Grant et al

What area is the study from?

Cognitive

Is it a classic or contemporary study?

Contemporary

What is the key theme?

Memory

Which study is it paired with?

Loftus and Palmer

Background 

• Research has shown that context-dependence may play an important role in numerous situations, such as memory for studied material. Grant et al were interested in determining whether environmental context-dependency effects would be found with the type of material and the type of tests typically encountered in school. Their focus is more on study conditions than on differences in classroom testing conditions because they hold that students have more control over their study environments than over their test environments.​

• Observations had shown them that many high school and college students study material in environments very different from those in which they are tested: study environments often include background noise from either family, friends, or television, while test environments are typically quieter. Therefore, if context-dependency occurs with meaningful course material, students’ study habits could be harming their test performance.​

• Grant et al therefore aimed to show that environmental context can have a more positive effect on performance in a meaningful memory test when the test takes place in the same environment in which the to-be-remembered material was originally studied (the matching condition) than when the test occurs in a different environment (mismatching condition).

Theories that the study is based on

• Context-dependent memory refers to improved recall of specific episodes of information when the context present at encoding and retrieval are the same.​

• Context-dependency effects for memory recall are typically interpreted as showing that the characteristics of the environment are encoded as part of the memory trace and can be used to enhance retrieval of other information in the trace (Eich, 1980; Smith 1988)​

• Several factors are thought to affect how contextual information interacts with memory recall. An analysis of the literature on environmental context-dependency memory by Smith and Vela (2001) suggests that in cases where contextual information is not particularly salient, context-dependent effects on memory are reduced. In other words, you're more likely to remember something in the place where you learned it if that place has distinctive features or is somehow meaningful to you. If the place is just ordinary or not memorable, it won't have as strong an effect on your memory.​

• Johnson et al’s (1993) Source Monitoring Framework proposes that the ability of an individual to remember the source of an episode will affect the likelihood of that memory being recalled. Hence, in the case of context-dependent memory, this framework suggests that the effects of context on memory may also be limited by cognitive factors such as the ability of individuals to differentiate between individual contexts.​

• Context effects differ when it comes to what sort of task is being performed. Research by Godden and Baddeley (1975, 1980) showed the effects of context change on memory retrieval are much greater in recall tests than in recognition tests, suggesting there are differences in the retrieval process involved in the two types of tests.​

Research method

• Lab experiment ​

• Independent measures design ​

• IV:​

- (i)  Whether the participant read the two-page article under silent or noisy conditions ​

- (ii) Whether the participant was tested under matching or mismatching conditions ​

- The first IV (study context – silent vs noisy) and the second IV (test context – silent vs noisy) were manipulated in a between-subjects factorial design, producing 4 conditions.​

• DV: The participants performance on (a) a short-answer recall test and (b) a multiple choice recall test

Sample

• 8 members of a psychology laboratory class served as experimenters. Each experimenter recruited 5 acquaintances to serve as participants.​

• In the end there were 39 participants in total (1 person was omitted from the analysis), ​

• Ranging in age from 17 to 56 (Mean = 23.4; SD = 5.9), ​

• 17 were female and 23 were male 

Procedure

• Each experimenter ran one participant for each of the four conditions and an additional participant for one of the conditions as assigned by the instructor. Experimenters randomly assigned their participants to their five conditions.​

• Stimuli: ​

(a) Each experimenter supplied his/her own cassette player and headphones. The eight cassettes were exact copies made from a master tape of background noise recorded during lunchtime in a university cafeteria. The background noise consisted of occasional distinct words/phrases embedded within a general conversational hum that was intermixed with the sounds produced by movement of chairs and dishes. The tape was played at a moderately loud level.​

(b) A two-page, three-columned article on psychoimmunology (Hales,1984) was selected as the to-be-studied material.​

(c) 16 multiple-choice questions, each consisting of a stem and four alternatives were generated, all of which tested memory for points stated in the text. 10 short-answer questions were derived from those multiple-choice stems that could easily be restated to produce a question that could be answered unambiguously by a single word or phrase. The order of the questions on each test followed the order in which the tested points were made in the text. The short-answer test was always administered first to ensure that recall of information from the article was being tested and not recall of information from the multiple- choice test.​

• Instructions, describing the experiment as a class project and stating that participation was voluntary, were read aloud.​

• Participants were asked to read the given article once, as if they were reading it for a class assignment. They were allowed to highlight and underline as they read.​

• Participants were informed that their comprehension would be tested with both a short-answer test and a multiple-choice test.​

• All participants wore headphones while they read. Those in the silent condition were told they would not hear anything over the headphones whilst those in the noisy condition were told they would hear moderately loud background noise, but that they should ignore it.​

• Reading times were recorded by the experimenters.​

• A break of approximately two minutes between the end of the study phase and the beginning of the test phase was incorporated to minimise recall from short-term memory.​

• The short-answer test was given, followed by the multiple-choice test.​

• Participants were tested in either silent or noisy conditions and were informed of the condition before testing. Regardless of testing condition, all participants wore headphones.​

• At the end of the testing phase participants were debriefed concerning the purpose of the experiment, and the entire procedure lasted about 30 minutes.

