Experimental Psychology

BPSY461-1

Devika Santhosh

Register No. 2333721

Submitted to

Dr. Bhanu B.S.

Dr. Vijay M.

Dr. Ganesh Kumar J

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl. No Name of the Test/Experiment Page No.

1 Muller-Lyer Illusion Experiment 1

2 Serial Position Effect 6

3 Bilateral Transfer 13

4 Levels of Processing 23

5 Two-Point Threshold 31

6 Paired Associate Learning 38

 MULLER-LYER ILLUSION EXPERIMENT

Experiment no. 1. Name of experimenter: V.M

Date of experiment - 23.08.2023 Name of subject: D.S

Introduction

Muller-Lyer illusion, developed by a German psychologist Franz Carl Muller-Lyer in

1889, is one of the classical illustrations of optical illusions. The test comprises of two

arrows, where one has inward-facing arrowhead, and the other one facing outward. Based on

the person's judgment of the length of these lines, it is able to estimate their visual perception.

This test how helped neuroscientists to learn more about the way human brain process visual

images and perceive them in different contexts.

Review of Literature

Three experiments conducted on undergraduate students of New Mexico State University

based on Muller-Lyer illusion found out how this illusion can affect distance judgment and

decision-making while using a map. Researchers assigned the students with different tasks.

The observations of the study were that (1) converging lines that created inward-going wings

resulted in underestimation of distances and outward-going wings led to the overestimation of

distances, (2) the decisions based on distance judgment were affected by the illusion, (3) the

context of map neither increased nor decreased the Muller-Lyer elements, (4) the subjects

measurement behaviour with maps was a function of their task and the display medium, and

(5) the distance estimation also depended on the measurement behaviour with maps. Thus,

the present research provides additional evidence that real-life displays that inadvertently

contain illusions will affect user's perception.

Problem

To determine the extent of Muller-Lyer experiment by method of average error.

1
Hypothesis

Individual data: There will be significant differences in participant’s illusion.

Group data: There will be significant differences in individuals’ illusion.

Variables

Independent variable: the direction in which the line varied in length.

Dependent variable: the error committed by the participant.

Plan

To assess the participant's vulnerability to Muller Lyer illusion by using Muller-Lyer

experiment through PEBL.

Materials

1. Muller-Lyer illusion experiment in PEBL

2. Writing materials

Muller-Lyer Illusion Experiment in PEBL

The PEBL version of the Muller- Lyer illusion experiment is a replication the Muller-Lyer

illusion board. A glimpse of a horizontal line with an arrow and feather heads will be shown

on the computer screen. The line is roughly divided in half by the arrowhead in the middle.

The participant must choose which line is longer: the one to the left of the central arrowhead

or the one to the right. The participant has to press the left "shift bar" if they believe the left

line to be longer, and the right shift bar" if they believe the right line to be longer. Following

the experiment, the average difference will be used to evaluate the participant’s susceptibility

to the Muller-Lyer illusion. The susceptibility increases with the degree of difference.

Procedure

The participant was seated and their details were noted. Subjects were introduced to the

Muller-Lyer experiment in PEBL. The instructions were given to judge the length of the line

toward the left or toward the right of the central arrowhead. If the left side is longer they were

2
asked to press the left shift key and if the right side is longer, then the right shift key. 25 trials

out of 50 trials were for practice. After the experiment, the saved data was downloaded in

excel sheet from the PEBL repository.

Instructions

“There is a test called Muller-Lyer experiment. In this test, there is a horizontal line with

arrow head in the centre which divides the line roughly into two halves. The subjects were

asked to judge which side of the line is longer. If the participants feels that left side is longer

than right, they have to press the left shift key and, the right shift key otherwise.

Ethical Consideration

The participant was well informed about the test and it was conducted after the consent of the

volunteer. The participant was assured that their personal information would remain

confidential. The participant was also given the right to withdraw if they feel so.

Analysis

The data of the participant was downloaded from the repository of PEBL. The average

between the variable line and the standard line was calculated by taking the average of 25

times. The more the difference, the higher the vulnerability.

Table 1: Average difference, average median, range, interpretation of the subject's responses.

Name Average Average Range Interpretation

Difference Median

D.S. -44.54 -39 -55 to -22 Underestimation

Individual discussion

Table 1 shows the data obtained from the subject’s responses. The average difference is -

44.54 and the average median is -39, with a range from -55 to -22. The negative sign

3
indicates that the individual tends to underestimate the length of the line. The study's findings

indicate that the average score is likely to be underestimated which may be caused by our

brains misinterpreting the fins. Additionally, it might be due to different environmental and

cultural circumstances, which make one line appear longer than the other, as well as

perceived distance.

Table 2: Average difference of participants’ response in the group and its interpretation.

