Saving Enhanced Memory Effect Study PDF

# SUKHPREET SHARMA (10140617) ## Title of the study: The Saving Enhanced Memory Effect Can Be Observed When Only a Subset of Items is Observed. ## The aim of the study - Investigate whether partial saving can enhance memory recall for non-saved items. - Compare recall of non-saved items in a par...

# SUKHPREET SHARMA (10140617) ## Title of the study: The Saving Enhanced Memory Effect Can Be Observed When Only a Subset of Items is Observed. ## The aim of the study - Investigate whether partial saving can enhance memory recall for non-saved items. - Compare recall of non-saved items in a partial saving context to a baseline with no saving. - Explore how different saving methods (digital saving vs. handwritten notes) impact the saving-enhanced memory effect. ## Participants - Sample of 131 undergraduate students from the University of California, Santa Cruz. - Took part in exchange for partial class credit. - Demographic data was not collected, but the sample was assumed to be representative of the larger psychology undergraduate pool. - 66% identified as women, 29% as men, 3% as genderqueer, gender fluid, or nonbinary, and 2% preferred not to disclose their gender. - Sample size pre-calculated to ensure sufficient statistical power (.80) to detect a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = .50) with an alpha level of .05, focusing on differences in the saving enhanced memory effect between participants who saved using a computer versus handwritten notes. - Two participants were excluded from the final data analysis: - one for failing to follow instructions - one due to illegible recall output. ## Procedure (Design, Material, Subjects) - This summary outlines the critical elements necessary for understanding the experiment and its objectives - 131 undergraduate students from the University of California, Santa Cruz participated for partial class credit. - Participants were not asked for demographic data - The experiment was conducted remotely using Qualtrics, an online survey platform. ### Experimental Setup - Participants were informed about the study, which involved studying lists of facts and being tested on their memory. - Participants studied two lists of 12 unrelated facts each. #### Study Phase - In the **partial saving condition**: - participants were instructed to save half of the facts, which were interleaved with non saved facts in a pseudorandom order. - Saved items were marked by specific symbols (a hand with a pencil for handwritten notes, and a computer disc for computer saving). - In the **baseline condition**: - none of the facts were saved, with all items presented alongside a brain symbol. #### Distractor Task - After the study phase, participants engaged in a 5-minute distractor task, playing Tetris. #### Testing Phase - Participants were tested on their recall using a fill-in-the-blank format. - Non saved facts were tested first - followed by saved facts in the partial saving condition. - Two test versions were created to compare the recall of the same subset of facts for the baseline condition. - Participants rated their confidence in their memory for the facts before the test. #### Design - 2 (Condition: Partial Saving vs. Baseline) x 2 (Save Method: Handwritten Notes vs. Computer) mixed design was employed. - Condition was manipulated within-subjects - Method of saving was manipulated between-subjects #### Material: Facts - A total of 24 unrelated facts, each one sentence long and easy to understand, were adapted from Sparrow et al. (2011). - Facts were designed to be novel to participants to avoid prior knowledge bias. - Symbols for Saving - In the handwritten notes condition, saved facts were presented with a hand-and-pencil symbol. - In the computer condition, saved facts were presented with a computer disc symbol. - In the baseline condition, all items featured the brain symbol. - Research Method: - 131 undergraduates, sample size determined a priori for sufficient power to detect an effect. - **Manipulations**: - **Partial Saving Condition**: Participants saved half the items and had access to them during the test. - **Baseline Condition**: No items were saved. - **Dependent Variables**: - The primary outcome was the proportion of non saved items recalled correctly in the partial saving condition versus the baseline. - Additionally, the ability to reproduce saved facts was measured. - **Counterbalancing**: Ensured that all facts were equally likely to be saved or unsaved across participants - **Conclusion**: The experiment aimed to investigate the saving enhanced memory effect under conditions of partial saving, comparing performance based on the method of saving (computer vs. handwritten notes). - The design accounted for factors influencing recall to isolate the impact of the saving manipulation on memory performance. ## Results ### Saved Items - An initial analysis confirmed that participants followed the saving instructions successfully. - Participants reproduced saved items almost perfectly, regardless of whether they used handwritten notes (M = 0.96, SE = 0.01) or a computer button (M = 0.94, SE = 0.02). - The comparison between the two methods showed no significant difference, t(127) = 1.00, p = 0.322, d = 0.18, 95% CI [−0.17, 0.52]. ### Non Saved items - A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the proportion of non saved items recalled, comparing the partial saving condition to the baseline condition and the two saving methods (handwritten notes vs. computer). - The results showed a significant main effect of condition: participants performed better in the partial saving condition (M = 0.79, SE = 0.02) than in the baseline condition (M = 0.74, SE = 0.02), F(1, 127) = 5.76, p = 0.018, η² = 0.043, indicating a significant saving-enhanced memory effect. - There was no significant main effect of the saving method, F (1, 127) = 1.81, p = 0.181, η² = 0.014. - In the partial saving condition, participants recalled more non saved items when using handwritten notes (M = 0.82, SE = 0.02) compared to using the computer (M = 0.76, SE = 0.03), but this difference was not significant, t (127) = 1.51, p = 0.135, d = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.61]. - The interaction effect was also nonsignificant, F (1, 127) = 0.14, p = 0.712, η² ## Discussion - The findings demonstrate a saving-enhanced memory effect, showing that even under conditions of partial saving, participants were able to recall more information than those in the baseline condition. - This study’s results suggest that the saving-enhanced memory effect can be observed when items are interleaved within a single list, differing from past research that often-used complete lists. - However, the effect size observed in this study was smaller than previously reported in other studies. Several factors could explain the reduced effect size: - the current study examined partial saving rather than full list saving, - employed meaningful trivia facts for a fill-in-the-blank final test, - and utilized a smaller set of items, all of which might contribute to a diminished effect. - Importantly, the study found no significant differences in the saving-enhanced memory effect based on how the information was saved (handwritten notes vs. computer), contradicting the prediction that computer saving would facilitate better memory performance by allowing for more efficient attention allocation. - Overall, while the saving-enhanced memory effect is confirmed, its variability depending on the method of saving was not supported in this experiment. ## References: - Akan, M., and Sahakyan, L. Repeated failures to obtain selective directed. - Basden, B.H. Directed forgetting: Further comparisons of the item and list methods. - Bauml, K. H., and Aslan, A. (2004). Memory and cognition Bjork, R.A. Positive forgetting.