Key findings

The data from one participant in the silent study/silent test condition were omitted from the analysis because his performance was over 2.5 standard deviation below the combined group mean on each test. Therefore although 40 people took part, only 39 results were analysed. (The standard deviation is a measure of how much the scores in a set of data vary or spread out. Being 2.5 standard deviations below the mean suggests that this person's score was significantly different from the majority of the scores. Because this participant's performance was so different, the researchers decided to leave his data out of their analysis. They might have been concerned that including this outlier could skew their results, making it hard to draw accurate conclusions about the effect of the silent study/silent test condition on memory.) ​

​

Mean reading time (in minutes) and mean number correct on the two tests as a function of study condition and test condition.

Results

 Results suggest participants in all groups spent roughly equal amounts of time studying the material. Therefore, reading time was used as a co-variable in the analysis of test performance.​

• There was a reliable Study Condition x Test Condition interaction for both the short-answer test and the multiple-choice test. A planned contrast comparing performance in the matching conditions (silent study/silent test and noisy study/noisy test) to performance in the mismatching conditions (silent study/noisy test and noisy study/silent test) was reliable showing that studying and testing in the same environment produced better results.​

• There was no overall effect of noise on performance.

​	​	Study Condition​	​	​
​	Silent​	Silent​	Noisy​	Noisy​
Test Condition​	Mean​	SD​	Mean​	SD​
Silent​	15.00​	7.08​	13.80​	6.78​
Noisy​	11.80​	3.07​	14.00​	8.24​
SAQ (Out of 10)​	​	​	​	​
Silent​	6.70​	1.22​	5.40​	1.90​
Noisy​	4.60​	1.17​	6.20​	2.20​
MCQ (Out of 16)​	​	​	​	​
Silent​	14.30​	1.58​	12.70​	1.64​
Noisy​	12.70​	1.64​	14.30​	1.77​

Conclusions

• There are context-dependency effects for newly learned meaningful material regardless of whether a short-answer test or a multiple-choice test is used to assess learning.​

• Studying and testing in the same environment leads to enhanced performance.​

• Students are likely to perform better in exams if they study for them with a minimum of background noise because, although there was no overall effect of noise on performance, the fact that there was evidence for context-dependency suggests they are better off studying without background noise as it will not be present during actual testing.

Research method - strengths

High levels of control = determined cause and effect (increases validity as we are accurately measuring what was intended to be measured. 

Research method - weaknesses

High levels of control lead to an artificial environment, which may mean the behaviour is also artificial and not truly reflective of everyday life (low ecological validity).

Validity - strengths

• Internal validity: Lots of experimental controls to ensure that the study was not confounded by extraneous variables. Helps lead to determined cause and effect (accurately measuring what was intended) ​

• High internal ecological validity as they used students, who are used to frequently sitting and revising for tests.​

Validity - weaknesses

• Low ecological validity:  students in real life would have more time to study​

• Low population validity: Limited Participant Diversity - The study exclusively used psychology students as the sample. This is a very specific subset of the population, and their age, educational background, cognitive abilities, and other characteristics may not represent the wider population. Since they were psychology students, they might have had some prior understanding of the psychological concepts being tested, or been more motivated or interested in cognitive experiments, which could influence their performance.

Reliability - strengths

• Internal reliability: Highly controlled lab conditions with standardised procedures; Meets criteria for scientific research to be replicable; All apparatus the same. (supports PAAS)​

• External reliability: Consistent effect found- results from the matching experiments always higher than mismatching conditions

Reliability - weaknesses

The use of 8 different experimenters may mean that the testing conditions vary – this will reduce the reliability of the results. 

Sample - strengths

• Suitable sample to use when looking at context effects for those studying for exams.  ​

• Diverse age range of participants = more representative 

Sample - weaknesses

• The participants were 'acquaintances' of the experimenter - Experimenters could unintentionally give cues or encouragement to people they know. Similarly, Ps may think their confidentiality is breached, or may show signs of social desirability bias. ​

• All students = not representative of entire population ​

• All from the same area = not representative of other areas, professions and cultures. 

