Author: admin

Lab #2Personality and Motivation

Introduction

Locus of control is discussed in Chapter 12. People with an internal locus of control believe reward depends on their own behaviour while those with an external locus of control see reward as dependent on chance or fate.

Achievement motivation is discussed in Chapter 11. Research suggests that the motive to achieve success and the motive to avoid failure are different but related aspects of what motivates us to undertake tasks.

Your job is to write a paragraph providing some background information about these variables that lead to the hypotheses. There is much more information on these topics than what is in your text.

Hypotheses

Your first task is to determine a reasonable hypothesis (prediction) for the relationship you expect between locus of control and achievement motivation. You need to make two predictions: one for each aspect of motivation. You may develop a further hypothesis if you wish.

Method

Subjects:

Again we are going to analyse the data for 10 subjects but your job is to give the psychological tests to one subject. You must then submit your findings to the teaching assistant who will post them on D2L. Send your name and the scores for each variable: external locus of control, motive to achieve success and motive to avoid failure. Also include the age, and gender of your subject. If you submit these two weeks ahead of the due date, you will earn two points; one week ahead, you can earn one point.

Materials:

Procedure:Each subject should complete both scales. Half the subjects should be given the Locus of Control Scale first; the other half should begin with the Motivation Scale.

Results

1. Score the Locus of Control Scale. The internal alternative is on the left. The external is on the right. Give one point for every external choice. The higher the score, the more external the locus of control. Scores can range between 0 and 10.
2. Score the Motivation Scale. Add the scores for the odd questions (1, 3, 5, 7, 9). This is the score for motive to achieve success. Now add the even items (2, 4, 6, 8, 10). This is the motive to avoid failure score. For each scale, scores can range between 5 and 35.
3. In a table, report the data for the 10 subjects for Locus of Control, motive to achieve success, and motive to avoid failure. Also provide the mean scores for the three variables.
4. Plot scattergrams for the Locus of Control score and each of the achievement scores. (You should have 10 points of data in each plot.) Scatterplots are discussed in Chapter 1. Interpret the relationships shown in the scattergrams in terms of strength and direction.

Discussion

1. We scored our scale to reflect external locus of control. What does that tell us about internal locus of control? Could we have scored our scale to reflect internal locus of control instead?
2. Discuss the relationship between Locus of Control and achievement motivation. Did your scatterplots confirm your predictions?
3. Should peoples scores on the two motives differ? Did they? Why?
4. You might design further experiments or include other research you have read.
5. If you made further predictions, be sure to discuss them.

……I did one set of data and it is as follows, so please include:

Participant

Gender

Age

List A

(Locus of Control)

Total # Internal /10

Total # External /10

List B (Motivation)

Total odd /35

(motive to achieve success)

Total even /35 (motive to avoid failure

1

Male

47

List A (First)

6

4

List B

(Second)

25

20

Here is the textbook we use.:

References

Myers, D.G., DeWall, C.N., & Gruber, J. (2024). Psychology (14th ed.). MacMillan Publishers.

I also hoave a pdf file but too large to load here.

…………………

Here is an example i did for this class and got 100% :

Purpose

Memory, as Myers et al. (2024) explain, is learning that persists over time (p. 1086), and relies on a process that encodes, stores, and retrieves information. A key finding in this area is the serial position effect, which shows that people tend to recall the first and last items in a list better than those in the middle. The primacy effect occurs because more time is spent “rehearsing the earlier names (Myers et al., 2024, p. 1146), allowing deeper processing and long-term storage. The recency effect reflects the advantage of the last items being still in the working memory (Myers et al., 2024, p. 1146) at the time of recall. When an interference task, such as counting backwards, is added immediately after the list, this disrupts your recall (Myers et al., 2024, p. 1163), effectively weakening the recency effect. This experiment investigates how recall differs before and after interference, with two main hypotheses: (1) The first and last items in the list will be better recalled than the middle items; (2) After interference is introduced, the first items will be better recalled than the others.

Method

Subjects

Data were collected from 10 participants. One data set (participant 1) was collected by the researcher, while nine were contributed by classmates. Participants were tested either in person or online. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 55 years old, with a mean age of 36.5 years. The sample consisted of 40% male and 60% female participants.

Apparatus

1. Two Lists of 12 words:

• List A: Carrots, Paper, Ribbon, Shoes, Table, Flower, Beans, Umbrella, Skates, Coffee, Blanket, Crackers.
• List B: Banana, Pencil, Rabbit, Socks, Chair, Plant, Lentils, Raincoat, Slide, Latte, Duvet, Cookies.