Sl. No. Name Average Difference Interpretation

1 S.K. -43.54 Underestimation

2 V.S. -28.77 Underestimation

3 A.C. -55 Underestimation

4 N.A. -34.58 Underestimation

5 J.M. -25.93 Underestimation

6 A.S. -45.58 Underestimation

7 S.A. -60.69 Underestimation

8 S.D. -34.5 Underestimation

9 A.P. -35.35 Underestimation

10 J.R. -54.14 Underestimation

11 A.S. -39.73 Underestimation

12 A.T. -36.04 Underestimation

13 K.B. -46.42 Underestimation

14 M.R. -54.77 Underestimation

15 S.C. -68 Underestimation

16 M.M. -38.67 Underestimation

17 B.S. -29.42 Underestimation

18 S.G. -50.38 Underestimation

4
 19 R.G. -41.35 Underestimation

20 A.S. -62.23 Underestimation

Group discussion

Table 2 shows the average difference of the responses of the participants in the group and its

interpretation. All the participants had a negative value for average difference. Overall, the

group had a tendency to underestimate the length of the line.

Introspective Report

"The experiment was not smooth because the arrows only visible for a split second. After a

few trials, it was difficult to stay concentrated."

Conclusion

In the Muller-Lyer illusion, the subjects are highly vulnerable to underestimation.

5
 SERIAL POSITION EFFECT

Experiment no: 2 Name of experimenter: B.S

Date of experiment - 04.09.2023 Name of subject: D.S.

Introduction

Serial-position effect is the tendency of a person to recall the first and last items in a series

best, and the middle items worst. The term was coined by Hermann Ebbinghaus. When asked

to recall a list of items in any order (free recall), people tend to begin recall with the end of

the list, recalling those items best (the recency effect). Among earlier list items, the first few

items are recalled more frequently than the middle items (the primacy effect).

The primacy effect, in psychology and sociology, is a cognitive bias that results in a subject

recalling primary information presented better than information presented later on. For

example, a subject who reads a sufficiently long list of words is more likely to remember

words toward the beginning than the words in the middle. One suggested reason for the

primacy effect is that the initial items presented are most effectively stored in long-term

memory because of the greater amount of processing devoted to them. The primacy effect is

reduced when items are presented quickly and is enhanced when presented slowly. Longer

lists have been found to reduce the primacy effect.

One theorised reason for the recency effect is that these items are still present in working

memory when recall is solicited. Items that benefit from neither the primacy nor the recency

effect are recalled most poorly. An additional explanation for the recency effect is related to

temporal context: if tested immediately after rehearsal, the current temporal context can serve

as a retrieval cue, which would predict more recent items to have a higher likelihood of recall

than items that were studied in different temporal context. The recency effect is reduced

when an interfering task is given.

6
Amnesiacs with poor memory ability to form permanent long-term memories do not show a

primary effect, but do show a recency effect if recall comes immediately after study. People

with Alzheimer's disease exhibit a reduced primacy effect but do not produce recency effect

in recall.

Many researchers tried to explain this phenomenon through free recall. In some experiments

in the late 20th century it was noted that participants who knew that they were going to be

tested on a list presented to them would rehearse items and it was demonstrated that the

primacy effect had a greater influence on recall when there was more time between

presentation of items so that participants would have a greater chance to rehearse previous

items.

In 2013, a study showed that primary effect is also prominent in decision making based on

experience in a repeated-choice paradigm, a learning process also known as operant

conditioning. The authors showed that importance attached to the value of the first reward on

subsequent behaviour, a phenomenon they denoted as outcome primacy.

In another study, participants received one of two sentences. For example, one may be given

"Steve is smart, diligent, critical, impulsive, and jealous," and the other “Steve is jealous,

impulsive, critical, diligent, and smart.” These two sentences contain the same information.

The first one suggests positive trait at the beginning while the second one has negative traits.

Researchers found that the subjects evaluated Steve more positively when given the first

sentence, compared with the second one.

Problem

To study the social position effect on recall.

7
Hypothesis

Recall is higher for words in the beginning of the list (Primacy effect) and at the end of the

list (Recency effect).

Variables

Independent variable: The position of each words in the list.

Dependent variable: Recall of words at different positions.

Confounding variables:

1. Rate of presentation

2. Length of words

3. Familiarity of the words

4. Distractions

Controls

The rate of presentation is held constant at two seconds per word.

All words in the list are common English words of equal difficulty.

All the words have the same number of syllables.

Plan

To present the subject orally with a list of 30 words.

The subject is subsequently asked to recall as many word as possible from the list in any

order.

Materials

A list of 30 words

Stop clock

Data sheet

Wooden screen

8
Precautions

Instructions and examples should be clear

The number of words in the list are not mentioned to the subject.

Distractions of any nature should be kept minimum.

Procedure

The subject is seated comfortably in a quiet room. Rapport is built with the subject to put

him/her at ease. The subject is given the data sheet and requested to fill in the background

information. The experimenter notes the time and date of experimentation. The Experimenter

then explains to the subject that he/she will be presented with a list of words orally and after

the list is read out the subject has to recall the words. Once the subject has understood the

instructions, the experimenter reads the list of words one by one, at the rate of two seconds

the end of the list a 30 seconds pause per word. At given and the subject is asked to recall the

words by uniting them down the data sheet.

Instructions

"I will read out a list of words to you. Please Listen carefully as you will have to recall the

words later, have you understood? Ok, we can begin now."

