Abstract
The idea of environmental context is widely accepted by many different researchers within psychology. Material that is leant in a particular environment is more difficult to remember when that context is different to its original (Ozier, Bacon & Earhard, 1995). Some stating that some conditions and surroundings may impact one’s ability to recall the material learnt in one environment once it is changed to a dramatically differing context (Baddeley, 2005). Is it a matter of disruption of environment or is there a more complex system within our brains that allows environment to be stored alongside memory? This report explores memory being dependant to context in this particular case environment. The study was conducted on 20 divers in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt. They were given recordings to learn in different conditions either on land or underwater. The groups later were split and words were recalled on land or underwater and it was counterbalanced. The findings of the study had found some significant results when the recall environment was the same as the learning environment, this therefore supports our hypothesis Recall would be significantly greater if learning and recall took place in the same environment.
Introduction
(Mcgeorch 1942 cited in Mishra, 2002) identified that the information that is forgotten is not a matter of decay of memory different factors such as a person’s external environment is stored alongside memory. (Morris & Gruneberg, 1994) stated memory is stored with contextual information linking both memory and the contextual information, environment being a source of contextual information. This therefore suggests that due to both being stored together when one is activated the other cues memory alongside. There has been a number of significant research done on contextual information. The particular study that is discussed in this lab report is shadowed by Godden’s and Baddeley’s study. The general hypothesis in the study was that the lists learnt underwater would be best recalled underwater and vice versa (Gooden & Baddeley, 1975). There were different conditions studying underwater then recalling them on land, studying on land then recalling on land, studying on land recalling underwater and lastly studying underwater and recalling on land. The findings suggested that a disruption was unlikely to be the cause of the differing performances. Learning new material occurred best once place back into the environment the learning took place therefore accepting the hypothesis. Godden and Baddeley also stated that due to the experiment being conducted in a real life setting and away from the lab it therefore means the test becomes reliable in a real life normal setting. (Gooden & Baddeley, 1975). Although it may be seen as a reliable study due it to being in a real-life setting, at the same time it may lack validity due to it only looking at a certain group of individuals in this case divers a range of different environments would need to be tested.
One of the first ever studies conducted on environmental context was conducted by (Carr 1913 cited in Bruno, D. 2016). He used a group of rats in his study to find out if altering one’s environment would alter recall. The rats had to learn a maze and the maze itself was altering a few times. He found that the environment that has the strongest association had better recall results. A major implication of this study would be that it was performed on animals and lacks ecological validity. (Pacheco, Sánchez-Fibla, Duff & Verschure, 2017) conducted a study using A virtual reality maze. This maze was used particularly to looking at differing performances when looking at new information being encoded and during recall. It was found that spatial context had an effect on memory. this study supports the theory of spatial context being linked to memory recall. (Pacheco, Sánchez-Fibla, Duff & Verschure, 2017) had suggested the use of virtual reality could be used to mimic encoding and retrieval conditions that could potentially even occur in a real-life setting, therefore although it is a laboratory experiment it could somewhat be generalised to everyday life, however an experiment in a real life setting with no controls would be a better measure and provide more reliable results. (Smith, 1986) looked at short term memory and long-term memory linked to environmental context. Three experiments were conducted. The instruction of a long term suggested that the type of information that is processed will affect whether the environment would have an impact as a context. Information studied for a short-term memory test would have more of a link to environmental context in contrast to information used to study for a long-term memory test. This then further suggests that It is a specific type of memory that is dependent on environmental context. This study could be critiqued as it was mostly based in a laboratory artificial setting, therefore it lacks validity in a natural environment.
Smith and Vera conducted a meta-analysis on a number of different studies. The meta-analysis has four hypothesis’s the reinstatement hypothesis, the overshadowing hypothesis, the outshining hypothesis and the mental reinstatement hypothesis. Smith and Vera concluded that environmental contexts do work as memory cues, the memory that an individual learns in the environment the information was learnt would benefit memory and this was referred to as reinstatement hypothesis. The study later concluded that the effects of environmental context dependant memory is found and there is a link between the context of where the learning took place and the memory cue (Smith & Vela, 2001). Smith and Vera’s analysis concluded that if the brain processed a different kind of information (non-contextual) learning new information would significantly have a lower dependence on environmental context (Smith & Vela, 2001). Most of the studies used in the meta-analysis were relevant however due to some studies not being included it may not been seen as reliable. Meta-analysis tests are additionally not as reliable as experimental methods.
Looking at environmental context being used in a real-life setting. (Smith and Vela, 1992) even suggested that those who are conducting eye witness testimonies may recall better once placed back into that same environment. The results of the study agreed with this assumption and suggested that returning to the scene of the crime will result in an improved face recognition. Fernadez and Glebergs 1985 study had shown differing results when looking at environmental context, they conducted 8 different studies looking at memory and environmental context. Their results differed significantly from the other relevant literature pieces. The study identified that environment doesn’t have an effect on recall. The study furthermore stated that context has somewhat of an impact on episodic memory in particular, that environmental context may not have an impact on memory recollection. This therefore goes onto suggesting that controlling the environment doesn’t go on to delivering reliable results. METHOD
PARTCIPANTS
30 participants were asked to take part in a study looking at context-dependent memory. They were trained divers. They allocation to the different conditions was completely random. The group was split into two different groups one who learnt a list of 20 words on land and one who learnt the list of words underwater. They were then split further into two groups. Learnt on land and recall on land, learnt underwater and recall underwater, learnt on land and recall underwater and finally learnt underwater and recall on land the order was counterbalanced. The aim of the study was to find a link between environmental context and memory. The hypothesis was
H1: Recall would be significantly greater if learning and recall took place in the same environment.
30 participants were asked to partake in a study conducted in Egypt, Sharm el – sheik. There was two different control group who had to learn a set of words in two different environments. One being on dry land and one being understand. The words that were played out to the participants were Painful, Jargon, Proper, Lampshade, Reading, Misery, Tiger, Traduce, Anger, Study, Potato, Rarity, Statistics, Rigorous, Generic, Mystery, Consonant, Member, Puzzle, Progressive. Participants were fully equipped to dive underwear when required to. One group was sat at the edge of the water and a recording of the words were played out to them on an mp3 device. The other group had the recording played to them on an mp3 device once they had reached 10m underwater. Participants were given a special “anura Amphibious Scuba Notebook” this was used to write down words they remembered from the recording. It was not necessary to write those words in a particular order.
The two groups were then split into four. Where half of those had to recall the words in the environment they learnt the words in and the other half had to recall words in the other environment.
MATERIALS AND PROCEDURES.
The following words were the words the participants were required to learn
Painful, Jargon, Proper, Lampshade, Reading, Misery, Tiger, Traduce, Anger, Study, Potato, Rarity, Statistics, Rigorous, Generic, Mystery, Consonant, Member, Puzzle, Progressive.
The device used to play the recording was a “H2OFriendly Waterproof MP3 Player – Underwater iPod Shuffle 4th Generation 2GB for Swimming & Water Sports”. Participants were given waterproof headphones to listen to the recording with.
When recalled the participants were required to write down words on an “Anura Amphibious Scuba Notebook” there was no particular order and they could write down as many as they remember. the conditions were half of the participants were required to recall the words they have learnt on land, on land and half recalled underwater and learnt on land. The same went for learnt underwater half of the group recalled underwater and half on dry land.
The list of words that were played to the participants were recorded on a mp3 device by the experimenter. The words had a 2 second delay in between each word and were played twice with a 15 second delay in between.
The data was collected from participants from the city of Sharm el sheik in Egypt. The participants were trained divers. The participants had already done their scheduled dive this was done after to assure the remained in the same wet state.
Those who had learnt the words on dry land were fully geared up ready to get into the water if requested. Those who learnt the words on dry land were played the mp3 track. Those who learnt the words underwater were required to dive once they reached 10m the recording was played.
ETHICS
The ethical guidelines by the British psychology society was taken into considering when conducted the study and was conducted in accordance. Before the experiment took place, the study was approved by an ethics committee. Participants were first required to sign an informed consent form and was given a participant information sheet with details of the study and their rights. The participants were later debriefed when the study was finished.