1. A timer
2. Paper and pencil
3. A score sheet (the researcher develops anything necessary to score)

Procedure

Participants were informed that they would be shown a list of words for 30 seconds and instructed to remember as many as possible. List A was given to the participant, who was then allowed 30 seconds to study the list of 12 words. After 30 seconds, the list was removed from the participants view. Participants were then asked to verbally recall as many words as they could remember in any order. The researcher recorded the participants’ responses by noting the order in which each word was recalled next to the corresponding word on the score sheet. For example, if the first word called was carrots, a number 1 was written beside carrot on the score sheet, so on and so forth for the following words recalled. For this step, minor variations in word forms were accepted as correct; for example, shoe instead of shoes would have been correct. Participants were given a 2-minute break after this step. Next, participants were presented with list B and were given 30 seconds to study it. After 30 seconds, list B was removed. Participants were then instructed to count backwards from 30 to 1. After the participants finished counting, they were asked to recall and list as many words from list B as possible, in any order. The researcher recorded participants’ responses on the score sheet using the same method as from the first list. This process was repeated with 10 participants. One participants data were collected directly by the researcher, while the other nine came from a student discussion forum.

Results

Table 1 shows individual recall scores by category (primacy, middle, recency) for each participant, grouped by gender, age, list type (A or B), serial position category, group averages, and standard deviations (SD). The total mean recall for list A (no interference) was 7.1 out of 12 (SD = 2.32), while a higher total for list B (after interference) was 7.5 (SD = 2.76). Data from Table 1 show that every participant recalled at least some of the primacy words during both trials, whereas fewer were recalled in the middle and recency categories.

Table 1

Data Sample – Effects of List Order and Interference on Word-List Memory

Participant

Gender

Age

List

Total words recalled /12

Primacy words recalled (14)

Middle words

Recalled (5-8)

Recency words recalled (9-12)

List A – No Interference

Figure 1 illustrates the mean recall for the different serial position categories. The mean recall for primacy words (blue bars) was 2.8 out of 4, compared to 2.2 for middle words and 2.1 for recency words.

List B – After Interference

For List B, represented by the red bars in Figure 1, the mean primacy score of 2.8 remained stable and was highest among all positions. The middle mean score increased to 2.7 words, while the recency score decreased slightly to 2.0. These changes allow for a direct comparison with List A to understand how interference affected memory recall patterns.

Discussion

List A provides partial support for the serial position effect, as the mean recall for primacy words (2.8) was higher than that for the middle words (2.2). This result aligns with the primacy effect, which suggests that increased rehearsal of the initial items led to the information becoming more ingrained as it was encoded and transferred into long-term memory.

Recency scores from List A (2.1) did not exceed those of the middle group, contrary to the initial hypothesis. Normally, a full serial position effect also includes a strong recency effect, where the last items are remembered because they remain in working memory (Myers et al., 2024, p. 1146). In this case, the recency words had the lowest average recall at 2.0, but there was only a small difference (0.1) between the recency and middle means. Several uncontrolled variables may explain these lower-than-expected recency averages, including the small sample size, participant age, emotional state during testing, word familiarity, and recall strategies used. For instance, one participant reported not paying attention to timing in the first trial and was unable to fully read the list, therefore, an encoding failure occurred, leading to the exclusion of three words, which may have influenced the results.

The results from List B following the retroactive interference task indicate that the mean primacy score remained at 2.8 (the highest category) with only a slight increase in variability. This outcome supports the second hypothesis that, after interference, the first words are better recalled than the others. The stability of the primacy means that, even after interference, it was demonstrated that the explicit memories for the primacy words were better protected.

The recency score in List B declined further, from 2.1 to 2.0, which is consistent with the understanding of memory and the serial position effect. With interference at play, active processing was disrupted, and the words from the recency group may have faded due to the disruption and their limited life (Myers et al., 2024, p. 1104). As shown in Figure 1, the more fragile information from the recency group was disrupted.

Understanding interference and memory can help people improve their memory and recall by using strategies that optimize encoding to effectively store memories long-term. Myers et al. (2024) suggest using memory aids such as chunking (categorizing information to make it manageable), and mnemonics (using association, acronyms, and imagery)

The results of this study appear to mostly support the idea that serial position effects warrant some considerations in real-world settings. The serial position effect explains why memory often sags in the middle (Myers et al., 2024, p. 1147), and knowing this can help improve our understanding and strategies for memory. For example, studying before sleeping can reduce interference and boost performance (Myers et al., 2024, p. 1186). Getting more sleep also reinforces long-term memories, while a lack of sleep can harm learning (Myers et al., 2024, p. 1186).

An alternative experiment could manipulate key variables to examine their effect on memory. For example, use the original procedure but change the room temperature. In the first trial, set the room to a hot temperature and have participants complete the memory task with lists A, then B, as per the procedure. Next, use a cold temperature and repeat the tasks. After both, compare the results to see if temperature affects memory. Other possible variables to explore could be stress levels, time of day, or using visual images instead of words to measure any change in recall with each of those variables. These experiments may offer new insights into memory performance and will hopefully help researchers better understand how memory functions and ways it can be improved.

Summary

With a sample of 10 participants, this study investigated the serial position effect and memory interference. A word list was recalled immediately (List A – no interference) or after counting backward (List B – after interference). Results from List A showed a partial demonstration of the serial position effect, with primacy scoring highest. Interference in List B protected primacy but lowered recency, demonstrating that interference successfully disrupted the limited capacity of the working memory.

References

Myers, D.G., DeWall, C.N., & Gruber, J. (2024). Psychology (14th ed.). MacMillan Publishers.