Post-task questions

Once the subject has completed the task he/she is asked a few questions to assist analysis.

The situation is structured such that the subject feels free to express his/her true feelings.

Following questions are asked:

1. Did you find any word easier to recall? And why?

2. Were there any words in the list that not know?

3. Was my voice clear to you all the time while I read the list?

9
Analysis of the data

Calculate the number of words correctly recalled the first, middle, and the last ten parts of the

list.

Calculate the average number of words correctly recalled at each position by the group.

TABLE 1: No of words recalled by the subject in each thirds of list.

Sl. No. Name Position No. of words recalled

1 D.S. First third 6

Middle third 2

Last third 3

Individual Discussion

The experiment was administered on the subject D.S who is 18 years old studying at in first

year BSc Psychology at Christ University.

Table I shows the number of words correctly recalled by the subject at the first position,

middle and third position in the word list. In all the three positions the subject has recalled 6,

2, and 3 words.

Hence the scores obtained is according to the hypothesis which says that there is better recall

in the beginning and the end than the middle where the score falls. In the introspective report

subject felt that distraction must have influenced their results.

Table 2: No. of words recalled by the group in each thirds of the list

Sl. No. Name Position No. of words recalled

1 M.M First third 6

Middle third 1

10
 Last third 2

2 A.V First third 6

Middle third 2

Last third 1

3 P.D First third 4

Middle third 3

Last third 1

4 G.P First third 1

Middle third 1

Last third 7

5 K.B First third 4

Middle third 4

Last third 3

Group Discussion

Table 2 shows the number of words correctly recalled by the group at the first, middle, and

third positions in the word list. In all the three positions, the group mean is 4.2, 2.2, and 2.8

words. Hence the scores obtained is according to the hypothesis which says that there is

better recall in the beginning and the end than the middle where the score falls.

Introspective Report

“Most of the words were difficult to recall. The words that sounded similar were relatively

easier to recall. I got distracted multiple times.”

Conclusion

The subject's results are according to the hypothesis.

The group as a whole confirms the hypothesis.

11
 BILATERAL TRANSFER

Experiment no: 3 Name of experimenter: V.M

12
Date of experiment - 25.09.2023 Name of subject: D.S

Introduction

The effect of past learning on new learning is designated as transfer of training. According to

Hilgard, the influence that learning one task may have on subsequent learning or performance

of another task is called transfer of training.

Transfer of training is one of the most pervasive characteristics of behaviour, for it is this

which guaranteed continuity and lawful development of habits of ever growing complexity.

The effects of past learning on new learning maybe classified in one the three categories:

1. Positive transfer - positive transfer occurs when past experience facilitates the acquisition

of a new skill or the solution of a new problem.

2. Negative transfer - negative transfer occurs when past experience renders more difficult or

slow down the acquisition of a new skill or the solution of a new problem.

3. Cross education - cross education refers to the facilitation of performance with one part of

the body, when practice is given to another part of the body. When education is from one

body organ to its symmetrical counterpart, it is called bilateral transfer. It is usually

demonstrated by mirror tracing board. Starch (1910) was the first to apply mirror drawing

method in the study of bilateral transfer. Studies indicate that bilateral transfer is a form of

positive transfer where subjects do better after training.

Here, we study the effect of training the preferred hand on the performance of the non-

preferred hand.

Problem

To study bilateral transfer through mirror tracing.

Hypothesis

13
Training given to one hand has a positive effect on the performance of the other hand.

Plan

Give one trial to trace the star pattern with non-preferred hand, then three trials with the non-

preferred hand and then again, one trial with the non-preferred hand. Compare the

performance of the non- preferred hand before and after training to the preferred hand.

Variables

Independent variable - training given to the preferred hand.

Dependent variable - time taken and errors committed in the trials of non-preferred hand.

Controls

The subject should not see the star pattern directly while tracing.

The subject must avoid touching the edge of the groove as much as possible.

Materials

Mirror tracing board (metal star with built-in electronic impulse counter and electronic timer)

Writing material

Procedure

Connect the mirror tracing board to power.

Series 1: Non-preferred hand before training (1 trial)

The subject is asked to trace the pattern with the stylus with his or her non-preferred hand,

not looking at the star directly but by looking at its reflection in the mirror. The subject

should trace the star without touching the sides. Whenever this happens, the counter records

an error automatically. Give the signal to start and start the electronic timer on the instrument

simultaneously. Note the time taken and errors committed to trace the pattern using the non-

preferred hand.

Training:

14
Give three trials to the subject to the trace the star pattern with the preferred hand. Follow the

same procedure as above. For every trial, start the timer and stop as soon as your subject

traces the star. Note down the time taken for each trial and errors committed in each trial. Set

the timer and the digital counter to zero before start of the next trial.

Series 2: Non-preferred hand after training (1 trial)

Following the procedure, ask the subject to trace the star pattern with the non-preferred hand

again. Note the time and error score.

Note: While tracing the star pattern, follow clockwise direction for the right hand and anti-

clockwise direction for the left hand. Always, starting point for tracing is the bottom edge of

the metal star.

Instructions

“At the signal of start, start tracing the pattern with the stylus without touching the edges as

fast as possible until you reach back the starting point. When you touch the edges, the counter

will automatically record the errors. While tracing, do not look at the star pattern directly,

look only at the reflection in the mirror.”

Precautions

Always, the subject has to start tracing the pattern from the same point and reach the same

point.

Subject is not allowed to look directly at the star but the reflection in the mirror and then trace

the path.

Show the subject the time taken and errors committed in each trial after completing the trials.

Always reset the timer and the counter to zero before the start of each trial.

Analysis

Compare the time and error scores of the non-preferred hand before and after the training.

Compute mean for the group.

15
Table 1. Time taken and errors committed by the subject in each trial of the preferred hand.

Time taken Errors committed

Name 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

D.S. 46s 35s 39s 28s 28s 3 3 3 5 3

Graph 1: Shows the time taken by the subject in each trial by the preferred hand

Time taken (preferred hand)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

Time taken (preferred hand)

Graph 2:Shows the errors committed by the subject in each trial by the preferred hand

Errors Committed(Preferred Hand)

6

0
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

Errors Committed(Preferred Hand)

Table 2: Time taken and errors committed by the subject with non-preferred hand before and

after training

16
 Time taken Errors committed

Name Series I Series II Difference Series I Series II Difference

II-I II-I

D.S 69s 38s 31s 12 5 7

Graph 3:Shows the time take by the subject in each trial by the preferred hand

Time taken(Non-Preferred Hand)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Series I Series II

Time taken(Non-Preferred Hand)

Graph 4: Shows the errors committed by the subject in each trial by the non-preferred hand

Errors Commited(Non-Preferred)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Series 1 Series 2

Errors Commited(Non-Preferred)

Individual Discussion

17
Table 1 shows the time taken and errors committed by the subject for the preferred hand.

There are variations from 1st to 3rd trial both in time taken and errors committed. Time taken

by the subject for the three trials are follows: 46, 35, 39, 28, and 28, and errors committed by

the subject are as follows: 3, 3, 3 , 5, and 3.

The results are graphically depicted. There are fluctuations in the time taken and errors

committed by the subject from the 1st to 5th trial.

Table 2 shows time taken and errors committed before and after training. The time taken in

the first series is 69 seconds and the second series is 38 seconds, and the difference is 31

seconds. Errors committed in the first series is 12, second series is 5 and the difference is 7.

The results are graphically depicted. The training given to the preferred hand has improved

learning in the non-preferred hand.

The training given to the preferred hand has improved learning in the non-preferred hand.

Time taken by the subject is less in the 2nd series than in the 1st series. In the case of errors,

errors committed in the 2nd series are less compared to the 1st series. The whole result of the

subject is according to hypothetical expectations.

Table 3: Time taken and errors committed by the group in each trial of the preferred hand

Time Taken Errors Committed

NAME 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
A.S 27 21 19 18 17 46 31 18 24 18
A.M 16 8 8 7 7 45 28 24 21 21
A.M 21 15 13 9 10 39 24 22 27 15
S.R 17 16 18 15 16 13 8 14 19 10
K.A 47 36 45 23 20 18 14 20 10 11
S.M 39 38 29 21 25 21 19 15 8 12
C.H 26 21 21 28 24 14 16 13 20 14
A.S 42 32 33 43 23 18 23 36 40 20
A.B 60 53 45 34 30 57 53 33 26 10

18
 A.G 41 28 44 41 41 36 23 31 40 35
TOTAL 336 240 275 239 213 307 239 226 235 166
MEAN 33.6 24 27.5 23.9 21.3 30.7 23.9 22.6 23.5 16.6

Graph 5: Shows the time taken by the group in each trial by the non-preferred hand

Time taken (preferred hand)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

Time taken (preferred hand)

Graph 6 shows the errors committed by the group in each trial by the non-preferred hand

Errors Committed(Preferred Hand)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

Errors Committed(Preferred Hand)

19
Table 4: Time taken and errors committed by the group with the non-preferred hand before

and after training

Time Taken Errors Committed

NAME Series.1 Series.2 Difference Series.1 Series.2 Difference
A.S 42 16 26 58 29 29
A.M 10 7 3 33 26 7
A.M 18 11 7 28 16 12
S.R 27 17 10 42 19 23
K.A 14 17 3 48 27 21
S.M 45 31 14 25 33 8
C.H 44 36 8 27 20 7
A.S 37 26 11 78 26 32
A.B 49 35 14 32 14 21
A.G 43 30 13 44 44 0
TOTAL 329 226 109 415 254 180
MEAN 32.9 22.6 10.9 41.5 25.4 18

Graph 7 shows the time taken by the group in each trial by the non-preferred hand

Time taken(Non-Preferred Hand)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Series I Series II

Time taken(Non-Preferred Hand)

Graph 8: Shows the errors committed by the group in each trial by the non-preferred hand

20
 Errors Commited(Non-Preferred)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Series 1 Series 2

Errors Commited(Non-Preferred)

Group Discussion

Table 3 shows the result of the group for the preferred hand both for time taken and errors

committed. It shows that there is a gradual fluctuation from 1st to 3rd trials. The result is

graphically depicted.

