Age's Impact on Recall: A Study of Cognitive Processing Effects

This report investigates the impact of age on the ability to process and recall information, focusing on the effects of age on semantic and non-semantic tasks. The study involved two subject groups, young and old, who performed incidental learning tasks. The experiment included non-semantic analyzing power and semantic process analysis tasks, along with a control (intentional) task. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the effect of age on in-depth analysis, dividing the data into 2age x 5orienting tasks. The results indicate that age-related depletion affects incidental learning, particularly in the ability to process tasks deeply. The study explores the processing-deficit hypothesis, suggesting that age-related recall decreases as the depth of processing increases. Variables such as age group, gender, and different task groups were considered, with gender later excluded due to its insignificant effect. The report includes a detailed methodology, results including normality checks and sample size comparisons, and a discussion of the findings in relation to existing literature. The study aimed to determine whether age influences the depth of processing effects on recall, contributing to the understanding of age-related cognitive changes. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and study tools for students.

Impact of Age on Capabilities to
Process Recall
Student Name: Student ID:
Unit Name: Unit ID:
1 | P a g e

Abstract
Incidental learning tasks were performed by two subject groups old and young. The effect of age
was studied on semantic and non-semantic tasks. Two tasks involved non-semantic analysing
power whereas other two included semantic process analysis. One control (intentional) task was
also performed. Using descriptive statistics the effect of age on in depth analysis was studied by
dividing the experiment data into 2age x 5orienting tasks. The results clarified the effect of age
related depletion in incidental learning which is evident from the ability of depth of processing
the tasks.
2 | P a g e

Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................2
Table of Tables............................................................................................................................................3
1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4
2.0 Method..................................................................................................................................................6
3.0 Results...................................................................................................................................................9
4.0 Discussion............................................................................................................................................15
5.0 Reference Lists.....................................................................................................................................17
6.0 Appendix..............................................................................................................................................20
Table of Tables
Table 1: Mean number of words recalled as a function of Age Group and Recall pattern.........................13
Table 2: Age * Recall type measures.........................................................................................................13
Table 3: F values for k-clustering data......................................................................................................15
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for the entire recall pattern........................................................................20
Table 5: Multivariate Test results for the sample......................................................................................21
Table 6: Within- subjects effects and analysis...........................................................................................22
Table 7: Within- subjects contrasts analysis..............................................................................................22
Table 8: Test result between- Subjects effects..........................................................................................23
Table 9: Estimated marginal means...........................................................................................................23
Table 10: Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa............................................................................24
Table 11: Pair-wise Comparisons of recall types.................................................................................24
Table 12: Multivariate Tests results...........................................................................................................25
Table 13: Normality test of the sample based on gender..........................................................................26
Table 14: Normality test of the sample based on gender..........................................................................27
3 | P a g e

Table 15: Independent sample t-test for gender.......................................................................................27
Table 16: Recall with imagery test.............................................................................................................28
Table 17: Recall with counting test............................................................................................................28
Table 18: Recall with adjective test...........................................................................................................28
Table 19: Recall with rhyming test............................................................................................................29
Table 20: Recall with control test..............................................................................................................29
Table of figures
Figure 1: A priori sample size G-Power normality curve............................................................................11
Figure 2: Box plot of the two genders.......................................................................................................12
Figure 3: Box plot of the two age groups...................................................................................................12
Figure 4: Profile plot of estimated Marginal means of two age groups.....................................................26
Figure 5: Power curve for normality test...................................................................................................27
4 | P a g e

