Internal Assessment: Psychology HL

An experiment to investigate the effects of two modalities of interference

on memory recall and find support for the working memory model

Word count: 1935

Candidate number: kts080

Session number: 002192-0023

Group members: ktm823, ktm696

Date of submission: October 27, 2023

1
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 3
II. EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................... 4
a. Summarized procedure ......................................................................................... 5
b. Research Design .................................................................................................... 5
c. Sampling Method ................................................................................................... 6
d. Controlled Variables .............................................................................................. 6
e. Participants ............................................................................................................. 6
f. Materials .................................................................................................................. 7
III. ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 8
a. Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................. 8
b. Table......................................................................................................................... 8
c. Graph ....................................................................................................................... 9
d. Inferential Statistics ............................................................................................... 9
IV. EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 10
a. Discussion............................................................................................................. 10
b. Strengths ............................................................................................................... 10
c. Limitations............................................................................................................. 11
d. Suggested modifications .................................................................................... 11
e. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 12
V. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 12
VI. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 13
a. APPENDIX #A: Raw Data ..................................................................................... 13
b. APPENDIX #B Inferential Statistics- Mann-Whitney U Calculations ............. 14
c. APPENDIX #C Informed Consent Form ............................................................. 15
d. APPENDIX #D Standardized Instructions for condition V .............................. 16
e. APPENDIX #E Standardized Instructions for condition P .............................. 17
f. APPENDIX #F 6x6 Memory Matrix ...................................................................... 18
g. APPENDIX #G 6x6 Replication Form/Grid ........................................................ 18
h. APPENDIX #H Debriefing Email ......................................................................... 19

2
 I. INTRODUCTION

The relevance of the Working Memory Model can be found in various aspects of

psychology as well as in everyday life. By investigating the concept of multitasking, we

can understand more about cognitive processes and apply findings in hopes of

improving academic performance and more.

The short-term store from the Multi-Store Model (MSM) was elaborated in the Working

Memory Model (WMM) by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) (Saul Mcleod, 2023). The working

memory model can explain the inner structures and processes involved in short-term

memory. Its function is that it allows us to actively maintain and manipulate mental

information for brief time periods.

The main claim of the model is that the central executive manages our working memory

as it also controls the slave systems. The slave systems have been identified to be the

phonological loop (inner ear/voice) and the visuo-spatial sketchpad. They are

responsible for processing auditory information and visual information, respectively. So,

the central executive oversees them and plays a key role in controlling our

concentration plus the course of the information between the other systems. (IB

Psychology: A Student's Guide, 2020)

The original study with the title “Working memory and chess” was implemented by T.W

Robbins et al. (1996). The results provided evidence for the existence of distinct slave

systems responsible for processing different modalities of information. The participants

were 20 male chess players with ranging abilities from the UK. There was a control

condition and two experimental, in which they had to memorize the arrangement of 25

chess pieces on a board within 10 seconds and then recreate it on another board. In the

3
first condition they had to observe while repeating the word “the” aloud and kept

repeating it even when replicating the arrangement (auditory interference). In the

second condition, they had to observe while also typing a sequence on a 4x4 keypad

(spatial interference). The average score for condition one was 16/25 (64% correct)

whereas for condition two 4/25 (16% correct). These findings suggested that when the

visuo-spatial system was used simultaneously for the two tasks, the ability to recall the

arrangement decreased. In the verbal interference, they were using the phonological

loop, meaning that there was no blockage of the visuospatial sketchpad, allowing them

to remember better. (Dixon, Key study: Working memory and a dual task study on

chess (Robbins et al. 1996), 2023)

The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of two modalities of interference on

memory recall and find support for the claim of the working memory model.

Independent Variable: The modality of interference experienced while memorizing the

matrix. (Visuo-spatial interference-condition V or auditory interference-condition P)

Dependent Variable: The average memory recall scores out of ten for each condition.

Null Hypothesis (H0): There will be no notable difference between the effects of the

two types of interferences on memory recall.

Research Hypothesis (H1): The visuospatial interference will decrease their ability to

recall the pattern accurately more than the phonological interference, using a replication

of a memory matrix pattern.

II. EXPLORATION

4
 a. Summarized procedure

1. We handed out consent forms (see Appendix c) to two different classes of our

school. We randomly allocated the ones who wanted to participate into two

groups. (condition/group V and condition/group P).