Table 4 shows the group results for the non-preferred hand. The result is according to the

hypothetical expectation because there is a decrease in time taken and errors committed by

the group. This is because training given to the preferred hand affects the performance of the

non-preferred hand.

Introspective Report

“The test was tougher than expected. At first, it was difficult to figure out the clockwise and

anti-clockwise direction and move the stylus in those directions. With more trials, I was able

to draw with lesser time and errors.”

Conclusion

The result of the subject is according to the hypothetical expectation.

Training given to the preferred hand has a positive effect on the performance of non-preferred

hand.

21
 LEVELS OF PROCESSING

Experiment no: 4 Name of experimenter: V.M

22
Date of experiment - 16.10.2023 Name of subject: D.S.

Introduction

The levels of processing model (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) focuses on the depth of processing

involved in memory, and predicts the deeper information is processed, the longer a memory

trace will last. Craik defined depth as: "the meaningfulness extracted from the stimulus rather

than in terms of the number of analyses performed upon it.”

The basic idea is that memory is really just what happens as a result of processing

information. Memory is just a by-product of the depth of processing of information, and there

is no clear distinction between short term and long term memory. Therefore, instead of

concentrating on the stores/structures involved (i.e. short term memory & long term

memory), this theory concentrates on the processes involved in memory.

Shallow Processing:

1. Structural processing (appearance) - when we encode only the physical qualities of

something. E.g. the typeface of a word or how the letters look.

2. Phonemic processing – when we encode its sound.

Shallow processing only involves maintenance rehearsal (repetition to help us hold

something in the STM) and leads to fairly short-term retention of information. This is the

only type of rehearsal to take place within the multi-store model.

Deep Processing:

Semantic processing or deep processing happens when we encode the meaning of a word and

relate it to similar words with similar meaning. Deep processing involves elaboration

rehearsal which involves a more meaningful analysis (e.g. images, thinking, associations etc.)

23
of information and leads to better recall. For example, giving words a meaning or linking

them with previous knowledge.

Problem

To study the different levels of processing on recall of materials.

Hypothesis

Recall is higher at deeper levels of processing.

Variables

Independent variable: The orientation task of two levels - surface and deep level

Dependent variable: Recall of words

Confounding variables:

1. Method of presentation

2. Fatigue

3. Time of exposure

4. Distraction

5. Recency effect.

Controls

In each series, the cards are shuffled to ensure random presentation.

Each card is exposed for the same amount of time (6 seconds for the stimulus word and 3

seconds for the orienting tasks.)

24
The series are randomly presented for each subject. A rest pause of five minutes is given after

two orienting tasks and before the recall task to avoid recency effect.

A rest pause of one minute is given between each series and a five minute pause before recall

to avoid control fatigue.

Distraction of any nature are kept at a minimum level.

Plan

With subject design with randomized presentation of the series.

To present the subject with two orientation task one after the other.

The first orientation task involves the subject deciding whether words presented on the set of

cards are upper case or lower case.

The second task involves the subject deciding whether the words presented on a second set of

cards fit into a sentence or not.

After the orienting tasks, a five minute rest pause is given and the subject is asked to recall

the words he/she saw.

Materials

Two sets of cards each with a stimulus word on one side and the orienting task on the other.

The first set of stimulus words are printed in the upper and lower case behind each is the

upper case.

Four example cards

List of stimulus words for verification (key)

Stop clock

25
Writing materials

Wooden screen

Precautions

In each series, the cards are reshuffled to ensure random presentation.

Each word is exposed for the same amount of time (6 seconds for the stimulus word and 3

second for the orienting task).

The series are randomly presented for each subject.

A rest pause of 5 mins is given after the two orienting tasks and before the recall to avoid

recency effect.

A rest pause of one minute is given between each series and a five minute pause before recall

to combat fatigue.

Distraction of any nature is kept to minimum level.

The subject should be unaware that a recall task will follow the orienting task.

Instructions and examples should be clear.

The experimenter must pretend to note down the responses for each orienting task to avoid

cueing the subjects.

Procedure

The subject is seated comfortably in a quiet room at the table of suitable height. A screen, to

avoid pre-exposure of cards, is used. Rapport is built with the subject to put him/her at ease.

The subject is given the data sheet and is requested to fill the background information. The

experiment notes the date and time of experimentation.

26
Surface level (Physical Processing):

The experimenter selects the cards with "upper case" and "lower case" printed on them.

He/she instructs the subject that he/she has to decide whether the stimuli word is in "upper

case" or "lower case”. The experimenter shuffles the cards thoroughly and presents them

using the flash card technique. Each card is presented with the orienting task first for three

seconds or till the response is obtained, whichever comes earlier. After all the cards are

exposed, the subject is given a rest pause of one minute and the experimenter proceeds to the

next series.

