turn your paper upside down.
Now write down as many words as you can possibly remember from the list of words that you
were shown and answered questions to. Keep in mind that this is not a test, so as stated, do not
feel pressured to fail.

(The stopwatch is used to measure three minutes of time)

11) Time has run out, would you now please put your pencils away while I collect your papers.
Now I ask of you one last thing to exit the classroom, walking past your classmates without
talking to them, this is very important. You will be called back as soon as the other group are
done with their part of the study.

Welcome back inside, you will now be shown a word, followed by a question related to that
word, to which you will be able to answer a simple yes or not. To show this more clearly and to
ensure that everyone understands what is asked of them you will now be shown an example
before you start answering the real questions.

As you see here you will be shown a word first, which I represented by simply writing word,
after which the question is stated, this is an example sentence, in which the ... would fit in
here. As you can see the word would fit in the blank spot in this particular sentence, which
means for this question the answer is yes (the word does fit into the sentence). The rest of the
questions will be in exactly the same manner, including a blank spot in which the word shown on
the previous slide may or may not fit in. Furthermore know that the word is always presented
before the question, which means first a slide with a word, and then the following slide displays a
question relating the word on the previous slide. The questions are stated in numerical order to
help you out in case you lose yourself along the way, in which case you can just look at the
number on the powerpoint and answer the same one on your answer sheet. Any questions before
we commence? Then lets begin.

Now that youre done with answering the questions you may turn your paper upside down. Now
write down as many words as you can possibly remember from the list of words that you were
shown and answered questions to. Keep in mind that this is not a test, so as stated, do not feel
pressured to fail.

(The stopwatch is used to measure three minutes of time)

Time has run out, would you now please put your pencils away while I collect your papers.

12) Would group one please re-enter the classroom.

13) The final part of this study is an evaluation form of utmost importance as it treats aspects of
what you just finished that might have been difficult to understand or even influenced the results
of the entire study. Would you fill these in as well as possible before I debrief you.

Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
18

Appendix E Word and question lists for semantic group


















0. word 0. ''This is an example sentence in which the .. would fit in here.''

1. ball 1. ''He kicked the .. into the goal.''
2. chair 2. ''She couldn't stop reading her ..''
3. key 3. ''I am locked out, and I dont know where I forgot my ..''
4. tree 4. ''I stopped smoking .. a few years ago.''
5. wallet 5. ''He was thirsty so he bought a ..''
6. sun 6. ''The clouds are blocking out the ..''
7. bike 7. ''He took his .. to school.''
8. candle 8. ''You shouldnt carry a .. through metal detectors.''
9. watch 9. ''May I take a look at your .., Im in quite a hurry.''
10. dog 10. ''Your .. is so cute!''
11. cup 11. ''This doesnt match the .. our teacher gave us.''
12. ring 12. ''He actually bought you a diamond ..''
13. pool 13. ''Would you want to take a swim in my ..?''
14. bridge 14. ''This is the longest .. in the world.''
15. map 15. ''Payment-day, that means a lot of .. in my bank account.''
16. toy 16. ''Im sick of having .. for dinner every day.''
17. cave 17. ''I am exhausted, this .. will have to wait.''
18. knife 18. ''He stabbed her with a sharp .. ''
19. bell 19. ''Would you please take out the.., its almost filled.''
20. tape 20. ''I can see dads .. in the rear window.''
The following, and the following two slides only, presents an example to show how the task
will be done.
Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
19

Appendix F - Word and question list for the structural group



















0. word 0. Was the word written in lowercase letters?

1. BALL 1. Was the word written in capital letters?
2. chair 2. Was the word written in lowercase letters?
3. KEY 3. Was the word written in capital letters?
4. TREE 4. Was the word written in lowercase letters?
5. WALLET 5. Was the word written in capital letters?
6. sun 6. Was the word written in capital letters?
7. bike 7. Was the word written in capital letters?
8. CANDLE 8. Was the word written in capital letters?
9. WATCH 9. Was the word written in lowercase letters?
10. dog 10. Was the word written in capital letters?
11. CUP 11. Was the word written in lowercase letters?
12. ring 12. Was the word written in capital letters?
13. pool 13. Was the word written in capital letters?
14. BRIDGE 14. Was the word written in capital letters?
15. map 15. Was the word written in lowercase letters?
16. toy 16. Was the word written in lowercase letters?
17. cave 17. Was the word written in capital letters?
18. KNIFE 18. Was the word written in lowercase letters?
19. bell 19. Was the word written in lowercase letters?
20. TAPE 20. Was the word written in capital letters?
The following, and the following two slides only, presents an example to show how the task
will be done.
Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
20

Appendix G Answer sheet for the questions asked

Answers:

1. Yes No
2. Yes No
3. Yes No
4. Yes No
5. Yes No
6. Yes No
7. Yes No
8. Yes No
9. Yes No
10. Yes No
11. Yes No
12. Yes No
13. Yes No
14. Yes No
15. Yes No
16. Yes No
17. Yes No
18. Yes No
19. Yes No
20. Yes No







Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
21

Appendix H Debriefing notes

This study is in fact a study on memory that explores how different levels of processing data
affect the extent to which we actually remember the information. The different levels of
processing range from structural to semantic examples of the two could be is the following
word written Arabic letters or at the semantic level is the word .. a type of food. The latter
results in a deeper level of processing in which meaning is taken into consideration, hence the
deeper level of processing. This type of processing allows for an increase in the number of
words remembered.

If there is any interest in the results of this study you may contact me in two weeks to retrieve the
organized results.
































Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
22

Appendix I raw data



Participants Semantic task Structural task
#1 7 6
#2 10 4
#3 7 4
#4 7 5
#5 13 4
#6 8 6
#7 6 5
#8 10 2
#9 5 7
Mean 8,11 4,78
STDEV 2,47 1,48





























Psychology HL
Internal assessment Candidate number: 001217
23

Appendix J Mann-Whitney U test



Participants Semantic task Points Structural task Points
#1 7 0.5 6 7.5
#2 10 0 4 9
#3 7 0.5 4 9
#4 7 0.5 5 8.5
#5 13 0 4 9
#6 8 0 6 7.5
#7 6 2 5 8.5
#8 10 0 2 9
#9 5 4 7 5.5

N
1
=9

P
total
=7.5 N
2
=9 P
total
=73.5



U=7.5
Critical value of U=21

Seeing as the observed value is smaller than the critical value it is definite that one can reject the
null hypothesis (at p0.05) in conjunction with that the number of words remembered when
performing a semantic task of such case is bigger than performing a structural task. The
difference has been confirmed using a Mann-Whitney U test because independent measures
design was used and the data were minimum ordinal level. Also, it was directional, predicting the
type of difference between the two treatment groups.