8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
1/29
PSYCHOLOGY: HIGHER LEVEL
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT
TITLE: The influence of degree of intentional learning upon the performance of an incidental task.
Name of Candidate: Sakshi Jain
Candidate Number: 002279-035
Session: May 2012
Word Count: 2116
Supervisor: Dr. Deepika Tikoo
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
2/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Abstract
The aim of the present research study was to study the influence of an intentional task on the performance of
an incidental task. The research hypothesis was that the performance of participants in the experimental group
(intentional learning) will be better than the control group (incidental learning).
The design of the experiment was of independent measures. The independent variable is the presentation of list
consisting of 10 nonsense syllables. The dependent variable is the recall of words from the list of nonsense
syllables. The participants were divided in two groups, experimental and control. The experimental group was
further divided into 2 groups. Experimental group 1 anticipated 4 words. Experimental group 2 anticipated 8
words. Then they anticipated colours instead. The control group was only told about learning a list and thus
had to anticipate the common colours in 3 trials.
All participants were in year 11 and year 12 students studying I.B. in G.D Goenka World School in the age
group of 16-18 years.
The results proved the research hypothesis, that the performance of an intentional task would be better than the
performance of the incidental task. These results support the study conducted by Hergenhahn and Lee (1965)
Introduction
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
3/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
The aim of the present research study is to study the influence of degree of intentional learning upon the
performance of an incidental task.
The term incidental learning refers to the acquisition of a word or expression without the conscious intention
to commit the element to memory, such as picking up an unknown word from listening to someone or from
reading a text.
The terms incidental and intentional learning were originally learning in terms of stimulus-response
contingencies (Postman & Keppel, 1969). Researchers experimentally investigated human learning by
providing human subjects with information (such as a list of words) under two conditions. In the intentional
condition, subjects were told in advance that they would afterwards be tested on their recollection of the
materials to which they were going to be exposed. Subjects in the incidental condition were not told that they
would be later tested. The terms incidental and intentional learning referred to a methodological feature of
learning experiments, pertaining to the absence or presence of a notification whether subjects would be tested
after exposure.
A number of investigations have shown than an increase in number of stimulus presentation affects both
intentional and incidental learning (Gleitman & Gillet, 1957; Saltzman and Atkinson,1954).
According to McLaughlin (1965), the early studies of incidental learning were directed primarily at
demonstrating that the phenomenon did in fact occur and that such learning is inferior to intentional learning
(e.g., Chapman,1932; Mulhall,1915; Myers, 1913; Poppelreuter, 1912).
Saltzman and Atkinson (1954) fount that with a small number of stimulus presentations (2 and 6), both
intentional and incidental learning increased at about the same rate, but with greater number of presentations
(8 and 16), incidental learning benefitted only slightly while intentional learning rose considerably.
The present study is based on the study done by Hergenhahn and Lee (1965). where incidental learning was
measured at various stages of intentional learning. Results indicated that intentional learning was better than
incidental learning.
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
4/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Bahrick (1957) hypothesized that intentional learning occurs at the expense of incidental learning and vice-
versa. He measured the degree of incidental learning at various stages of learning the orienting task which
consisted of the serial learning of 16 nonsense syllables.
Research Hypothesis
The performance in terms of recall of words by the participants in the experimental group (intentional
learning) will be better than the control group (incidental learning).
Null Hypothesis
There will be no difference in the performance in terms of recall of words in the experimental group
(intentional learning) and the control group (incidental learning).
Method:
Design:
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
5/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
The design of the experiment was independent measures. This was used in order to reduce demand
characteristics. The independent variable is the presentation of list consisting of 10 nonsense syllables. The
dependent variable is the recall of words from the list of nonsense syllables.
The ethical considerations were taken where, the consent form, was given out and signed by the participants
The experiment was also assured to not cause any harm to the participant and the participant has the right to
withdraw at any point of the experiment. The participant were debriefed in the end and given a copy of the
results.