Deep level (Semantic processing):

The experimenter selects the cards with sentences and instructs the subject that he/she has to

decide whether the stimulus words fill the blank in orienting tasks for 3 seconds or till a

response is obtained. After all the cards are exposed to the subject, he/she is asked to recall

all the stimulus words and write them down.

Instructions

Surface level (Physical Processing):

"You will be shown a set of cards one at a time. In this set each card will have either the word

"upper case" or "lower case" written on it. Behind each word will be another word which is

the stimulus word. You have to decide whether the stimulus word matches the orienting task

or not. For example, the first may have the "upper case" and the stimulus word may be

printed in "lower case”. Here, your response should be "NO". The second card may also have

"upper case" and the stimulus word may be printed in "upper case". In this case, your

response should be "YES" and so on. Have you understood the task? Can we begin now?

27
Deep level (semantic processing):

"You will be shown a set of cards one at a time. In this set, each card will have a sentence

with a blank similar to fill-in-the-blanks. On the back of the card, the stimulus word that may

not fill the blanks is given. You have to decide whether the stimulus word fills the blank in

the first sentence or not. For example, the first card may have the sentence “roses are ____ in

color" on it and the stimulus word may be “new”. Here your response should be “NO”. The

second card may have. "A ____ is a man's best friend", and on the other side, the word may

be "dog". In this case, your response should be "YES" and so on.

Recall task:

Please try to recall and write all the real stimulus words from all the series in any order.

Analysis of data

The number of words correctly recalled by the subject in each series is calculated.

The average number of words correctly recalled in each series by the group is calculated.

Table 1: Number of words correctly recalled by the subject in different levels of processing

Name Physical level Deep level Difference

(surface level) (semantic level)

D.S. 4 9 -5

28
Individual discussion

The experiment aims to study the effect of different levels of processing on the recall of the

material. The experiment was conducted on subject D.S. doing their under graduation in

Psychology, at Christ University.

Table 1 shows the number of words recalled at physical and semantic levels by the subject.

The number of words recalled by the subject under the physical level is 4 and in semantic

level is 9, and the difference is -5. Thus, the subject confirms the hypothesis as the recall is

higher in the semantic level of processing.

Table 2: Number of words correctly recalled by the group in different levels of processing

Sl. No. Name Physical level Deep level Difference

(surface level) (semantic

level)

1 V. S. 1 11 -10

2 S.K.S 2 11 -9

3 I.G 1 9 -8

4 A.P 4 9 -5

5 V.K 11 6 5

6 S.M 1 7 -6

7 S.C 3 9 -6

8 A.N 2 13 -11

9 S.G 2 6 -4

10 A.R 3 5 -2

29
Group Discussion

The experiment was conducted on a group, aged between 17-21 years, doing their under-

graduation at Christ University.

Table 2 shows the number of words recalled at the physical and semantic level by the group.

The number of words recalled by the group under the physical level is 30 with a mean of 3,

and in semantic level is 86 with a mean of 8.6. The difference is 56 with a mean of 5.6. Thus,

the group confirms the hypothesis as the recall is higher in the semantic level of processing.

Introspective Report

“At first, I was much more focused. Later, I started getting distracted. After the final break,

when I had to recall words, it was difficult to recall the first set. It was much easier to recall

the second set.”

Conclusion

The subject's results prove the hypothesis which says that the recall is higher at the semantic

level of processing.

The group results prove the hypothesis which says that the recall is higher at the semantic

level of processing.

Individual differences exist.

30
 TWO-POINT THRESHOLD

Experiment no: 5 Name of experimenter: G.K

Date of experiment - 30.10.2023 Name of subject: D.S.

Introduction

According to Guilford, "Psychophysics has been regarded as the science that investigates the

quantitative relationships between physical events and corresponding psychological events."

The problems of psychophysics usually revolve around the threshold. A threshold is a

statistically determined point at which a stimulus is adequate to elicit a specific organismic

response. There are three types of thresholds:

1. Stimulus Threshold

2. Difference Threshold

3. Terminal Threshold

The Stimulus threshold is also known as the absolute threshold or the Reiz limen. Underwood

defines it as "the minimal physical stimulus value which will produce a response fifty percent

of the time." The method of Constant Stimulus Differences, also known as the frequency

method or constant method, can be used to measure thresholds. Here the stimuli are not

presented in ascending or descending order of magnitude but rather in random order.

The Two-point threshold is the minimal distance required between two points, for the subject

to perceive it as two points in 50 percent of the trials and as one point in the other 50 percent

of the trials. The accuracy of the observer's response will depend on the area of the body

stimulated.

31
Problem

To determine the subjects’ two-point threshold, on the left ventral forearm, with the method

of constant stimulus differences.

Hypothesis

Subjects vary in their cutaneous sensitivity, as represented by their two-point threshold.

Variables

Independent variable: Distance between the two points of the esthesiometer.

Dependent variable: Subject perception of two points.

Controls

The subject should be blindfolded.

The two points of the esthesiometer should be presented with equal and steady pressure.

Check trials, with one point should be presented, occasionally, which should not be recorded.

Rub the area periodically to avoid after sensation.

