Overview – Grant et al (1998)

Grant, H. M., Bredahl, L. C., Clay, J., Ferrie, J., Groves, J. E., McDorman, T. A. and Dark, V. J. (1998) Context-Dependent Memory for Meaningful Material: Information for students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, (6), 617-623.

Grant et al (1998) is a key study in the cognitive area of psychology that investigated how the environment in which something is learned can affect later memory of it. By demonstrating that participants performed better in a memory test when the test was conducted in the same environment the information was initially learned, the researchers demonstrated the importance of context when remembering information. The study contributed to our understanding of context-dependent memory and has practical applications for how students study.

You can jump to different sections of this article via the links below:

• Aim
• Method (sampling and procedure)
• Results
• Conclusions
• Evaluation and methodological issues
• Relation to other core cognitive psychology studies

Grant et al (1998)

Aim

The aim of the study was to find out whether the environment in which information is learned affects how well it is remembered later.

Grant et al were particularly interested in context-dependent memory – the idea that memory can be improved when the environment at the time of recall is the same as the environment in which the information was originally learned.

Previous research had provided evidence for context-dependent memory. For example, Godden and Baddeley (1975) got divers to learn lists of words either on dry land or underwater. They found that the divers’ recall was better when they were tested in the same environment in which they had learned the words. For example, words learned underwater were remembered better when the divers were tested underwater.

Grant et al wanted to investigate whether this effect would also occur when people were learning meaningful information rather than simple lists of words. They were particularly interested in this because students often study in environments that are different from the environments in which they take exams. For example, students may study at home with background noise from family, friends or television. However, exams are usually taken in a quiet room.

Method

Grant et al used a laboratory experiment with an independent measures design.

The study used a 2×2 design with two independent variables (IV):

• Study context: participants studied in either:
  • a silent environment
  • a noisy environment.
• Test context: participants were tested in either:
  • a silent environment
  • a noisy environment.

(so this 2×2 setup resulted in 4 test conditions)

The dependent variable (DV) was participants’ performance on two memory tests:

• A short-answer test with 10 questions.
• A multiple-choice test with 16 questions.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions.

Participants and sampling

Participants were recruited via opportunity sampling: 8 members of a psychology class acted as experimenters and these experimenters each recruited 5 acquaintances to take part.

The characteristics of the participants were as follows:

• 40 participants total (39 included in the results)
• Aged between 17 and 56 years (average age 23.4)
• 17 participants females and 23 males.

Note: One participant’s results were removed from the analysis because their performance was more than 2.5 standard deviations below the combined group mean on both tests (which would skew the results). So, 39 participants’ results were analysed.

Procedure

Participants were given a two-page article about psychoimmunology to study. The article contained meaningful information similar to the type of material students might be expected to learn for an exam. They were told that the study was a class project and that participation was voluntary. They were also told that their comprehension of the article would be tested.

Participants studied this article in either a silent environment or a noisy environment. In the noisy condition, they listened to a recording of background noise from a university cafeteria. The recording included conversations, movement of chairs and sounds from dishes.

After studying the article, participants completed the two memory tests (short-answer and multiple-choice) in either a silent or noisy environment.

The short-answer test was always given first so that performance on it would measure memory of the article rather than memory of information from the multiple-choice test.

The experimenters also recorded how long participants spent reading the article. The researchers used this as a co-variable because differences in reading time could affect test performance.

The entire procedure lasted approximately 30 minutes.

At the end of the experiment, participants were debriefed about the true purpose of the study.

Results

The results showed that participants generally performed better when the environment in which they studied matched the environment in which they were tested.

In other words, there was a reliable connection between study condition and test condition for both the short-answer and multiple-choice tests:

Participants in the four conditions spent roughly the same amount of time studying the article. As such, the differences in test performance were unlikely to be a result of some participants spending much longer studying than others.

The researchers also found that there was no overall effect of noise on performance. This means that noise itself did not simply make participants perform worse.

Instead, what mattered was whether the environment at testing matched the environment in which the information had originally been learned.

As such, the results support the idea of context-dependent memory.

Conclusions

Overall, Grant et al concluded that memory for meaningful information can be affected by the context in which the information is learned and later recalled.

Participants performed better when they were tested in the same environment in which they had studied the material. This suggests that environmental factors – such as background noise – can become part of the memory and help with retrieval later. Importantly, the results showed that noise itself did not reduce memory performance. Instead, performance was better when the study and test environments matched. This effect was found for both the short-answer and multiple-choice tests, showing that context-dependent memory can affect different types of memory tests.