RESULTS
Two trends emerged from the set of data. Recall on land was significant higher when the learning environment was also land (M= 13.2 SD = 1.2) compared to recalled underwater and learnt on land (M= 8.3 SD= 1.9). likewise recall underwater and the learning environment being underwater (M= 13.1 SD =1.5) was significantly higher than recalled on land and learnt underwater (M= 7.7 SD = 1.6). The two recall totals on land were (M= 10.7 SD= 2.9) and underwater (M= 10.4 SD = 3.2).
when looking at the tests of within subject effects it suggests that that environment had an effect on recall. The means suggest an increase in recall when placed in the same environment as learnt (M= 13.2 SD = 1.2) for learnt on land and (M= 13.1 SD =1.5) when learnt underwater. The significance was greater than .05 suggesting There was a significant interaction between recall and the environment leant. F(1,28)=.396, P<0.5.
the significance of recall underwater is greater than 0.5 therefore the homogeneity of variance assumption has been fulfilled, therefore the levenes test indicates that the variances were equal for recall underwater (Fs<1). The significance of recall on land was not greater than 0.5 (F(1,28) = 0.65, P=.086) this furthermore suggested that the homogeneity of variance is violated and different therefore can reject the null hypothesis.
when looking at the tests of between subjects the significance is 0.5 therefore a significant difference. F(1,28)= .486, P<.05).
The findings were on land and land (M= 13.1 SD= 4.4) underwater and land (M= 8.2 SD= 4.4), land and underwater (M= 7.6 SD= 4.0) and underwater and underwater (M = 13.1 SD = 4.0). This suggested there was a significant difference and the hypothesis can be accepted.
DISCUSSION
Two trends emerged from the set of data. Recall on land was significant higher when the learning environment was also land (M= 13.2 SD = 1.2) compared to recalled underwater and learnt on land (M= 8.3 SD= 1.9). likewise recall underwater and the learning environment being underwater (M= 13.1 SD =1.5) was significantly higher than recalled on land and learnt underwater (M= 7.7 SD = 1.6). The two recall totals on land were (M= 10.7 SD= 2.9) and underwater (M= 10.4 SD = 3.2). One implication that had occurred when looking at the set of data was recall on underwater when conducted the levens test. the levenes test indicated that the variances were equal for recall underwater (Fs<1). Equal variance suggests that we can assume there is a difference between the two variables on the population which is not caused by this specific sample. Due to the test showing significance we would further have to conduct a series of other tests. The results of the study had strongly supported our hypothesis. The overall mean results suggested that recall occurred more effectively when the learning environment was the same as the recall environment. This disagreed with Fernadez and Glebergs 1985 statement on environmental context and recall not being linked. This may be due to errors conducted in the study or perhaps a different group of participants providing differing results as this study contradicted many that was conducted on the same idea. On the other hand, the study mentioned in this report supports all of the literature that agrees that Environment context does have an impact on memory. (smith and vela 2001), (Carr 1913 cited in Bruno, D. 2016), ( Pacheco, Sánchez-Fibla, Duff & Verschure, 2017) and (Smith, 1986). The study was shadowed by the Golden and Baddeley’s study it was almost identical except a different group from a different country was used. The results of the study were almost expected as the golden and Baddeley’s results indicated environmental context provides better recall. when looking at the results of the Golden and Baddeley’s 1975 study the mean results were almost doubled when the environment learnt and the place recalled were the same. On land and land (M= 13.5 SD= 5.8) underwater and land (M= 8.4 SD= 3.3), land and underwater (M= 8.8 SD= 3.0) and underwater and underwater (M = 11.3 SD = 5.0). looking at these results compared to the study conducted in this lab report the findings were almost identical. Our findings were on land and land (M= 13.1 SD= 4.4) underwater and land (M= 8.2 SD= 4.4), land and underwater (M= 7.6 SD= 4.0) and underwater and underwater (M = 13.1 SD = 4.0). This furthermore suggests the study can be replicated to provide the same results and therefore the results are reliable. This study was also conducted in Egypt which differed from the original study, this provides additional ecological validly as it is looking at results from two different countries. Compared to the studies that were reviewed in the literature review by (Carr 1913 cited in Bruno, D. 2016), ( Pacheco, Sánchez-Fibla, Duff & Verschure, 2017) (Smith, 1986), all of these studies were conducted in a laboratory setting which therefore doesn’t provide reliability in a real life everyday setting as the entire environment was artificial. Likewise, with the Golden and Baddeley’s 1975 study we conducted it in the participants natural environment. One thing that could have been done differently is exploring different environments and groups as diving for many isn’t an everyday activity and is limited to only a selective group. If we conducted the study in a number of different environments such as a school setting, or a home setting would the results differ. One thing may be interesting to look at is does different types of environments have different results on recall. For example, recall in two different rooms in the same house. Does the environment have to be noticeably different in order for environmental context to be effective?