1.0 Introduction
Learning is the process of human development from childhood through adulthood
(Botwinick 2013). Various psychologists have defined and segregated cognitive and learning
skill developmental according to age groups. Psychology based experiments conducted by well-
known scholars depicts that younger people are at more advantage in learning compared to older
adults, who are less likely to be amendable. The scope of the current study aims at analyzing the
following research question; Does age influence depth of processing effects on recall?
Significance of the Study: Craik (1968) in his experiment found that while easy learning such as
recalling color names did not have much distinction amongst age groups, there was differential
learning when tested for scrambled proverbs and texts(Eysenck 1974). Studies depict that coding
capabilities in cases of color names is highly different compared to textual materials. Craik and
Lockhart (1972) concluded that coding capabilities associated with proverbs or scrambled texts
includes greater degree of cognitive or semantic analysis. Young are capable of process of
remembering information in greater depths as compared to their older counterparts, it is assumed
to be working hypothesis with the gap being processing-deficit hypothesis (Lee 2013). From the
hypothesis taking together an assumption of retention being directly linked to processing depth, a
large number of testable deductions are arrived at.
In order to test for processing-deficit hypothesis multiple incidental-learning paradigm
can be applied. In a study conducted by Hyde and Jenkins (1973), participants were asked to
perform orienting tasks with list of words but they were not alarmed regarding recalling of t hose
words (Kausler 1965). Each of the orienting tasks differed on basis of their processing
requirements. While recalling of orienting task, there was a prerequisite regarding their
processing needs for understanding whether these words needed to be semantically processed.
5 | P a g e

Semantic tasks involved detailed processing of information hence needed more recalling
compared to other tasks. According to the hypothesis of processing-deficit, age-related recall
decreases as depth of processing of a task increases.
Variables: Age group, gender, 5 different task groups were variables of the study. Gender was
later excluded from variable list due to the fact that it did not have significant effect on the
number of words recalled by the subjects.
Hypothesis: The study consisted of the null hypothesis which was as follows:
H0: Age does not have any effect on the in depth processing for recalling information
Earlier studies aimed at analysing incidental learning at different ages in an adult’s life-
span have not been able to conclude (Alfieri 2011). Conclusions derived from these studies have
mostly been haphazard as some studies depict decreasing effects on age-based learning, whereas
insignificant deterioration was noted as age progressed. All the studies conducted earlier reflects
minor experimental control on subjects with incidental elements, therefore an effort to establish
connection between age and incidental based learning was not successful. This study attaches
great importance of natural learning with incidental variety, which is a systematic probe rather
than connecting realistic data of age-related learning (Gegenfurtner 2012).
6 | P a g e

2.0 Method
Participants: The study had followed appropriate research methods to allow it arrive at results
easily. The research design included 5 X 2 factorial analysis of variance model, where 5 is the
Orientating Task and 2 is the Age, both factors consisted of between subjects. Tasks were
assigned randomly to 10 groups of participants, where each group comprised of 5 female and 5
male participants.
Subjects
In order to conduct the study fifty college students were taken into consideration. The
participants took part in the study for exchange of either a payment or as a part of their course
needs. The participants in the study were within age of 18 years to 30 years of age along with
older participants, school teachers who were 50 in number of age 55 years to 65 years old. When
the two groups were given Mill hill Vocabulary Scale, their test results did not differ
significantly. This result reflected that sample participants selected were superior as per
educational levels. Sample selected was from urban middle class.
Ethics: The scholar for the purpose of this study has adopted ethical procedure. The scholar has
obtained permission from individual participants, prior to conducting the study. The objective of
the study and all other relevant details were discussed. The scholar did not disclose any personal
details like name, address, contact details or any other details in the study, thus maintaining the
confidentiality agreement. The scholar obtained ethics approval from ethics committee and
2017/123 as ethics number.
7 | P a g e

Materials
In order to conduct the experiment, nine categories of Battig and Montague (1969) norms was
accommodated by a 27 word list of three high-dominance members. The words given were in
English Language from one syllable and two other words rhyming with other words were used.
But within the list none of the words rhymed with each other, with the list being arranged in
random manner, apart from successive exemplars within a category, which were separated by a
minimum of three intervening words from separate categories. For clarity of information and
highlighting the same, words were printed in capital letters of 2.5 centimeters high on separate
cards measuring 10 X 20 centimeters.
Data Analysis: IV & DV
The independent variable between the groups was taken as age group whereas gender was
neglected for the study. The five different types of tasks were taken as the within the groups
dependent variables.
Tasks
The experiment made use of five orienting tasks which were self-paced and given to individual
participants for responding.
Letter Counting: The participants were asked to conduct counting and then recording number
of letters of words throughout the pack of cards (Bal 2011). In the second round through the pack
of cards, participants were made to record post counting the number of consonants present in
each word. Last time, participants had to count and then record number of letters of words before
the letter M in the words.
8 | P a g e

