Impact of Cognitive Loading on Recall of Names

Running head: COGNITIVE LOADING & RECALL 1

Impact of Cognitive Loading on Recall of Names

Cassie C. Strickland

Reinhardt University

Author Note

Cassie C. Strickland, Reinhardt University

There are many people I would like to thank for making this research possible. First, I

would like to thank my research director and professor Dr. Katrina Smith. She taught me

everything I know about conducting a research project and how to do statistics. I would also like

to thank my classmates Kristina Jones, Adrienne Lawrence and Aleah Cooper for helping run my

experiment. Thank you so much for helping me with my game; I am not sure what I would have

done without you. Lastly, I would like to thank the Psychology Department of Reinhardt

University for their support.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cassie C. Strickland

at Reinhardt University, Waleska, Georgia,30183.

[email protected]

Coginitive loading and recall 2

Abstract

Many people report that they have difficulty remembering names. Helder and Shaughnessy

(2008) found that name recall can be improved by multitasking if it involves a conversation. In

the present study, the impact of task loading on name recall was examined for 39 student

volunteers who were asked to play either a familiar (n=20) or an unfamiliar (n=19) card game.

After playing the game through to completion, each participant was taken aside and shown

pictures of their fellow players. They were asked to recall the player's middle name that was

given at the beginning of the session. The mean number of player names correctly recalled did

not vary across the two game conditions (familiar and unfamiliar) (t (37) =.60, p>0.05). There

may be other factors that influence name recall. Repetition and rehearsal may be needed for

name recall.


Impact of Cognitive Loading on Recall of Names

Meeting new people and introducing one’s self to others is an everyday occurrence that

happens in people’s lives. However, when people meet someone new, there is a good chance that

they may fail at remembering the other person’s name. Recall comes from short term, long term

and working memory. The construct of short-term memory refers to a type of memory where a

person holds a small amount of information for a very short period of time. The information held

in short-term memory is typically held for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, at most, before it is recalled.

Information recalled after about 2 minutes is usually considered to be coming from long term

memory. Working memory was offered to extend the scope of short-term memory by adding a

processing component. This type of memory allows individuals to both hold new information in

a temporary storage as well as manipulate that information. Working memory’s capacity is

usually about 2 units smaller in capacity than short term memory. Working memory’s capacity is

also related to performance on a variety of cognitive tasks such as name recall and other tasks

such as learning languages and comprehension. Working memory requires the human brain to

process temporary information and to store information by using what psychologist Baddeley

calls working memory (Gathercole & Baddeley,1993).

Working memory has four parts that it allows to process and store temporary information

which are the central executive, the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad and the

episodic buffer (Baddeley,2000). The central executive helps working memory by directing the

limited information to the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer.

The central executive is where cognitive loading occurs, and it also has access to long-term

memory and therefore, it can retrieve information from there (Gathercole & Baddeley,1993). The

central executive needs the phonological loop which is where verbal information goes.


According to Gathercole and Baddeley (1993), it is important to repeat verbal

information because it deteriorates over a period of time. Therefore, the phonological loop needs

to stay active for a period of time to remember names. The visuospatial sketchpad is also

necessary for working memory to process visual information, and it changes verbal information

into images. When people hear names, they will also see faces and try to connect the names with

these images by using the visuospatial sketchpad. Lastly, the episodic buffer shows that working

memory is able in incorporates information from different areas (Baddeley, 2000). This part of

working memory has a limited capacity. However, it does play a significant part when

contributing to receiving information from the long-term memory; which the episodic buffer will

do after people are asked to recall names. (Baddeley, 2000). All of these components to working

memory are necessary when recalling limited information such as names or anything else that

lasts for a short amount of time.

Previous research on working memory has shown that this temporary storage system is

complex and that it has a limited storage capacity. Since working memory is limited in storage

capacity (Heathcote, Coleman, Eidels, Watson, Houpt, Strayer, 2015), remembering names is

difficult for people. It becomes even more challenging because of the social conditions people

are placed in when they are trying to learn names. Heathcote et al. (2015), measured working

memory’s workload capacity by asking participants to retain information and control the

information. They tested this by comparing the two inferences that are needed in working

memory which is proactive interference and dual-task interference. Proactive interference is

remembering a list of information becomes more difficult because existing information gets in

the way. Dual-task inference requires people to do things at the same time to compare the

performance to doing one thing at a time. For example, Heathcote, et al. (2015), measured dual


task inference by asking the participants to do simple math problems. After each math problem,

there was a letter presented for later recall. Participants did three sets of math problems and were

asked to recall the letters they saw on the computer screen. Researchers then tested proactive

interference by asking the participants to do a task on Firefox while listening to audio with

headphones. The results for the single task control group showed that half of the participants’

performance stayed the same within the limited capacity of working memory and very few

reached unlimited-capacity. Results for the dual task group showed that performance was less

than the fixed capacity, showing that dual task performance is limited. However, there is a

proactive interference when doing more than one task.