2. The participants were led to a classroom by us where we read out the

standardized instructions (see Appendix d and e)

3. Condition V: memorize the position of 10 squares on a 6x6 memory matrix (see

Appendix f) for 20 seconds while also typing a text on a keyboard. Condition P:

memorize the position of 10 squares on a 6x6 memory matrix for 20 seconds

while also repeating the word “the” aloud.

4. Then came the replication of the pattern they memorized for which they were

given an empty 6x6 square grid.

5. After finishing off the procedures, we collected their sheets and revealed the aim

of our study. We sent a debriefing email to whoever wanted to be notified of the

results.

b. Research Design

We chose independent samples design which is a true experiment characterized by the

random assignment of participants in two different conditions and the manipulation of

the independent variable. Ten of the people partaking experienced condition one, so the

auditory/verbal interference and the other ten experienced condition two, visual/spatial

interference.

5
 c. Sampling Method

We assembled a self-selected sample by handing out consent forms that were filled in

only by people who wanted to participate. We just made an offer, and they had to

decide for themselves. When they were selected, we used an online source to randomly

split them into groups of two.

d. Controlled Variables

• Environment: The study was implemented in a school environment, specifically

in a classroom with no distracting noises. This was important to control since the

participants were exclusively expected to focus on performing the two tasks.

• Time of day: We implemented our study during school hours since memory is

more functional during the morning and until early afternoon.

• Age range: The participants were students and their ages ranged from 16 to 17.

Short-term memory loss can be quite common between those ages.

• Conditions: In one condition the participants had to use their laptops and access

a site called monkey type which generates a text for them to type in. Separate

instructions were given for the two different conditions.

• Randomization: The participants were randomly allocated into each condition.

That helped eliminate research bias. It was done with the help of a random

number generator with the labels of 1 and 2.

e. Participants

• Age range: All of them were between the ages of 16 and 17.

6
• Gender: 95% were male (19 people) and 5% were female (1 person). The

original study had 20 male participants, so we got close enough.

• First Language: They were not IB students. Most of them had Swedish or

Arabic as their first language. Since English was their second language, we

made sure to give them simpler instructions other than the standardized.

• Ethnicity/Nationality: Varied; Middle eastern, Scandinavian, African.

f. Materials

• 6x6 Memory Matrix: We judged it would be better to generalize the idea of

memorizing chess piece positions since our participants were not chess players.

Thus, we designed a 6x6 memory matrix and out of the 36 squares only 10 were

colored for our participants to memorize. It was handed to them in A4 paper form.

(see Appendix f)

• 6x6 Empty Replication Grid: For the recreation of the pattern, they were given

an empty 6x6 square grid, with identical proportions to the one they had to

memorize priorly. (see Appendix g). Those were also handed in A4 paper form,

and we wrote P in the top left of the paper for those in the condition involving the

phonological loop and V for those in the condition involving the visuospatial

sketchpad.

• Laptops: For condition V participants were asked to bring their laptops with them

and visit Monkeytype, a site that provided them with a text they needed to type

in. Its advantage was that it had a modifiable timer, which was set to 20 seconds

with our help and confirmation.

7
 III. ANALYSIS

a. Descriptive Statistics

We chose to focus on the mean as a measurement for the central tendency and the

standard deviation as a measurement for dispersion of the participants’ performances,

since these values represent the whole for each group and condition. The level of

significance that is mostly used by scientists is 5% so we decided to compare with that

value.

b. Table

Fig. 1 Condition V Condition P

Mean 4.8 6.2

Standard Deviation 1.69 2.35

- Fig. 1 A comparison of the mean values (out of 10) of memory recall scores for

the visual interference (Condition V) and the auditory interference (Condition P).

8
 c. Graph

Mean values and Standard Deviations

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Visual Interference (Group V) Auditory Interference (Group P)
Means 4.8 6.2

- Fig. 2 The green columns represent the means of scores from each group rated

out of 10. The orange vertical lines represent the standard deviations of each set.

d. Inferential Statistics

With the intention of calculating the statistical significance of our data, we decided to

perform the Mann Whitney u-test, since it is compatible with our research design which

was independent samples and our data type which was ordinal. (see Appendix b)

The calculated U value was 31.5, which is not equal or less than the critical value 27

(n1=10, n2=10) at p<0.05, so our results show that the effect of two different modalities

of interferences had no significance (p= 0.087). Thus, the null hypothesis could not be

rejected, which suggests there was no notable change in the performances depending

on the type of disturbance experienced.