Materials:
Consent Form
List of verbal instructions to be given at each stage
8 Index cards (17.3 x 5in.)
NSS list
10 Different colored pens (purple, light green, orange, light blue, yellow, black, pink, dark green, red and dark
blue)
Memory Drum
Standardized Instructions
Participants:
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
6/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
The target population of this study was the Year 11 and Year 12 students studying I.B. in G.D Goenka World
School in the age group of 16-18 years. A participant sample of 40 was taken which was divided into two
groups that are 20 in experimental group and 20 in control group, where the 20 participants in the experimental
group were further divided into 2 groups of 10 participants each. This sample was a convenient sample as
students who were free and available were able to do the experiment without hindering their classes. The
participants were randomly allotted to each group.
Procedure:
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
7/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Total of 20 subjects were there in the experimental group. Who were further divided into two groups, Group 1
and Group 2.Group 1 learned a criterion of 50% or 4 correct. Group 2 learned a criterion to a 100% or 8
correct.
Before the participant was called, the room was properly arranged with the materials required. The participants
from experimental group 1 were called in and handed over the consent forms and told they had the right to
withdraw. After signing the consent form, standardized instructions were given.
After setting up the apparatus the participant is made comfortable. She is asked whether she is able to see the
apparatus properly and clearly. This is done to get a focused response from the subject.
The participants from the experimental group 1 which learned the criterion of 50% or 4 correct responses were
first shown the list of nonsense syllables and were told to try to remember the syllables. After this initial
exposure, the first learning trial began. Participants were instructed to anticipate which syllable was going to
appear next in the list by spelling it. Participants were told to work as quickly as possible, although no time
restrictions were placed upon them. Trials were massed.
Similarly for the participants from the experimental group 2 which learned the criterion of 100% or 8 correct
responses were given the same instructions as the experimental group 1.
After reaching these criterias, participants in each group were immediately switched to the problem involving
the colours in which the syllables were written. Participants were told to anticipate the colour rather than the
nonsense syllable. Criterion for learning the list of geometric forms was 3 consecutive trials for each of the
groups. The participants were thanked and debriefed. The room was rearranged and the apparatus were setup.
Then the participants from the control group were also given a consent form followed by standardized
instructions and then they were told that they were about to learn a list of common colours, however they were
not exposed to the list before the first experimental trial. They were simply asked to guess blindly what they
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
8/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
thought the colour would be. Except for this first trial, the regular serial learning procedures were followed,
and these participants were also run to a criterion of 3 consecutive correct trials.
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
9/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Results
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of Control and Experimental Group 1 (criterion of 50% or 4
correct responses)
Group Experimental Group 1 Control Group
Mean 5.0000 4.4500
Standard Deviation .973 1.932
T-Test Value .263
The graph above represents standard deviation and mean for both experimental and control group. Graph 1
show that the mean number of words recalled in experimental group 1 was 5.0000 words and in control group
was 4.4500 words. The t-test between the groups is .263, which shows that there is no significant difference
between the two groups. The standard deviation for experimental group was .97333 and for the control group
was 1.93241. The standard deviation compared to the mean is very low, thus the actual mean is closer to the
calculated mean.
Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Control and Experimental Group 2 (criterion to a 100% or 8
correct)
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
10/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Group Experimental Group 2 Control Group
Mean 7.9500 4.4500
Standard Deviation .759 1.932
T-Test Value .000
The graph above represents standard deviation and mean for both experimental and control group. It shows
that the mean number of words recalled in experimental group was 7.95 words and in control group was 4.45.
The t-test between the groups is .000, which shows that there is significant difference between the two groups
in terms of the recalling of the words. The standard deviation for experimental group was .75915 and for the
control group was 1.93241. This demonstrates that there was a greater dispersal in control group than there is
in the experimental group. The null hypothesis can thus be rejected and the research hypothesis is clearly
supported. The standard deviation compared to the mean is very low, thus the actual mean is closer to the
calculated mean.
Discussion
From the result table 1 it can be seen that the mean for the experimental group 1 is 7.9500 and standard
deviation is .75915 whereas for the control group the mean is 4.45 and the standard deviation is 1.93241 and
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
11/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
the t-test value is .263. Table 2 shows that the mean for experimental group 2 is 7.95 and the standard
deviation is .75915 and the t-test value is .000.
Based on the experimental results it was concluded that it supported the research hypothesis as the results from
intentional learning were better than incidental learning and thus the null hypothesis was rejected. This is also
evident from the independent t-test conducted which is in lieu with the original study.
Incidental learning has generally been studied by presenting subjects with a learning task disguised
instructions, testing them later and comparing their scores with those obtained by subjects who initially were
instructed to learn (Gleitman and Gillett, 1957)
Findings by Mulhall (1915), Biel and Force (1943) and Jenkins (1933) show that the performance of
incidental groups was worse on successive tests compared to intentional learners.
It has also been explained by Saltzman and Atkinson (1954) also found that with a small number of stimulus
presentations (2 and 6), both intentional and incidental learning increased at about the same rate, but with
greater number of presentations (8 and 16), incidental learning benefitted only slightly while intentional
learning rose considerably. This is seen in the present study.
This can also be seen in the present study that when experimental group 1 who learned to a criteria of 50% or 4
correct responses and experimental group 2 who learned to a criteria of 100% or 8 correct responses , there
was a significant difference compared when compared to the control group. As observed by McLaughlin
(1965), that further presentations of the materials have limited effects upon the incidental learning since initial
differentiations presumable reflect strong habits which benefit little from further exercise. On other hand,
intentional subjects do not limit their differential responses to highly familiar items, but utilize additional trials
to increase the number of differentiations and connections among items.
The findings of the present study is also supported by Bahrick (1957) who found that Incidental learning was
the greatest in the very early (0%-25%) and late (100% -150%) stages of intentional learning. Little or no
intentional learning was found to occur between the 50% and the 100% level of intentional learning, indicating
that during this stage of practice the efforts of subjects were directed almost exclusive towards the mastery of
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
12/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
the task set by the experimenter. These results agree with the Postman and Adams (1958) hypothesis that a
great percentage of intentional learning occurs during very early trials, and also indicate that overwhelming
(when it occurs) may be a source of a large percentage of incidental learning.
Postman argued that intentional learning and incidental learning are different as a result of the instruction
stimuli which affect the learning in terms of its characteristics and amount by finding out the differential cue
producing responses which occur during practice. (McLaughlin, 1965).
The test of retention employed in incidental learning studies is of critical empirical importance (McLaughlin,
1965). The study of Postman, Adams and Phillips (1955) demonstrated that effects obtained by means of a
free-recall test of retention disappear when the method of recognition is used. They argued that only the free-
recall method is adequately sensitive to differences in incidental and intentional learning.
The limitation of the present study was that the sample size was small in the given stipulated time and in the
future the study could be conducted using the four criterias that are other than two criterias used in the
present study, Criterion I which learned a 25% of the orienting task or 2 correct anticipations. Group III, which
learned to a criterion of 75% or 6 correct anticipations. Group V, which learned to a criterion of 8 correct plus
half the trials it took subjects to reach that criterion.
The problems faced while conducting the study were that because it was a convenient sample, the participants
were willing to participate in the study at different times which to some extent caused difficulty in gathering
the data. The area used for conducting the experiment was also occupied by other students which may have
caused a hindrance and thus has disturbed the participants.
Conclusion
It was seen through the experiment and the instructions given that the performance of a task consisting of
intentional learning was better than the task consisting of incidental learning, thus proving the findings by the
researchers Hergenhahn and Lee (1965).
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
13/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
References
Bahrick, H. P (1957). Incidental learning at five stages of intentional learning. Journal of Experimental
psychology, 54, 259-261.
Biel,W.C., & Force, R.C. (1943) Retention of nonsense syllables in intentional and incidental learning. Journalof Experimental Psychology., 32, 52-63
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
14/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Chapman, D. W. (1932) Relative effects of determinate and indeterminate Aufgaben. American Journal of
Psychology, 44,163-174.
Gleitman, H., & Gillet, E. (1957) The effects of intention upon learning. Journal of general Psychology,
57,137-147
Hergenhahn, B. R., & Lee, P. (1965) Influence of degree of intentional learning upon the performance of an
incidental task. Psychological Reports, 16, 781-785
Jenkins, J.G. (1933) Instruction as a factor in incidental learning. American Journal of Psychology.,45,471-
477
Mclaughlin, B. (1965). Intentional and incidental learning in human subjects: the role of instructions to
learn and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 63(5), 359-376
Mulhall, E. F. (1915) Experimental studies in recall and recognition. American Journal of Psychology., 26,
217-228
Myers, G.C. (1913) A study of incidental memory. Archives of Psychology, 4(No. 26)
Poppelreuter,W. (1912) Nachweis der Unzweckmassigkeit die gebrauchlichen Associations experiment emit
sinnolsen Silben nach dem Erlernungs ind Tref ferverfahrun zur exakten Gewinnung elementarer
Reproduktionsgezetze zu verwenden. Zeitschrift fur Pschologie.,61,1-24
Postman, L., & Keppel, G. (Eds.). (1969). Verbal learning and memory. Middlesex, UK:Penguin Books.