Plan

A series of stimuli, ranging between 30mm and 50m and increasing by 2mm, is presented in

random order. 5 trials of each distance are presented, and the subject’s responses are

recorded. The absolute threshold is obtained by drawing a CP graph.

Materials

Two point aesthesiometer

Blind goggles/ blindfold

32
Writing materials

Procedure

Seat the subject comfortably and instruct the subject that his/her ventral forearm will be

touched with either one point or two points. Each time the subject has to report whether

he/she felt one point or two points. Draw a 5 cm line on the subject's vented forearm and

blindfold them. After instructing the subject, present the stimuli in random order and record

the subject’s responses. Each trial should be preceded by a "ready" signal.

Instructions

"I will touch your ventral forearm with either one point or two points. Report to me each time

whether one point or two points are touching your skin. I will give you a ‘ready’ signal before

each trial, so be very attentive."

Analysis

Note down the frequency (f) of "two" responses for each distance

Compute the cumulative frequency of two-point sensation for each distance.

Compute the cumulative percentage (CP) using the value of the last ‘cf’ as the base number.

CP = (cf/base number) × 100

Plot the subject's data on a C-P (Cumulative-Percentage) graph to determine Reiz Limen, as

follows:

1. The stimulus values are plotted and cumulative percentage values are on the (x-axis)

plotted on the ordinate y-axis), and the graph for the subject's data is drawn.

2. A horizontal line is drawn from the 50 percent point on the ordinate to the graph.

33
3. From this point, a vertical line is dropped to the abscissa. The value on the abscissa gives

us the value of the absolute threshold for two points.

Compare the two-point thresholds of the subjects and verify the hypothesis.

If RL is at 40mm - moderate sensitivity, below 40mm - high cutaneous sensitivity, and above

40mm - low cutaneous sensitivity.

Table 1: Individual data showing the percentage of two-point sensation for different distances

Distance Trials Frequency Cumulative CP

in mm 1 2 3 4 5 frequency

30 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.5

32 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 5

34 2 1 2 1 1 2 4 10

36 2 2 1 2 2 4 8 20

38 2 1 2 1 2 3 11 27.5

40 2 2 2 2 2 5 16 40

42 2 2 2 2 2 5 21 52.5

44 2 2 2 2 2 5 26 65

46 2 2 2 2 2 5 31 77.5

48 2 2 1 2 2 4 35 87.5

50 2 2 2 2 2 5 40 100

34
Individual Discussion

The experiment aims to determine the subject’s two-point threshold on the left ventral

forearm using the method of constant stimulus differences.

Table 1 shows the frequency, cumulative frequency, and cumulative percentage for the two-

point threshold of the subject using the values of cumulative percentage. A graph was plotted

to find out Riez Limen or the two-point threshold. The subject’s Riez Limen is 41.8. This

indicates that a minimum of 41.8 mm is required between two points for the subject to

distinguish them as two points. Comparing the subject’s two-point threshold with that of a

representative value of 50mm of the forearm, it can be seen that the subject has low

cutaneous sensitivity.

Table 2: Group data showing the two-point thresholds for the subject of the group.

Sl. No. Name Reiz Limen (RL)

1 S.A 39.6

2 M.R.S 41

3 S.M 45

4 D.S 46

5 V.S 48

6 S.D 47

7 A.R 42

8 A.P 45

9 I.G 38

10 V.K 40

Total 431.6

Mean 43.16

35
 Standard deviation 3.29

Graph 1: Cumulative percentage growth of the subject

120

100
Cumulative Percentage (1 cm=2mm)

80

60

40

20

0
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Distance in mm (1 cm=10 cm)

RL=41.8
Group Discussion

Table 2 shows the total of the Riez Limen of the group. It is 431.6 with a mean score of

43.16, which shows that the group has a fairly low sensitivity. There are individual

differences present within the group.

Introspective Report

“Being the subject for this experiment was very exciting. At times, I felt confused if I felt one

or two points on my forearm.”

Conclusion

The subject has a low cutaneous sensitivity.

36
The group results prove the hypothesis which says that subjects vary in their cutaneous

sensitivity. The group as a whole shows a low cutaneous sensitivity.

37
 PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING

Experiment no: 6 Name of experimenter: G.K

Date of experiment - 31.10.2023 Name of subject: D.S.

Introduction

Paired associate learning is another method to study learning and memory, parallel to serial

learning. It has been used as early as 1894 by Calkins, 1897 by Jost, 1900 by Muller and

Pilzecker, and 1908 by Thorndike. Usually in paired associate learning, the order of pairs is

not important. The pairs are presented on individual cards and the packs are shuffled between

trials. The criteria measured are the number of correctly recalled responses when the stimuli

are presented at random or the number of trials taken to learn all the pairs. The method is

particularly useful when we want clear-cut and isolated connections within pairs of items. In

the formation of associations, meaning has a major role to play. An item may be regarded as

meaningful to the extent to which it gives rise to associations. There is a very close positive

relationship between meaningfulness and speed and ease of learning over the entire range of

meaningfulness. The larger the association value or meaningfulness of verbal units, the faster

and easier the learning.

