THE ABSTRACTInternal Assessment Psychology

Abstract• 150-170 words MAXIMUM

• Add the word count for the abstract at the bottom of it.

• You comment on one thing from each section of the whole experiment in the abstract.

• 3rd person

• Past tense

Abstract The aim of the experiment was to reveal to what extent semantic processing leads to a greater recall of words compared to phonetic processing. The experiment was conducted as a lab experiment using an independent measure design. An opportunity sample of 30 participants aged 17 to 18 years old studying at an international school in Hong Kong were used. The experiment derived from the key study by Elias and Perfetti (1973). It was presumed participants would recall more words semantically.

Participants were split into two conditions: semantic and phonetic. Both groups read 30 words. One group was told to make rhymes, the other to make synonyms. They were then asked to write down words they recalled.

Findings showed more words were recalled semantically than phonetically. Participants recalled an average of 18.27 words semantically while participants recalled an average of 12.93 words phonetically. The Mann-Whitney (U) Statistical Test showed results were significant. This supports the experimental hypothesis: participants performing a semantic task recalled more words than participants performing a phonetic task.

Word count = 170 words

Abstract

This experiment researched the impact of leading questions on reconstructive memory. The aim was to reveal the effect of changing the verb in leading questions on estimated speeds of cars. This was measured by showing participants clips of car crashes and then questioning them with different leading questions by varying the verb used between “smashed” or “contacted”. There was a one-tailed hypothesis that “smashed” would yield higher speed estimates as it has faster speed connotations. It was a lab experiment using independent measures of a mix of year 12 and 13 students from a Hong Kong international school to avoid demand characteristics. The results show the verb “smashed” in the leading question obtained the higher speed estimate of 62.81 kmh-1 than the verb “contacted” with a mean estimate 51.86kmh-1. Conducting the T-Test gained a critical value of 3.55 showing the results as significantly different at P<0.05, rejecting the null hypothesis. It was concluded the leading question had a significant effect on participants who are uncertain about what they have witnessed, which is especially significant in eyewitness testimonies.

Word count: 177

Abstract: The aim of this experiment was to investigate the intensity of verb choice on memory recall through replicating an experiment done by Loftus & Palmer (1974). The experimental hypothesis stated that when the verb choice in the critical question (‘About how fast was the car going when it bumped/smashed into the white car’) was of higher intensity, it would result in significantly higher estimations of speed (km/h). The independent variable was the verb used in the leading question and the dependent variable was the speed estimate of the car in kilometres per hour. Sixteen participants were selected from an international school in Hong Kong through opportunity sampling. The condition ‘bumped’ had the lowest speed estimate (44.38 km/h) when compared to the speed estimate of ‘smashed’ (68.75 km/h). The Mann-Whitney U test resulted in an observed value of 2. The critical value for a one-tailed hypothesis at a 0.05 level of significance is 15. As the observed value was greater than the critical value, the results were significant. These findings are useful because they demonstrate that the intensity of verb choice in a leading question significantly affected memory recall.

THE METHOD SECTIONInternal Assessment Psychology

Sections• Design• Variables (IV and DV)• Controls• Extraneous variables• Ethics• Participants• Materials (bullet points)• Procedure (bullet points)

Design• Type of design (independent measures or repeated measures design) and justify why you used the one you did.

• Lab experiment (to show cause and effect).

• The two conditions (describe them).

Variables• Make sure that you fully operationalise each IV and

DV- that means give LOADS of information about them!!

• For example: Independent variable The environment (either music playing [Mozart Symphony] during recall and encoding, or silence).

Dependent variable Memory of the household objects placed on a table out of 30 objects within one minute to encode and one minute to recall.

Controls• This means anything which is kept the same for all participants in each group so that it is fair (reliable).

• For example: The same 30 words were used for both groups and they all had five minutes to write down all the words they could recall. The same set of standardized instructions were also told to all participants. All participants were tested in the same room, with the same temperature and noise level.

Extraneous variables• State how you ensured that all possible extraneous were controlled for, such as noise, temperature, memory of participants (if doing a memory test), mood (if using mood in the study as the DV) etc.

Ethics• The following ethics must be commented on and then you must

state how you obeyed them in your experiment. For example:

The real purpose of the experiment was not exposed until the end to avoid demand characteristics shown by participants. Participants were required to sign a consent form (Appendix A) to list their rights in the experiment but not informed consent. Participants were verbally told they had a right to withdraw and that the results would be confidential as no names were used, just a code. At the end of the experiment, participants were verbally debriefed of the aim and purpose of the experiment (Appendix F). No participants were harmed as the nature of the experiment was neither mentally or physically harmful.

Participants• Continuous prose.• Past tense

• Where they were recruited from.• Age range• Amount• Gender split• Sampling method (i.e. opportunity sample)• How they were grouped (if independent measures design)• Target population (17-18 year old students at an international

school in Hong Kong who were bilingual).

MaterialsList everything you used, referring to appendices (when you know them).

• 30 consent forms (Appendix A)• Stopwatch• 30 response sheets for participants • Standardized instructions (Appendix C)• 30 slips of paper showing words used for experiment.

(Appendix B)• 30 sheets of white paper for recalled words• Debriefing statement (Appendix D)

Procedure• Past tense• 3rd person• Bullet point.

• Step-by-step (see handout example)• Include details of ethics• Refer to appendices for instructions, slide show, consent form etc

• Include details of timing (stopwatch etc)• State you thanked participants

THE DISCUSSION SECTIONInternal Assessment Psychology

What is this section?1. What do your results mean in relation to your hypothesis- state

the mean values and whether your findings are significant at p<0.05 or not. Re-state the hypothesis which reflects this.