According to the research even though working memory has a limited capacity

(Heathcote et al.,2015), Cocchini, Logie, Sala, MacPherson, and Baddeley (2002), demonstrated

that processing within verbal and visual working memory systems appear to operate

independently of one another. More specifically, verbal working memory was not impacted

when participants were also given a concurrent visual working memory task. This finding would

suggest that it is possible for participants to do more than one task at a time. For example,

Cocchini et al. (2002) conducted several experiments that tested working memory using a serial

digit recall method. Participants listened to a tape that called out numbers at a rate of two per

second, and the participants were asked to repeat the numbers in order. The participants were

presented three lists of numbers, and if they got two of the lists correct, the list would get longer

by one number. If they failed to recall two out of three lists, the test would end. When the

participants were allowed to rehearse the numbers they heard, there was a significant effect that

showed that it is important to maintain preloaded information because it will help with

performance.


The second test, Cocchini et al. (2002) did had to do with visual pattern recall. In this

experiment, participants were asked to remember a black and white checkerboard pattern.

Participants with different matrixes finished at different times. For example, the more squares in

the matrixes, the more difficult recall were. The experimenters compared the results of the digit

recall and visual pattern recall. They found that participants who did poorly on these tests were

below 70% for the memory tests. Results also showed that when participants were asked to

perform the dual task for digit recall their recall rate decreased by 8% while visual pattern recall

rate declined by 5%. Therefore, there was no significant disruption in retention when doing these

two tasks. Before the participants were asked to recall the digits and visual images, there was a

15-second delay between the tasks allowing for participants to rehearse the information. With

this in mind, working memory holds information for about 10 to 15 seconds, and if it is

rehearsed, then it helps it change from short-term to long-term memory. If people were asked to

do a task such as remember names for a longer period of time, they would have to rehearse the

names more than once during that period of time to keep the temporary activation of long-term

memory.

The present study was designed to explore whether task loading in working memory

impacts name recall. Working memory research has shown us that task loading does affect our

ability to do other things. For example, Helder and Shaughnessy (2008) got participants do a

math task while being introduced to 12 people. Participants were shown pictures of the people

that they were introduced to and were asked to recall the names of each individual. Helder and

Shaughnessy's findings for their first experiment showed that math problems that involved five

numbers compared to three numbers made name recall difficult. Therefore, the more difficult

the task is, the greater the effect on participants’ ability to recall names. It also revealed that there


was a 54% recall rate for people who heard the names more than once than individuals who

heard the names once.

In the second part of this experiment, Helder, and Shaughnessy (2008) also looked at the

effects of recall on long-term retention. One group was in the 24-hour delay group; participants

were asked to recall names after 24 hours, and there was a no delay control group. There was a

recall rate for the no delay of 46.5% when hearing the names only once and there was a 28.7%

recall rate for the 24-hour delay. When participants of the no delay group were multitasking and

heard repeated names, the recall rate was 55.9% and for names only heard once the recall rate

was 37.0%. For the 24-hour delay group that multitasked and heard repeated names, their recall

rate was 35.2% and for once presented names the recall rate was 22.2%. These results show that

practicing names improve name recall; however, it is smaller after 24 hours. Therefore, task

loading is an important part of remembering names. Since this is the case, people will remember

more names when playing a familiar card game than an unfamiliar card game.

Methods

Participants

Participants in the current study consisted of student volunteers approached by the

principal investigator from a small rural university in North Georgia. There was a total of 41

participants; two participants did not show up for the days of the experiment. Out of the 39

participants that agreed to participate, there was 66% females and 33.3% males. In the first Uno

group during the first day, there was 9 females and 1 male and 7 females and 2 males in The

Werewolves. During the second day in the Uno group, there were 5 females and 5 males and 6

females and 4 males in The Werewolves. The ethnicity of the participants in this study was

predominantly white/Caucasian (74.4% white, 10.3% black/African-American, 2.6%


Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.1% biracial, 7.7% unidentified) Participants majors were predominantly

Biology (23.1% Biology,17.9 % Education, 7.7 % Psychology, 2.6% Criminal Justice, 5.1%

Undecided, 10.7% Communication, 7.7% Graphic design/Digital art, 5.1% Sociology, 2.6%

Music, 2.6% English, 2.6% digital film,2.6 % Math, 2.6% Sports Media,2.6 % Theater,2.6 %

History, and 2.6% Creative Writing)

Materials and Procedures

Participants were asked to go into one of the study rooms in the Reinhardt library to play

the card games. There were two games that was used for this experiment: Uno for the familiar

card game and The Werewolves for the unfamiliar card game. Testing took place over two days.