Ethnocentrism - strength

Can be argued that all cognitive processes are the same 

Ethnocentrism - weakness

Based on Westernised culture, and only uses acquaintances from 8 psychology students (all likely to be from similar backgrounds/ classes etc). Only caried out in America – not representative of other countries 

Data - strengths

Quantitative = quick easy to analyse and compare differences. Is also free from experimenter subjectivity/ bias 

Data - weaknesses

Fails to show why the results are what they are – also fails to ask whether participants were aware of contextual effects etc 

Psychology as a science

Supports the PAAS debate as it uses laboratory experiment design ​

Falsifiability – Lab experiments can be re-tested and proven wrong ​

Replicability – standardised procedures and name of article mean the study can be carried out again ​

Objectivity – Quantitative score collected (MCQ score) = free from bias

Reductionism/ holism

Provides a reductionist explanation as it suggests memory is affected by the context in which it is learned and recalled only 

Usefulness

Knowledge usefulness – gives an insight into memory and recall and has shown that recall is improved when the context at encoding is the same.​

This has practical applications as it could help students to prepare better for exams. 

Free will/ Determinism

Supports deterministic explanations of behaviour as it suggests that external 'forces' we have no control over can impact our behaviour and memory. The established cause and effect shows how recall can be controlled and can also be foreseeable. 

Individual/ situational

Performance in exams can be affected by situational factors rather than innate ability

Nature/ Nurture

In Grant's study, the participants were asked to read and then recall information in different environments. Some read in a quiet environment and were tested in a quiet environment, while others read in a noisy environment and were tested in a noisy environment. There were also groups that had mismatched conditions (read in quiet, tested in noise and vice versa). ​

The study found that participants who studied and were tested in the same environmental context had better recall than those whose study and test environments were different. This finding supports the idea that environmental factors (the context or setting where learning and recall occur) can shape cognitive processes. IIt therefore supports the nurture side of the debate, suggesting that the environment in which we learn and recall information can be as important as any innate abilities we have. ​

That being said, Grant's study doesn't rule out the influence of nature. Cognitive abilities like memory are likely the result of an interaction between our genetic makeup and our experiences and environment, especially since people in the same conditions will not have performed exactly the same. Take the person who was omitted from the results – they were in the silent condition (which would support the nurture debate), but performed so poorly he had to be omitted, suggesting nature also plays a role. 

Ethics - strengths

Participants had given consent to take part in the study (meets ethical code of respect) ​

Participants were told what they would have to do prior to the experiment starting = no deception ​

Informed they were there willingly, and had a right to withdraw

Ethics - weaknesses

Might be risk of confidentiality since the participants were known to the experimenters​

Potential for psychological harm – Ps could have been stressed in the conditions (e.g. if they don't like noise while they work) or may have become embarrassed if they performed poorly. ​

Socially sensitive

Although Grant et al.'s study on context-dependent memory primarily provides insight into cognitive processes without obvious immediate social sensitivity, its implications could be subtly sensitive when considering its potential impact on education and workplace training. The research suggests that learning and recall are enhanced when done in the same environment, which could influence educational and professional practices. For instance, if schools or workplaces were to take these findings on board, they may need to revise their assessment strategies, potentially leading to logistical challenges and disparities among students or employees. Such changes could carry broader implications for equity and fairness in education and employment, indirectly conferring a degree of social sensitivity to the study, despite it not directly addressing issues like race, gender, or mental health that are commonly associated with socially sensitive research.

How does it link to the cognitive area?

Investigated memory which is a cognitive process;​
Specifically looked at context dependency on memory

How does it link to the key theme of memory?

Memory was improved by studying and being tested in matching environment for both recall and recognition. Grant’s study helps us understand the role of context dependency on memory. It does not add a great deal more to our understanding of memory.

How has the study changed our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity?

Individual Diversity: ​

Our understanding of how individuals behave due to the increasingly detailed models of behaviour that explains specific elements of memory processing and how memory can be improved or distorted. As an example, Grant et al found that, further to Loftus and Palmer’s conclusion that post-event information can affect memory recall, the ability to recall information is also affected by cues and the setting in which material has been processed in the first place.​

​

Social Diversity:​

The accuracy of memory is a concern for society as the criminal justice system often relies on testimony of people and the accuracy of memory processing has been questioned through this pair of core studies. This has led to changes to the criminal justice system such as those outlined in the Devlin report. The contemporary study doesn’t further our understanding of social diversity as both pieces of research use university students from America and does not specify further sectors of society.​

​

Cultural Diversity:​

This pair of core studies (include L&P) can explain cultural differences by investigating the factors that may influence memory recall. Although these studies are both ethnocentric, they suggest a nomothetic explanation of behaviour that can be applied to different cultures where the culturally specific factors can be applied. Further research would need to be conducted in other cultures to establish if these models are nomothetic.