Rhyming: In this task participants had to figure a word that rhymed with another word in the
list. Then they had to say out the rhyming words aloud. As they were on the verge of completing
pack of cards, they were made to go through the pack again and brainstorm another rhyming
word for each word (Kausler 2012). Participants could go through the pack for another time in
case of availability of time in case they could think of another rhyming word for words provided.
Adjective: In this, task participants had to identify a modifying adjective from the list of words
and say it loud. In this task as well, participants had to go through the pack for the second time
for brainstorming a different adjective for modifying adjective within word list (Arciuli 2011). In
this task also, participants had to go through the pack again for another adjective in case time
was there.
Imagery: In this task participants had to develop an image of words present in the list. Each of
the images had to be then rated on a 5-point scale from 1 to 5, where 1 implied no image and 5
was depiction of clear and vivid normal vision. Participants upon completion of the pack had to
rate again regarding prominence of the image (Christman 2011). Participants were asked to
rerate images again in case time permitted.
Control (Intentional): Participants had to work systematically through the pack for learning as
many words they could. In this task also participants had to go through the pack for second and
third time in case time was there.
Procedure
The experiment followed by procedure that was determined prior to conducting the same. In the
various tasks that was conducted throughout the experiment, each participants selected were
tested individually (Lee 2013). Participants were advised to gradually progress on the task, but
9 | P a g e

would have to move on to the next one. It would only happen in case participant spent more than
10 seconds in a particular task. Each participant was given cards to work at his own rate. In all
totality of conditions analyzed, participants had gone through 150 seconds for conducting the
task or while working through the pack. In order to write for free recall, participants were given
10 minutes post removal of list (Melton 2014). Participants at the end were interviewed
regarding whether they could understand if they would be required to recall.
3.0 Results
Normality of the data
A normality check was performed for the given data. The female subject inclusive of
both age groups yielded a measure of 0.521 for skewness and -0.803 for kurtosis along with
0.319, 0.628 for respective standard errors. The skewness z-value for female subject was 1.633
and -1.278 which were within the limits of -1.96 to 1.96 under 5% level of significance. The
male subject similarly yielded skewness z-value of 1.45 and -0.8646 for 5% level of significance.
Similar analysis for the young (skewness z-value was0.1276 and-2.0755) and older subjects
(skewness z-value was 2.7003 and 2.0846) also showed that the data was significantly not
normal. From Shapiro-Wilk test we got significance value less than 0.05 for gender as well as
age group analysis (table 13 and 14 of Appendix).
10 | P a g e

Sample size comparison to an estimated a priori sample size
A study was performed regarding the sample size using G*Power with 5 groups of recall
types consisting of 20 subjects each. Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s-d as 1.23083
power of the test was taken as 0.95. The effect size was determined taking 5 within sample
groups and their means. The graphical plot for F-test along with the critical F (3.05557) value
plot justified the sample size of 20 for analysis. The result was used for mixed ANOVA later.
From the value of the Cohen’s-d it was evident that sample size of 20 was sufficiently large for
our purpose (figure 5 Appendix).
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
critical F =3.05557
αβ
Figure 1: A priori sample size G-Power normality curve
Gender independence of the recall data
The recall scores were analysed with the gender. An analysis of variance was used for
this purpose and it was established from the almost equal means that gender did not differ
significantly on the basis of number of recalls. The calculated test statistic value of 0.574 (t-
statistic) was well inside the acceptance region of the null hypothesis that both gender group
11 | P a g e

irrespective of age group were almost similar in semantic or non-semantic recall pattern. So
gender was not a factor in the main analysis of data.
Figure 2: Box plot of the two genders
Figure 3: Box plot of the two age groups
12 | P a g e