Both games were run simultaneously but on different floors of the library. On the first day, 9

participants played The Werewolves and 10 played Uno. On the second day, 10 participants

played The Werewolves and 10 played Uno. Before the game started, the principal investigator

and game moderators waited for participants on the third and second floor. The principle

investigator sorted the participants by randomly putting participants into groups by what day the

participants were available. On the day the participants came, the principle investigator sent the

participants to a room by the order they came. For example, the first participant that came in

were sent to Uno, the second would be directed to The Werewolves, the third one was sent to

Uno and so on. The participants then proceeded to the study room where they waited for the

others players and for the game to start.

The principal investigator then started one game first while the game moderators

watched the other group. The principal investigator explained the consent form, received the

signed consent forms, took pictures with a camera for one group and a cell phone for the other.

Then the participants were asked to introduce themselves by their middle names to make sure


that a ceiling effect is avoided and the principal investigator explained how to play the card game

according to the instructions of each card game. After this, the principle investigator left the

room, while a game moderator came in to watch over them. Each game moderator and the

principal investigator had a list of names to make sure that the participants said the correct name

when referring to one another.

The researcher then went to the other group and repeated the same thing that they did in

the previous group. At the end of the card games, the game moderators gave the questionnaires,

located in Appendix A, to the participants to fill out. Game moderators sent participants with

the questionnaires to the experimenters one by one to be tested for name recall. After the name

recall test was completed, pictures were then deleted. The principle investigator explained to The

Werewolves group on the second day that one of the questions on the survey refers to their

ethnicity, not the card that they identify within the game to avoid confusion like the previous

Werewolves group. This was clarified to only this Werewolves group since the error occurred

the day before in the last Werewolves group. The two Uno groups continued for approximately 8

minutes, and the name recall took 15 minutes overall while the two The Werewolves groups

lasted for about 25 minutes, and the name recall also took 15 minutes overall.

Results

A total of 39 men and women were asked to play either a familiar card game or an

unfamiliar card game. They completed a questionnaire at the end of the card games and were

tested for name recall, in order to see if there was a relationship between task loading and name

recall. The program SPSS was used to calculate and analyze the data by conducting a T-test.

Before the data was analyzed, the yes or no questions on the questionnaire were recoded from

yes or no to no=0 and yes=1.


Among the groups playing the unfamiliar card game, most participants remembered 4 or

5 of the names of the other players (Mode= 4 and 5, M=3.24, SD=2.000). Among the group

playing the familiar card game, most participants remembered 3 of the names of the other players

(Mode=3, M=3.35, SD=3.35). Figure 1 provides a summary of these results. During the first and

second session in the familiar game there were 10 players. (Recall of first session (M = 3.7)

(SD=1.83) (Recall of the second session: (M=3) (SD=2.221) During the first and second session

in the unfamiliar game there were 9 players. (Recall of first session: M=3.56 and SD=1.88) On

the second day there was a total of 10 people. (Recall of second session: M =3.9 and SD=2.18)

Table 1 provides a summary of these results.

Overall between the two groups, people remember by using these descriptives provided

above and other information, the tests mentioned above is used to see if there are any significant

relationships within the datum. By using an independent samples t-test differences in name

recall, was measured for each card game. Table 2 provides a summary of these results. The

differences are not significant between the two variables t (37) =.603, p>0.05.

The results from the questionnaires were also measured. The results from the

questionnaires are as follows: 53.8% of the participants said that they did not feel like they

would be friends with anyone in the group that they were in after playing the card game. While

46.2% said that they did feel like they would be friends with people in the group they were in

after playing the card game. 2.6% of participants said that did not like playing card games with

new people, and 97.4% stated that they did. 46.2% of the participants talked to people more

while 53.8% said that they did not. 48.7% of participants said that they did play the card game

before, and 51.3 said that they did not. 66.7% of participants said that they felt like people they

played with were helpful, and 33.3% said people they played with were not helpful. 100% of the


participants stated that they enjoy card games. Lastly, 53.8% of people said that they did not talk

to anyone more while 46.2% said that they did.


