PSY294 – Lab Report – Memory Span – Data Many theories of cognition propose that there is a short-term or working memory system that is able to hold a limited amount of information for a short period of time. The memory span experiment is one measure of working memory capacity. In this experiment, participants are given a list of items and asked to recall the list. The list length is varied to see at what list length participants will make make few errors. That list length is the memory span for that person on that task. Individuals with larger memory spans can better keep in mind different stimuli, and this seems to give them an advantage for a wide variety of cognitive tasks. Memory span has been linked to performance on intelligence tests, standardised tests, reading skills, problem solving, and a variety of other cognitive tasks. The very existence of short-term memory is largely based on memory span types of experiments, as it was noted that memory span was approximately seven items (plus or minus two) for a wide variety of stimuli. This suggested a simple storage system that held approximately seven items. Later studies demonstrated that memory span could be systematically influenced by a variety of stimulus characteristics, including the type of item. These findings have suggested that the capacity of short-term memory is controlled by verbal processes. This experiment allows you to measure your memory span for three different stimulus types. Methods On each trial, you saw a list of items presented one at a time in random order and were asked to recall the items in the same order in which they were presented. If you got a list correct, the list length increased by 1 for that type of material. If you got a list incorrect, the list length decreased by 1. The independent variable is the type of material you were asked to recall: digits, letters, or words. Memory span can be measured in lots of different ways. In this lab, the dependent variable is the length of the last list you correctly recalled. The first list of each type of item was 3 items long. The longest list that was shown was 10, so the maximum score possible is 10. Independent Variable Our Independent Variable (IV) is “Type of List” or “List Type” or “Stimulus Type”: digits, letters, or words. Dependent Variable Our dependent variable (DV) is the length of the last list that was correctly recalled. Data The data were not screened for outliers. Demographic data were not recorded. The raw data are available on LMS under Lab 02, should you want it. Mauchly's Test of Sphericity a Analyses Measure: Measure: Length Length Epsilonb GreenhouseApprox. ChiA repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted with an alpha level of 0.05. Geisser Within Subjects Effect Square Mauchly's W ListType .985 Within-Subjects Factors df 1.950 Sig. 2 .377 Mauchly's Test of Sphericity .985 1.000 a Measure: Length Measure: Measure: Length Length Dependent Variable ListType 1 Epsilonb Digits Within Subjects Effect 2 Letters 3 ListType Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound 1.000 Words .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is Statistics proportional to an identity matrix. Descriptive a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: ListType Mean Std. Deviation N b. May be used to adjust the degrees Digits 6.5271 1.30550 1 2 9of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. Letters 5.7054 1.33699 129 Words 4.1705 1.06891 129 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects a Multivariate Tests Measure: Length ListType ListType Type of F III Sum Hypothesis df Squares df Value Effect Source Pillai's Trace 226.713 b .781 Sphericity Assumed Wilks' Lambda .219 369.137 226.713 b b Greenhouse-Geisser 369.137 Hotelling's Trace 3.570 226.713 b Huynh-Feldt 369.137 Roy's Largest Root 3.570 226.713 Lower-bound Error(ListType) Sig. Mean Square 2.000 2127.000 184.568 .000 .000 215.231.781 .000 1.970127.000 187.381 2.000 .000 215.231.781 .000 2.000127.000 184.568 2.000 .000 215.231.781 .000 215.231 .000 369.137 1.000 369.137 Sphericity Assumed 219.530 256 .858 Partial Eta Greenhouse-Geisser Squared .871 Multivariate Tests a 219.530 252.157 .781 219.530 256.000 .858 Lower-bound Wilks' Lambda .781 219.530 128.000 1.715 Hotelling's Trace .781 Roy's Largest Root Measure: Length a. Design: Intercept Measure: Length F 127.000 Huynh-Feldt Pillai's Trace Effect ListType Error df 2.000 .781 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects .781 Pairwise Comparisons Partial Eta Squared Within Subjects Design: ListType 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Source b. Exact statistic Sig. ListType .000 Std. .000Error .627 b Sig. .627 .822 * .113 .000 .000 .627 .548 1.096 * .110 .000 .000 .627 2.089 2.625 2 Error(ListType) 1 Sphericity Assumed -.822* .113 .000 -1.096 -.548 3 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.535 * Huynh-Feldt - 2 . 3 5 7 * .122 .000 1.239 1.831 .110 .000 -2.625 -2.089 .122 .000 -1.831 (I) ListType Sphericity Assumed Mean Difference (I-J) (J) ListType Greenhouse-Geisser 1 2 Huynh-Feldt 3 Lower-bound 2.357 3 1 2 Lower-bound -1.535 * Lower Bound Upper Bound -1.239 Page 2 Based on estimated marginal means Page 3 *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Multivariate Tests It’s your job to interpret and present this data, in APA format, in your lab report. Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta Squared .781to 226.713 2.000 .000 then you .781 have two options for error If you are going use aa graph, and127.000 you should, Wilks' lambda .219 226.713 a 2.000 127.000 .000 .781 bars: 1) plot the standard error as the error bars, or 2) plot the 95% Confident Interval. Hotelling's trace 3.570 226.713 a 2.000 127.000 .000 .781 If you are reporting the descriptives in text or .000 in a table,.781 then you can report the Roy's largest root 3.570 226.713 a 2.000 127.000 Standard Deviation found the descriptives table. Each F tests the multivariate effect(SD) of ListType. These in tests are based on the linearly independent Pillai's trace pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. a. Exact statistic Profile Plots Style Guides These guides tell you how to write and format a psychology lab report. Writing for Psychology 6th Edition Robert P. O'Shea, Wendy McKenzie http://prospero.murdoch.edu.au/record=b2721143 An interactive approach to writing essays and research reports in psychology 3rd Edition Lorelle J Burton http://prospero.murdoch.edu.au/record=b2154828 Background Reading and Tips One of the skills that these assignments require you to use and develop is being able to quickly distinguish between literature that is and isn’t relevant. Don’t get swamped reading up on many different theories, unless you have reason to think they will provide information that is directly relevant to our experiment. Refer frequently to the lab report criteria posted on LMS. You must go beyond the textbook and what was discussed in the tutorial. Use PsycInfo, Google Scholar, the library, etc. Do not cite internet websites that are not peer-reviewed. That is, only use published journal articles. Do not copy from or cite the slides. Your hypothesis is very important. Your hypothesis would be a specific positive prediction about what you expect to happen, stated in terms of the variables you are measuring and manipulating. E.g., “Participants in group A will score more highly than participants in group B on measure C.” OR “If X is true, and we manipulate Y, then Z will happen.” Your hypothesis should be a logical extension of the evidence and arguments you present in your Introduction. In your Introduction, you should construct a rationale for your hypotheses. Do not just base your hypotheses on the results obtained. PSY294 - Lab Report Your task is to write a lab report for Lab 02 - Memory Span. We’re interested in whether you genuinely understand the material that we’ve been discussing in the course and how well you can apply it. The lab report is worth 40% of your final grade. Become familiar with the marking guide on the last page. The majority of marks go to the Introduction and Discussion, and not just reporting the results correctly (although this will get you marks too!). The points below are also important for gaining good marks, even though some may not be specifically outlined on the marking guide. Introduction • Review relevant literature. The aim here is to build up a rationale for your study culminating with the specific aims and hypotheses. • Ensure you are using past research to build up an argument, rather than simply describing the research. That is, do not just simply state what the researchers did and what their main findings were. Also think about how this past research relates to your current aims/hypotheses/predictions. Make sure that your arguments all flow logically from one another. Use linking sentences at the start of each paragraph to direct your reader: Accordingly, Consequently, Conversely, Additionally, However, Nevertheless. • The marking guide says, “displays evidence of understanding of theoretical issues/ questions underlying chosen topic.” It’s difficult to do that by simply listing past research findings. • Be sure to include a clear statement of the overall aim of the study. Hypotheses • It’s a good idea to set context for hypotheses, e.g., “To examine whether... participants were required to... and X was measured as an indication of Y.” • You should also link a clear rationale to hypotheses, e.g., “based on the theory that.../ based on previously found effects of... it was hypothesised that...” • It’s not enough to simply say, “based on past research it was hypothesised that...” • Make hypotheses very clear. i.e., state “it was hypothesised....” to ensure reader is clear that these are your explicit hypotheses. Must state hypotheses in terms of the explicit variables measured (need to be clear on what IVs and DVs are). Method • Include separate subsections: e.g., Design, Participants, Materials and Procedure. If you are unsure what to include in these sections, you should consult a writing for psychology guide, such as those written by Burton or O’Shea (copies available in the library). APA style. • Write up methods as if this was a controlled experiment, not a tutorial class. We know that you did this in a classroom, but we want to see whether you can write this report as a researcher, not as a student. Thus, do not include details such as which tutorial class, the classroom number, CogLab, etc. • Should be as detailed as possible (i.e., replicable) and demonstrate your understanding of why the experiment was conducted in the way it was, but still CONCISE (not repetitive or wordy). So try not to give information that is not pertinent to the design of the study. • It is important to give details of the stimuli (materials section) and make it clear how the stimuli were presented (e.g., position on screen), and why they were presented in that way (e.g., so each half of stimuli is presented to a different visual field). Results • Do not fully interpret results here (i.e., what the results say with regards to theory/ methodology, etc.), but still a basic interpretation of where significant differences or relationships were/were not, and direction of these differences/relationships: to do this inferential statistics must be interpreted in relation to descriptive statistics: • i.e., the descriptive (the means) show DIRECTION (i.e., which group/stimuli was higher/lower, faster/slower, whether a response increased or decreased compared to baseline. But descriptive alone do not show whether these differences in responses/groups are significant). • The inferential stats show SIGNIFICANCE (i.e., significant differences but not the direction of these relationships, which is why you need to report and interpret both). • Use a figure to display meaningful comparisons. Must be in APA format. Discussion • Directly address the hypotheses! Were they confirmed or not? What results indicated this? • Compare and interpret results in light of previous theory/literature. Are they consistent with previous results? If not, why might this be (alternative explanations for results)? Should also consider alternative explanations to your results based on existing literature even if your hypotheses were met. • Methodological limitations of this study. Explain carefully exactly HOW limitations may have affected the results. Pointing out a possible limitation without explanation of how specifically it might have affected your results is not useful (and will not receive any marks). • Simply stating that because the sample consisted only of uni students, the results of the study are not generalisable to the greater population is NOT a sufficient limitation. Only talk about the “uni student” limitation if you can explain logically and specifically how using this sample may have affected the results in some way, e.g., why uni students would respond differently for words compared to digits. But there will likely be much more relevant limitations on which you could be focusing. • Implications of this study in terms of theory and how these results might be used. Future research suggestions (may tie into limitations). Include a short—but solid!