Postman. L., & Adams P. A. (1958) Studies in incidental learning: VII. Effects of frequency of exercise and
length of list. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 86-94
Postman, L., Adams, P. A. Studies & Phillips, L. W. (1955) Incidental learning studies: II The effects of
associational value and of the method of tasting. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, _-10
Saltzman, I. J., & Atkinson, R. L. (1954) Comparisons of incidental and intentional learning
after different numbers of stimulus presentations. American Journal of Psychology, 67,
521-524.
Appendix 1:
Consent form
The influence of degree of intentional learning upon the performance of an incidental task.
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
15/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
The experiment is being conducted by Sakshi Jain of grade 12 IB Psychology Higher Level Class. This
consent form is being given to ask for permission to take part in my experiment which is to compare the
performance of an intentional task and incidental task.
The experiment will require you to memorize a list of words and recall them. Your results will be confidential
and will be available to you. The ethical considerations are implemented entirely, thus the participant will be
caused no harm or any discomfort. The participant holds the right to withdraw from the experiment at any
given point.
____________________
(Signature of participant)
____________________
(Name of participant)
__________________
(Date)
Appendix 2
Set of verbal instructions for Experimental Group 1
1. Please come in and take a seat at any of the tables
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
16/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
2. If you wish to withdraw at any point please let me know
3. You will be shown a list of 10 words with three syllables each on the memory drum shortly.
4. Please look at them silently and carefully.
5. After you have seen the words on the memory drum you will be required to wait for 30 seconds in
silence.
6. You will be shown the list of words again syllable by syllable.
7. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the words that you have seen on the slideshow
by writing them down on the paper in front of you.
8. Once you are done please put your pens down.
9. You will now be required to come back to the room after the task for experimental group 2 is over.
10. If you wish to withdraw your results please let me know now
11. If you dont, thank you very much. Your cooperation is much appreciated.
12. You can now leave the room.
13.After the control group have finished the experiment, you can enter again so that I can debrief
everyone on the aims and implications of the study.
14. Thank You very much for your time.
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
17/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Appendix 3
Set of verbal instruction for Experimental Group 2
1. Please come in and take a seat at any of the tables
2. If you wish to withdraw at any point please let me know
3. You will be shown a list of 10 words with three syllables each on the memory drum shortly.
4. Please look at them silently and carefully.
5. After you have seen the words on the memory drum you will be required to wait for 30 seconds in
silence.
6. You will be shown the list of words again syllable by syllable.
7. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the words that you have seen on the slideshow by
writing them down on the paper in front of you.
8. You will be given four trials in order to anticipate as many syllables possible.
9. Once you are done please put your pens down.
10. If you wish to withdraw your results please let me know now
11. If you dont, thank you very much. Your cooperation is much appreciated.
12. You can now leave the room.
13. After the control group and experimental group 2 have finished the experiment, you can enter again so
that I can debrief everyone on the aims and implications of the study.
14. Thank You very much for your time.
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
18/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Appendix 4
Set of verbal instruction for Experimental Group 1 and Experimental group 2
1. Please come in and take a seat at any of the tables
2. If you wish to withdraw at any point please let me know
3. You will be shown a list of 10 colours each on the memory drum shortly.
4. Please look at them silently and carefully.
5. After you have seen the words on the memory drum you will be required to wait for 30 seconds in
silence.
6. You will be shown the list of colours again.
7. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the colours that you have seen on the slideshow
by writing them down on the paper in front of you.
8. You will be given three trials in order to anticipate as many colours as possible.
9. Once you are done please put your pens down.
10. If you wish to withdraw your results please let me know now
11. If you dont, thank you very much. Your cooperation is much appreciated.
12. You can now leave the room.
13. After the control group and experimental group 2 have finished the experiment, you can enter again so
that I can debrief everyone on the aims and implications of the study.