9
 IV. EVALUATION

a. Discussion

Prior research has provided support for the claim of the working memory model, which

refers to the existence of different systems responsible for processing different cognitive

tasks. The reference study managed to show that the blockage of the visuospatial

sketchpad with the same kind of information (visual) decreased the partakers’ ability to

recall most positions correctly. In the present study, which is an alternated version of the

Robbins et al. (1996), instead of giving our participants 10 seconds for the dual task, we

gave them 20 seconds since we thought that chess players could have a more

developed memory when it came to memorizing positions.

b. Strengths

Research Design: Independent samples have the advantage of eliminating order

effects and demand characteristics. Hence, if the participants were to experience the

experiment more than once, even if in a different condition, there would be a high

chance of them guessing the hypothesis of the study, causing them to behave

differently.

Sample: We managed to get the standard number of participants from the suggested

age range which discarded certain extraneous variables.

Generalizability: We managed to modify the original study into something more

general. The original study required chess players to memorize a chess arrangement.

Our study required students to memorize a pattern on a memory matrix.

10
 c. Limitations

Research Design: By choosing independent samples as our research design, we did

not assess the same peoples’ memories for both conditions. We had different

participants for each condition. The differences between these individuals can affect the

results.

Time Delay: During the paper swap, which in some cases was done with our

intervention, there were a few hold-ups in time; maximum 1-2 seconds. This could have

given participants a bit more time to perform the dual task.

Ecological Validity: It could be difficult to apply this study on more natural settings

because of the essence of the tasks, but it has more potential to work in various closed

environments.

Population Validity: Since we tested students from the same school and age range,

the extent to which our findings can be generalized is questionable.

Condition V: The laptop has more keys than a 4x4 keypad which was used in the

original. So, our participants could have faced more difficulty completing this task while

also memorizing the grid.

d. Suggested modifications

Research design: With repeated measures the same peoples’ memories would be

assessed. Participants would get to experience both conditions.

11
Sample: The participants could be from different schools or countries to control for

potential similarities between them.

Control condition: We did not have a control condition to see how they would perform

without any interference. That could have been useful to make comparisons with our

current findings.

e. Conclusion

To conclude, the mean of the scores of the people who experienced visuospatial

interference turned out to be less than the mean of the scores of people who

experienced auditory interference. However, there was not enough evidence for the

research hypothesis to be accepted, meaning our experiment does not support the

central claim of the working memory model. There was no outstanding difference

between the effects of the visual and the spatial disturbances on memory recall.

V. REFERENCES

Dixon, T. (2023, July 14). Key study: Working memory and a dual task study on chess (Robbins
et al. 1996). Retrieved from Thematic Education: [Link]
[Link]/ibpsych/2023/07/14/key-study-working-memory-and-a-dual-task-study-
on-chess-robbins-et-al-1996/
IB Psychology: A Student's Guide. (2020). In T. Dixon, IB Psychology: A Revision Guide (pp.
213-216). Yokohama: Thematic Education.
Saul Mcleod, P. (2023, October 6). Working Memory Model (Baddeley And Hitch). Retrieved
from SimplyPsychology: [Link]

12
VI. APPENDICES

a. APPENDIX #A: Raw Data

Individuals' exact scores

10
10
9
9
8 8
8
7 7 7
7
6
6
5 5 5
5
4 4 4 4 4 4
4
3 3 3
3
2
1
0
Spatial interference (Group V) Auditory interference (Group P)

13
b. APPENDIX #B Inferential Statistics- Mann-Whitney U Calculations

14
c. APPENDIX #C Informed Consent Form

15
d. APPENDIX #D Standardized Instructions for condition V

16
e. APPENDIX #E Standardized Instructions for condition P

17
f. APPENDIX #F 6x6 Memory Matrix

g. APPENDIX #G 6x6 Replication Form/Grid

18
h. APPENDIX #H Debriefing Email

19