Recent analyses of verbal learning make a distinction between response learning and the

associative stage. Response learning involves learning to identify and get a proper hold of

complex responses so that we may be in a position to handle them effectively. If a response is

compact, internally well bound, and well integrated, it becomes more readily available for

extra associative manipulations. The other phase in verbal learning is often called the 'Hook-

up' stage and comprises of actual joining or linking of the responses with their appropriate

stimuli. Here we have associative learning proper. This analysis of response integration or

38
response learning, as distinguished from the stage of associative learning is valuable. But the

two phases are not separate. They may even impenetrate and overlap.

Meaningful items may be easily learned because they are already well integrated, and thus

are immediately available for relevant associative processing. Common words, being highly

learned are well integrated beforehand, therefore their associative learning commences

immediately. No learning time is wasted over their response learning.

With the above theoretical background, the following experiment aims to study the effect of

Stimulus-Response meaningfulness on the formation of associations. The method used for the

study is "Paired - Associate learning."

Problem

To study the effect of meaningfulness of stimulus-response relationship on the formation of

associations.

Hypothesis

Stimulus-response meaningfulness has a positive in the formation of associations, and

consequently, on recall.

Variables

Independent variable: meaningfulness of stimulus-response connection.

Dependent variable: number of words correctly recalled.

Control

Time exposure is limited to 2 seconds per pair for both lists.

The difficulty level of words used is held constant in both series.

The time to respond to each stimulus is limited to three seconds.

39
Plan

To experiment with two series:

1. With no specific meaningful relationship between stimuli and responses.

2. With logical or meaningful connections between stimuli and responses.

To test recall of response words separately in both the series and compare.

To study the effect of meaningfulness of responses in the formation of associations with the

stimuli.

Materials

Two lists of paired associates, each pair written on a card. The stimulus word from each pair

is also written on the back of the corresponding card.

1. List A - 10 pairs of words with no specific meaningful relationship.

2. List B-10 pairs of words with logical or meaningful connections between stimuli and

responses.

Stop clock.

Procedure

Series 1: Instruct the subject to observe, the exposed stimulus-response pairs. Clarify to

him/her that in each pair the first word is the stimulus and the second word is the response.

Inform the subject that the recall will be tested for the response words paired with each

stimulus. With these instructions, present the first pair, from list A for 2 seconds then the

second, and so on, till all the ten pairs in list A are exposed. Now expose the stimulus words

printed on the back of the cards one by one at random and obtain responses. Note down the

responses given by the subject. Allow three seconds for the subject to respond to each

40
stimulus word. Give a 5-minute rest period to avoid interference before starting the second

series.

Series 2: Follow the same procedure as in the first series using list B.

Instructions

“With the signal ‘ready’, I will expose a series of cards with pairs of words, in which the first

word is the stimulus and the second word is a response. Observe as you have to recall the

response words later.”

"Now I will present only the stimulus words, you have to write down the corresponding

response words.”

Analysis

Count the number of response words correctly recalled in each list.

Find out the difference in the number of words correctly recalled in each series.

Difference = Score in series 2 - Score in series 1.

Calculate group mean and standard deviation.

Table 1: Number of response words correctly recalled in each list by the subject.

Name No. of words recalled by the subject

List A List B Difference

D.S 5 6 1

41
Individual Discussion

Table 1 shows the number of responses correctly recalled in each list by the subject. Under

List A, the subject has recalled 5 responses and in List B, the subject has recalled 6 responses.

The difference is 1. Hence, we can say that the result of the subject is according to the

hypothetical expectation. That is, the meaningfulness of an S-R relationship has a positive

effect on the formation of association and recall.

Table 2. Number of response words correctly recalled in each list by the group.

Sl. No. Name No. of words recalled by the group

List A List B Difference

1 S.C 8 9 1

2 V.S 7 8 1

3 K.G 4 7 3

4 S.M 4 0 -4

5 D.S 5 7 2

6 M.B 8 7 -1

7 A.R 5 6 1

8 V.K 4 8 4

9 A.P 2 5 3

10 S.D 3 6 3

Total 50 63 13

Mean 5 6.3 1.3

Standard deviation 1.94 2.36 2.23

42
Group Discussion

Table 2 shows the number of responses correctly recalled in each list by the group. Under the

list A, the total is 50 and the mean is 5. Under list B, the total is 63 and the mean is 6.3. The

total difference is 13 with a mean of 1.3. On the whole, the group result is according to

hypothetical expectations. As the scores say, performance is better under List B than List A.

Therefore, we can say that S-R meaningfulness has a positive effect on recall. There are

individual differences in recall. There are two subjects whose results are against hypothetical

expectations.

Introspective Report

"Remembering the words was very difficult. It was more difficult with list A as the

meaningless words confused me. I also got distracted multiple times.”

Conclusion

The result of the subject is according to the hypothetical expectation that the stimulus-

response meaningfulness has a positive effect on the formation of association and recall.

The group result is according to the hypothetical expectation that the stimulus-response

meaningfulness has a positive effect on the formation of the association and recall.

Individual differences exist.

43