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
19/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
14. Thank You very much for your time.
Appendix 4
Set of verbal instruction for Control Group
15. Please come in and take a seat at any of the tables
16. If you wish to withdraw at any point please let me know
17. You will be shown a list of 10 words with three syllables each on the memory drum shortly.
18. Please look at them silently and carefully.
19. After you have seen the words on the memory drum you will be required to wait for 30 seconds in
silence.
20. You will be shown the list of words again syllable by syllable.
21. Once I give the instructions you will be asked to recall the words that you have seen on the slideshow
by writing them down on the paper in front of you.
22. You will be given four trials in order to anticipate as many syllables possible.
23. Once you are done please put your pens down.
24. If you wish to withdraw your results please let me know now
25. If you dont, thank you very much. Your cooperation is much appreciated.
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
20/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
26. You can now leave the room.
27. After the control group and experimental group 2 have finished the experiment, you can enter again so
that I can debrief everyone on the aims and implications of the study.
28. Thank You very much for your time.
Appendix 5
List of Nonsense Syllables
1. BIX
2. CEB
3. QAH
4. VOE
5. ZUD
6. COJ
7. TIW
8. VOL
9. QUV
10. XET
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
21/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Appendix 6
List of Colours
1. Purple
2. Light Green
3. Orange
4. Light Blue
5. Yellow
6. Black
7. Pink
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
22/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
8. Dark Green
9. Red
10. Dark Blue
Appendix 5
Debriefing sheet
Thank you very much for participating in this experiment. I appreciate your help and thank you for your
time. Below is a description of the research rationale
The aims and implications of the study
The present study was based on the study done by Hergenhahn and Lee (1965), where incidental learning
was measured at various stages of intentional learning, where the there were two experimental groups
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
23/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
with two criterions had several trials for the 1st task and 3 consecutive trials for the second task and the
control group had an ambiguous task with 3 trials only.
This was because intentional learning is results in better performance compared to incidental learning.
Rights to withdraw data
You have now been fully informed of the purpose of the experiment and can understand how the results
will be used. If you have any reason against the usage of your result in the final analysis you have the
complete right to withdraw the data.
Appendix 6 :
Sample of 10 participants representing the number of trials and the total number of words recalled
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
24/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Name Trials
Total number of words
recalled
Experiment Group 1 (At least 4
words)
Participant 1 3 4
Participant 2 3 5
Participant 3 3 5Participant 4 3 6
Participant 5 3 5
Participant 6 3 4
Participant 7 3 4
Participant 8 3 6
Participant 9 3 7
Participant 10 3 5
Appendix 7 :
Sample of 10 participants representing the number of trials and the total number of words recalled
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
25/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Name Trials
Total number of words
recalled
Experiment
Group 1
(Atleast 8
words)
Participant 1 3 8
Participant 2 3 8
Participant 3 3 7
Participant 4 3 8
Participant 5 3 9
Participant 6 3 7
Participant 7 3 7
Participant 8 3 8
Participant 9 3 9
Participant 10 3 8
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
26/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Appendix 8:
Sample of 10 participants representing the number of trials and the total number of words recalled
Name Trials
Total number of words
recalled
Control
Group Participant
1 3 5
Participant
2 3 5
Participant
3 3 6
Participant
4 3 5
Participant
5 3 6
Participant6 3 2
Participant
7 3 4
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
27/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Participant8 3 3
Participant
9 3 4
Participant
10 3 5
Appendix 9:
Group Statistics
Name N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Numberofwordsrecalled Experimental Group
1
20 5.00 .973 .218
Control Group 20 4.45 1.932 .432
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
28/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Numberofwordsrecalled Equal variances
assumed
7.275 .010 1.137 38 .263
Equal variances not
assumed
1.137 28.058 .265
Appendix 10:
Group Statistics
Name N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Numberofwordsrecalled Experimental Group
2
20 7.95 .759 .170
Control Group 20 4.45 1.932 .432
8/2/2019 Psych Ia - UPDATED-Final
29/29
Sakshi Jain 002279-035
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Numberofwordsrecalled Equal variances
assumed
11.036 .002 7.539 38 .000
Equal variances not
assumed
7.539 24.728 .000
Top Related