2. Explain why you think you got this significant/insignificant result.3. Relate the results of your study to the results of the studies in

your introduction (at least 2 of them) - be explicit!! Must include the key study.

4. Evaluate your design and method (ESPECIALLY THE PROCEDURE!!)

5. Ideas for improvements/modifications to your experiment.6. Implications of your findings? How could they be used/what do

they mean?7. Conclusion

1. What do your results mean in relation to your hypothesis?

2. Explain why you think you got this significant/insignificant result.

From the results it can be seen that participants recall semantically processed words better than phonetically processed words. This can be seen from the data as the mean number of words for the semantically processed words was 17.80 while it was 11.73 for the phonetically processed words. This was significant at p<0.05, meaning that semantic processing is more successful than phonetic processing.

3. Relate the results of your study to the results of the studies in your introduction.

• The results were measured in kilometers per hour (kmh) instead of miles per hour (mph) like Loftus and Palmer’s (1945) study. However, converting the results from the key study from to compare, it’s seen that in Loftus’s study, “smashed” had a mean of 65.6kmh and “contacted” had 51.2 kmh. This is a difference of 14.4, compared to the present study with a difference 10.95. Although the difference between means is not as big, the trend closely mirrors Loftus’ as smashed yielded significantly higher estimates. The results also mirror those of Loftus and Zanni (1975) showing that changing a word in a leading question can affect one’s recall.

3. Relate the results of your study to the results of the studies in your introduction.

• This experiment supports the key study by Elias and Perfetti (1973), as the results were very similar. Studies conducted by Hyde and Jenkins (1973), Craik and Tulving (1975) and Mandler (1967) have all found that participants recall semantically processed words better. The independent and dependent variables were almost identical to the key study but different words were used to test participants instead.

4. Evaluate your design and method • There are limitations as the experiment was not ecologically valid.

This is because participants are not asked to recall words on an everyday life basis, which is faulty because the study’s finding would not be useful to the public. People are rarely asked to perform this task in their daily lives. Nonetheless, this experiment has internal validity as the independent and dependent variables were operationalized.

• There were extraneous variables that might have affected the result of the experiment. The experiment conducted is quite well known so some participants found out the purpose of the experiment halfway through which created demand characteristics. This is problematic as it reduces the accuracy of the experiment. Also, some participants interacted with each other during the experiment, which lowers the accuracy of the experiment.

4. Evaluate your design and method…continued….

• Reviewing the ethical considerations, the ethics behind the experiment were followed as carefully as possible. Most of the ethical guidelines were followed as participants were told they had the right to withdraw and had no stress put on them. However, no informed consent was given because that would cause demand characteristics, affecting the overall results. To prevent this, the participants were debriefed about the aim and purpose of the experiment.

• Also, from surveying the experiment, it could be noted that some of the participants did not fully understand the instructions and that reduced the accuracy of the experiment. A demonstration could have been done to minimize the inaccuracies which also lowers the possibility of the participants not comprehending the instructions.

5. Ideas for improvements/modifications

A modification that could have been done to improve results would be to conduct further experiments on different age groups, ethnicities and genders to look at the results more extensively. Opportunity sampling was used which meant that the results could be geographically biased. To solve this problem, the study could be conducted in other areas.

6. Implications of your findings• Findings could be applied to the legal system to educate

how inaccurate eyewitnesses can be. The study shows leading questions’ potential influence on unsure witnesses. An application of this is witnesses could be asked the certainty of their accounts, because unsure witnesses would be more easily influenced by leading questions.

• This study is applicable as levels of processing may be used to help the education system, businesses and also the society. Individuals would be able to remember important phone numbers, names and facts which is beneficial to the society. Students will also be able to revise more thoroughly and able to remember facts better.

7. Conclusion

• In conclusion, the results of the experiment are significant from the calculations of the statistical test meaning that the experiment was successful. This indicates that more semantically processed words are recalled than phonetically processed words. This means that the incidental learning technique is effective for semantically processed words and that deeper levels of processing improve recall.

• In conclusion it can be seen that leading question have a significant effect on witness and people who are unsure about what they have witnessed, but also a significant effect in lab studies. However, this study can’t necessarily be related to real life witnesses because real-life experiences are often more memorable.

THE APPENDICES SECTIONIA-Internal Assessment IB Psychology

A few rules about the appendices section1. Have a contents page for the appendices section

2. One appendix per page3. Ensure that each appendix is labelled at the top. For example: Appendix A: Consent form Appendix B: Standardized instructions

4. Make sure that the appendix labels correspond to the labels in the main body (i.e. if you have told the reader to refer to ‘appendix C for the debriefing form’ in your procedure section, then make sure that appendix C IS the debriefing form).

5. Use the same font and size of text for all appendices. No hand written stuff- if it is handwritten, such as the mean working out etc, then scan it first!

What goes in the appendices section?

• Consent form• Standardized instructions• Debriefing statement• PowerPoint/photo of objects/memory test etc?• Scoring sheet?• Rating scales?• Website address for any videos used• Website address for links to music used off youtube• Mean, median, mode, standard deviation workings out• Statistical test workings out (HL only).

THE REFERENCES SECTIONInternal Assessment Psychology

Use MLA 7 • Both MAC and Microsoft word have referencing

capabilities• Various online tools can also be used to ensure your IA

reference/works cited lists are correct• Bibme • Citefast• Easybib