— conclusion. General points • Minimum 10 references (peer-reviewed journal articles). Everything in APA style. • Go beyond what was discussed in class. • You must submit your lab report electronically via LMS. The due date is Week 11, Tuesday 9 October, at midday. • Where an extension has not been granted, assignments submitted after the due date will lose 10% of the available marks that could otherwise have been obtained for each day (including weekends) that they are late. Assignments more than one week late receive no marks. Even if all available marks have been lost, assignments must still be submitted in order to complete the requirements of the course. • Submission deadlines should be strictly adhered to. Extensions will usually be granted only for medical reasons or extreme personal difficulties, and will require the provision of a medical certificate or other appropriate documentary evidence. • Extensions must be applied for at least one week in advance of the submission dates, unless circumstances clearly prevent it. Requests should made using the online form: https://goo.gl/forms/qDHsuNoHbSzo5uX92 • The 2000 word count is a hard limit (not counting the reference list) with marking stopping once the word limit is reached. Abstract 2% Concise description of important features of paper. Why, who, how, and what, conclusions and implications. Introduction 10% Title and statement of research question; Discussion of previous relevant research and theory, and references outside the textbook; Evidence of understanding of theoretical issues and questions; Well-structured. You have selected appropriate material that gives sufficient breadth and depth for your lab report. You have made sufficient use of the library and web resources available. It is not just a list of all the books and papers that you have read. And is not simply a paragraph or section summarising each article in turn, just reporting on their content. You have provided evidence of critical evaluation and critical understanding of the relevant literature. References are used to support your arguments where appropriate. Presentation of evidence forms a logical rationale. Hypothesis 2% Hypothesis is appropriate, and should be something which the chosen experiment could potentially support. Hypothesis is logical continuation of arguments made in introduction. Clear predictions of outcome of study stated in terms of variables measured and manipulated are also made. Methods 6% Describe sample in appropriate detail. Identify variables and way in which they are operationalised. Clear, concise description of salient details of experiment including materials and procedure. Demonstrates understanding of how and why experiment was conducted in the way it was. Results 2% Relevant analyses reported correctly. Accurate interpretation of analyses. Discussion 10% Statement noting consistency of results with hypotheses i.e., supported or not and how? What do the results mean? Interpret them in relation to previous research and theory. Compare and contrast results and interpretations with previous research, considering alternative explanations. Note relevant limitations (not generalisations) – specify why and how any noted limitations are of concern and what effect they are likely to have had on outcome of study. Consider Implications of results and possible future directions in research. You have demonstrated a solid understanding of the material covered in the readings, the lectures, and your own readings. You have provided a clear account of how the particular content that we covered applies directly to the topic that you have chosen (including appropriate summaries of the findings, figures, and tables). Referencing 2% APA style citations within text; APA style reference list. Writing 2% Fluency and style; Spelling, grammar, and paragraphing. Your assignment has a logical sequence and transitions that make for a coherent narrative. Each argument that you provide is valid and logically follows from an already established issue. The narrative is rich in arguments, which are coherently and logical developed. Your analysis and discussion are a clear and naturally develop from the arguments that you put forward in the introduction and background. The evidence that you discuss is presented in a succinct form allowing the narrative to flow. Overall Quality Coherence of Arguments; Displays understanding of theoretical issues and questions underlying chosen topic; Engages with topic; Goes beyond provided material. You have demonstrated a clear and economical writing style. Technical language is used appropriately, with acronyms explained at first use. There are only very minor grammatical and spelling errors. The layout and presentation of figures and tables is excellent and clearly indicated. You have not exceeded the word limit of 2,000 words (excluding references). Your assignment shows evidence of a noticeable amount of independent thought, extending beyond the information provided in the lectures and readings, which reflects a novel synthesis of existing information. You have created a narrative that logically explores your topic, but which could not be developed by relying solely upon material that we have covered in the lecture and readings. Your assignment demonstrates a solid understanding of issues in the area of your topic which are up to date and relevant. 4%
Purchase answer to see full attachment