Figures

Figure 1

Note: This bar graph shows that 44% of people in The Werewolves recalled more names than

37% of the people who played Uno. Therefore, less than half of the participants recalled less

than half of the names. This bar graph does not mean the datum is significant.

Percent of names correctly recalled


Tables

Table 1Descriptives for card games Uno The Werewolves

Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2

n

M

SD

10

3.7

1.83

10

3

2.221

9

3.56

1.88

10

3.9

2.18

Note: This table shows the descriptives for the groups by the days the card games were played. The data shows that there is no significance between the means and the SD.

Table 2

Independent Samples T-test Name Recall

Note: Not Significant at **p<0.05 two tailed

n df tEqual Variances Assumed

39 37 .603


Discussion

The results of this study did not support the original hypothesis; however, the results do

prompt an interesting discussion. In Helder and Shaughnessy (2008), their findings were that

multitasking while learning names is effective. However, the present results show that even

though the unfamiliar card game group remembered a little more than the familiar card game

group, asking participants to do more than one thing may not effect name recall. The results in

the present study’s datum may have to do with proactive interference (Heathcote, et al.,2015).

Not only were the participants asked to play a card game and to answer questions but they were

asked to recall player’s middle names. People in the groups were familiar with each other to the

point where they knew each other’s first name. In doing so, it made task loading increasingly

more challenging than it was intended to be. For example, one participant said, “I know their

first name, but I do not know their middle name.”

Furthermore, Heathcote et al. (2015), study showed that working memory is limited and

that working memory only lasts for about 15 seconds. Working memory’s temporary storage

stays active if there is repetition involved. Since this is the case, participants would have had to

rehearse the names they heard during the 8 to 25 minutes of the card games to remember more

than 4 to 5 names. However, even though names were repeated during the card games, it was

not actively repeated which is necessary for the temporary activation of long-term memory. In

fact, in one group some people did not hear the names of the other players when the players were

introducing themselves. Not everyone in the card games spoke to each other. Because of this,

some names were not repeated during game play after the introduction. Another causation to the

present results may be because of the different times for the two card games. One lasted longer

than the other, which may have led to decay especially since names were not repeated. Lastly,


during the introductions, some names were not heard because the individual did not speak loud

enough.

This preliminary research into task loading and name recall has provided an excellent

starting point for future studies. However, this study was limited by time and resources. A larger

and more diverse sample could help identify any demographic differences exist between name

recall and task loading. By using a larger sample, it may also help avoid ceiling effects and

proactive inferences if the participants are not familiar with each other. In addition, future

research could benefit in matching the times for the card games or any task loading activity.

Future research should also take note on what names were said the most to see if those names

were the names most recalled.

The present study demonstrates that it may be possible to recall names while task

loading, and it may be necessary to rehearse and repeat names when meeting new people. These

findings add to the research out there that gives advice for improving people’s memory when it

comes to names. For people to be successful for remembering names, they should pay attention

when the person is introduced, and they should rehearse and repeat the name after the

introduction. Then people might stop saying that they are bad at remembering names.


References

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends

in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423. doi:10.10/16/S1364-6613(00)01538-2

Cocchini, G., Logie, R. H., Sala, S. D., Macpherson, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2002).

Concurrent performance of two memory tasks: Evidence for domain-specific working

memory systems. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1086-1095. doi: 10.3758/bf03194326

Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. (pp. 1-23). Hove,

NY: Psychology Press.

Heathcote, A., Coleman, J. R., Eidels, A., Watson, J. M., Houpt, J., & Strayer, D. L. (2015).

Working memory's workload capacity. Memory Cognition, 43, 973-989.

doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0526-2

Helder, E., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (2008). Retrieval opportunities while multitasking improve

name recall. Memory, 16(8), 896-909. doi:10.1080/09658210802360611


(Appendix A)

Questionnaire for Group Dynamics

1. Were any of the people you played with particularly helpful? Yes or No

2. What’s your Major?

3. Do you feel like you will be friends with anyone in the group after playing this card game?

Yes or No

4. Did you enjoy playing the card game with new people?

Yes or No

5. Do you like card games? Yes or No

6. What game did you play?

The Werewolves or Uno

7. What’s your gender?

Male or Female

8. Have you played this game before? Yes or No

9. What race do you identify with?

10. Did you talk to anyone more? Yes or No

11. When you are done with this survey, please turn it in to do the last question of this questionnaire.

Impact of Cognitive Loading on Recall of Names

Documents

Transcript of Impact of Cognitive Loading on Recall of Names