However, from a practical perspective, Grant et al suggested that students are likely to perform best if they study with little or no background noise. This is because students have more control over the environment in which they study than the environment in which they take the test. Exams are usually taken in quiet conditions and so studying in silence (which you can control) is more likely to match the conditions of the actual test (which you can’t control) and therefore improve recall.

In general, though, the findings support the theory of context-dependent memory.

Evaluation

Research methods and techniques

Laboratory experiment with independent measures design. The researchers manipulated whether participants studied and were tested in silent or noisy conditions and measured their performance on memory tests.

• High control and standardisation: The same article, tests and background noise were used, making it more likely that differences in performance were caused by the study and test conditions.
• Artificial setting: The study took place in a controlled laboratory setting, which is less realistic than how students normally study and take exams. This may reduce ecological validity.

Population and sampling

40 participants recruited by 8 psychology laboratory class members. One participant’s results were removed, so 39 participants were included in the final analysis.

• Small sample size: Only 39 participants’ results were analysed. This is a relatively small sample, so the findings may not represent the wider population.
• Large age range: Participants ranged from 17 to 56 years old, giving the sample a wider age range than a sample made up entirely of university students.
• Acquaintance sample: The participants were recruited by the experimenters from among their acquaintances. This may have produced a biased sample because the participants may have had similar backgrounds to the experimenters.

Types of data

The study mainly produced quantitative data because participants’ memory performance was measured using test scores.

• Quantitative Data: Participants received scores out of 10 on the short-answer test and out of 16 on the multiple-choice test. Reading time was also measured in minutes.
  • Objective and easy to compare: Numerical scores like this enabled researchers to objectively compare performance between the four conditions and use statistical tests to identify differences.

Representativeness and generalisability

The study included participants aged 17–56, but the sample was relatively small and participants were recruited by psychology students from among their acquaintances.

• Limited sample: The sample was not large or randomly selected, so the findings may not generalise to the wider population. For example, students from different educational backgrounds may study in different ways and respond differently to background noise.

Ethical issues

• Informed consent: Participants were told that they were taking part in a class project and that participation was voluntary, so they could choose whether to take part.
• Deception: There appears to have been little deception because participants were told that their comprehension would be tested. The exact purpose of investigating context-dependent memory was not revealed before the experiment.
• Protection from psychological harm: The study was unlikely to cause psychological harm. The noise used was ordinary background noise from a university cafeteria.
• Debriefing: Participants were debriefed about the purpose of the experiment at the end of the study.

Overall, the study was ethically sound. Participants knew that participation was voluntary, the procedure was unlikely to cause harm, and they were debriefed afterwards.

Validity

• Internal Validity: Are the findings caused by the study and test conditions rather than another variable?
  • High control: The researchers used the same article, same background noise, and same memory tests for participants across all conditions. This makes it more likely that differences in performance were caused by the study and test conditions and not some extraneous variable.
  • Reading time was controlled: Participants spent roughly similar amounts of time studying the material, and reading time was included as a co-variable. Paying attention to and controlling this variable reduces the possibility that differences in study time explained the results.
• Ecological Validity: Do findings translate to the real world?
  • Artificial environment: Listening to a recording of cafeteria noise while studying a psychology article is less realistic than students’ normal study environments. As such, the findings may not perfectly reflect how context affects memory in everyday life.

Reliability

• Internal Reliability: Is the procedure consistent across all participants in this particular study?
  • Highly standardised procedure: Participants studied the same article and completed the same tests. The background noise was also taken from copies of the same master recording, making the procedure consistent.
• External Reliability: Can the study be replicated at a different time and across different groups to produce consistent results?
  • Easy to replicate: The clearly defined procedure, standardised article, tests, and noise recording make the study easy for other researchers to repeat.

Ethnocentrism

The study was conducted in the United States and involved participants recruited through a university psychology class.

• Weaknesses:
  • Limited cultural representation: The study provides limited evidence about whether context-dependent memory works in the same way across different cultures. For example, students in different cultures may have different study environments and attitudes towards background noise.
  • Different educational environments: The study was based on a university-style learning environment, so the findings may not apply equally to students in different education systems or people who are not students.

However, cognitive processes such as memory are based on the functioning of the human brain – and the brain is basically the same across cultures. As such, the basic process of context-dependent memory may be a universal human behaviour and so the findings are likely to apply across cultures.

Evaluation summary table

Relation to cognitive psychology more broadly

Grant et al (1998) contributes to the cognitive area of psychology by demonstrating how environmental context can influence memory. The study suggests that memory is affected not only by the information being learned but also by the environment in which learning takes place. This provides evidence for context-dependent memory and has practical applications for students and learning.

The table below summarises how this study compares with other core studies in this area and evaluates its contribution and current relevance: