This article was downloaded by: [Carnegie Mellon University]On: 05 November 2014, At: 21:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of GeneralPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgen20

First-Letter Mnemonics: Dam(Don't Aid Memory)Les Carlson a , John W. Zimmer a & John A. Glover aa The University of Nebraska , USAPublished online: 06 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Les Carlson , John W. Zimmer & John A. Glover (1981) First-Letter Mnemonics: Dam (Don't Aid Memory), The Journal of General Psychology,104:2, 287-292, DOI: 10.1080/00221309.1981.9921047

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1981.9921047

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

49 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of General Psychology, 1981, 104, 287-292

FIRST-LETTER MNEMONICS: DAM (DON’T AID MEMORY)*’

The University of Nebraska

LES CARLSON, JOHN W. ZIMMER, AND JOHN A. GLOVER

SUMMARY

A review of the first-letter mnemonic literature revealed inconsistent re- sults and a series of interesting areas for additional study. The current study examined the effect on male and female Ss (N = 72) of first-letter mnemonics in five conditions, training plus S-generated mnemonics, training plus E - generated mnemonics, a replication of Bower’s pegword system plus first- letter mnemonics, the pegword system alone, and a control condition. No facilitative effect was observed for first-letter mnemonics on either immedi- ate or delayed recall, despite the Ss’ reports of correct use of the mnemonic devices.

A. INTRODUCTION

I t seems to be one characteristic of humans that they forget what they have learned (2) . As a consequence, memory aids or mnemonics have been developed to aid recall. Mnemonic devices have been in use since the early Greeks ( 2 , 12), but only recently have they been empirically studied (8).

One form of mnemonic which has received considerable interest recently is the first-letter (FL) mnemonic. F L mnemonics are memory aids based on the use of the first letters in words. For example COBRA is a first-letter- mnemonic word for the following list: cherry, orange, banana, raspberry, and apple.

FL mnemonic research has yielded inconsistent results (7). F L mnemonics are evidently highly popular methods of memorization, frequently cited by students as a good way to study (3). However, empirical support for the effectiveness of FL mnemonics is scanty. Nelson and Archer (8) demon- strated facilitative effects of E-generated F L mnemonics on Ss’ short-term

* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on August 26, 1980.

Reprints are available from any one of the authors at the address shown at the end of this Copyright, 1981, by The Journal Press.

article.

2 8 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

49 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

288 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

recall. Boltwood and Blick ( l ) , Grunberg (3) and Waite, Blick and Boltwood (lo), however, all reported no significant effect of F L mnemonics. More recently Morris and Cook ( 7 ) found no facilitative effect for FL mnemonics with unrelated words but did find a significantly facilitative effect for re- calling the order of previously memorized items.

A review of F L mnemonic literature revealed several possible areas for further investigation. First, measures of immediate and delayed recall have not been consistently included in the same studies. Second, the amount of material to be learned typically has not exceeded that amount which Ss are able to hold conveniently in short-term memory without aides of any sort. Miller’s (6) classic paper clearly points out the possibility of holding fewer than seven (plus or minus two) items in memory without significant strain. Third, only Morris and Cook ( 7 ) have fully addressed the issue of meaning- fulness in the to-be-learned material with respect to the schematic scaffold- ing ofsubjects as opposed to numbers drawn from Paivio’s (9) concreteness scale. Fourth, information on whether or not Ss knew how to formulate and use F L mnemonics has not been fully described. The simplest possible ac- counting for the nonfacilitative effects observed in previous research would be that the Ss were unfamiliar with the use of F L mnemonics, even con- sidering the fact that many Ss report the use of these devices (10).

The current study was designed to assess the effectiveness of both S- and E-generated F L mnemonics on both short- and long-term recall. Addition- ally, the to-be-learned information was varied from thematically related lists of words to lists of unrelated words. Meaningfulness of the materials was manipulated via the use of a pegword system ( 2 , 1 1 ) .

B . METHOD

1 . Subjects and Setting

Seventy-two male and female undergraduates enrolled in introductory educational psychology participated in the study in order to fulfill a course requirement. All Ss were tested individually by the E in a consultative office at times convenient to the Ss across a three-week period of time.

2 . Materials

All S s were administered eight lists of five words developed from Paivio’s (9) Concreteness scale. The lists contained words that varied between 6.17 and 6.77 on imagery values, 5.84 and 7.04 on “meaningfulness” values, and 6.2 1 and 7.70 on concreteness values. Additionally, four of the five words of each list had frequencies of 20+ per million, while the fifth word had a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

49 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

LES CARLSON, JOHN W. ZIMMER, AND JOHN A. GLOVER 289

frequency of 8 or less per million. Four of the lists contained unrelated words, while the other four contained words which were thematically consis- tent (e.g., five kinds of fruit, five kinds of trees, five parts of automobiles, etc.).

The E-generated FL mnemonics were also based on Paivio’s (9) scale. There were equal numbers of abstract (3.65) and concrete (6.72) F L w,ords (two abstract and two concrete for each set of four lists), all of which had “meaningfulness” values exceeding 4.68 with frequencies of 20+ per million. Imagery values ranged from 6.2 1 to 6.55 for the E-generated FL mnemonic words.

An intervening task was developed for the purpose of limiting the possi- bilities of Ss’ rehearsal of list material between the immediate- and delayed- recall trials. This task was based on the Wide Range Achievement Test (4) and consisted of a series of math problems at a moderate level of difficulty.

3. General Procedures Ss were randomly assigned to one of five treatment conditions described

below. Each S received the eight lists ordered at random and was asked to memorize the lists according to the specific treatment conditions. Ss were allowed to study each list for one minute after which the list was removed. Ss were then asked to recall the list on a response sheet. One minute was allowed for the recall of each list.

When the eighth list was completed, Ss were given worksheets containing math problems and directed to work as rapidly as possible. After five min- utes, the Ss were given a delayed-recall test. Responses were made on a s8heet where the first word of each list was presented. One minute was allowed for completion of the delayed-recall task.

4. Experimental Conditions Condition one included a demonstration of FL mnemonic development

and use-plus-S-generated mnemonics for the lists. Ss demonstrated to the E at least one correct use of FL mnemonics prior to list presentations.

Condition two included the demonstration of FL mnemonic development and use-plus-E-generated FL mnemonics furnished with each list. Again, Ss demonstrated to the E at least one correct use of F L mnemonics prior to list presentations.

Condition three consisted of a direct replication of Bower’s (2) pegword system. Ss demonstrated one correct use of pegwords prior to list presenta- tion.

Condition four included the pegword system plus E -generated F L

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

49 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

2 90 JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

mnemonics accompanying each list. Ss demonstrated the correct use of at least one FL mnemonic and pegword prior to list presentation.

Condition five was the control, in which no mention was made of mnemonics. but Ss were instead asked to memorize the lists via serial recall.

C. RESULTS

A repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted over the recall- of-related-words results, utilizing the number of words recalled as the de- pendent variable and the treatment conditions 6s the independent variable. No significant differences were observed on the immediate-recall measure or on the delayed-recall measure.

Similarly, a repeated-measures analysis of variance was computed over the unrelated-words results, again utilizing number of words recalled as the dependent variable and treatment conditions as the independent variable. A significant difference was observed on the immediate-recall measure (F = 3.64, p < .01) but not on the delayed-recall measure. The results are pre- sented in Table 1.

The Scheff6 multiple comparison test was then utilized to locate the dif- ferences observed in the unrelated words measure. The pegword plus FL mnemonic condition resulted in significantly lower scores than the E generated mnemonic (F = 7.66, p < .01) and the control condition (F = 10.50, p < .01). No significant differences were observed between S- generated mnemonics and the pegwords-without-FL-mnemonic conditions. However, the S-generated menmonic and the pegwords-without-FG mnemonic conditions resulted in significantly lower scores than the E - generated mnemonic condition ( F = 3.19, p < .05) and the control ( F = 4.00, p < .01). No significant difference was observed between the E - generated mnemonic condition and the control condition.

Finally, a two-tailed dependent t test was performed on the 72 initial- recall pairs of words (related and unrelated) and again on the 72 delayed- recall pairs of words. Significantly greater numbers of related words were recalled in the initial recall ( t7 , = 4.76, p < . O l ) , as well as on the delayed-recall tests (t,, = 24.24, p < .01).

D. DISCUSSION The results indicated that none of the mnemonic conditions was superior

to the control group in recall of either related or unrelated words. In fact, all conditions save the E -generated FL mnemonics resulted in poorer perfor- mance than the control condition.

These results generally agree with the findings of Boltwood and Blick (l) ,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

49 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

TA

BL

E 1

T

RE

AT

ME

NT

MEA

NS

AN

D S

TA

ND

AR

D DE

VIA

TIO

NS

Con

ditio

n

Imm

edia

te r

ecal

l R

elat

ed

Unr

elat

ed

Mea

n SD

Mea

n S

D

Del

ayed

rec

all

Rel

ated

U

nrel

ated

M

ean

SD

Mea

n SD

1. S

ubje

ct-g

ener

ated

19

.8

.56

18.4

7 1.

99

2. E

xper

imen

ter-

gene

rate

d 19

.86

,315

19.6

4 1.

08

3. P

egw

ords

onl

y 19

.71

.83

18.5

7 1.

78

4. P

egw

ords

with

fir

st-

19.8

6 .3

5 17

.67

2.58

5. C

ontr

ol

19.8

6 .3

6 19

.79

.43

lett

er m

nem

onic

16.9

3 2.

71

8.3

3.69

16

.79

2.67

10

.29

3.54

18

.42

1.39

7.

93

2.81

17

.73

2.60

7.

93

2.28

17.6

4 2.

13

10.3

6 3.

34

Q

0

E z r +

0 m z N

\D i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

49 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

292 JOURNAL O F GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY

Grunberg ( 3 ) , Morris and Cook ( 7 ) , and Waite et al. (lo), but disagree with the results presented by Nelson and Archer (8). Surprisingly, no advantage was evidenced with S-generated mnemonics or pegword systems. Predict- ably, significantly more related words were recalled than unrelated words over all, although no condition enhanced this effect. Informal debriefing of Ss indicated that those in the experimental groups had, in fact, utilized the mnemonics as instructed while those in the control group had not. Ss in the control group reported serial rehearsal of the lists during learning; none reported the use of mnemonics.

Given the results of the current study and those of previous researchers, it seems that FL mnemonics are not effective memory aids as employed here. Why FL mnemonics should not have a facilitative effect is not clear, espe- cially in light of the facilitative effects of other forms of mnemonics. Perhaps the most reasonable hypotheses to account for this lack of effect noted here are, first, that F L mnemonics do not in any way increase the meaningfulness (5) of the to-be-learned array@); and, second, that not enough study time was allowed for the students to benefit fully from the mnemonics.

REFERENCES

1 .

2 . 3.

4 .

5 .

6.

7 .

8.

9.

10.

1 1 . 12.

BOLTWOOD, C. R., & BLICK, K. A. The delineation and application of three mnemonic

BOWER, G. H. Analysis of a mnemonic device. Amer. S c i . , 1970, 58, 496-510. GRUNBERG, M. The role of memorization techniques in finals examination preparation.

JASTAK, J. F., & JASTAK, S. Wide Range Achievement Test, Jastak Assessment Systems.

JENKINS, J. J . Remember that old theory of memory? Well, forget it! Amer. Psychol. ,

MILLER, G . A. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity

MORRIS, P. E. , & COOK, N . When do first letter mnemonics aid recall. Brit . J . Educ.

NELSON, D. L., & ARCHER, C. S. The first letter mnemonic. J . Educ. Psychol. , 1972,63,

PAIVIO, A, , YUILLE, J. C., & MADIGAN, S. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness

WAITE, C. J . , BLICK, K. A , , & BOLTWOOD, C. E. Prior use of the first letter technique.

WOOD, G . Mnemonic systems in recall. J . Educ. Psychol. , 1967, 58, 1-27. YATES, F. A. The Art of Memory. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1966

techniques. Psychon. S c i . , 1970, 20, 339-341.

Educ. Res., 1973, 15, 134-139.

Wilmington, Del.: Jastak Assoc. 1978, 13-14.

1974, 29, 785-795.

for processing information. Psychol. Rev . , 1956, 63, 81-97.

Psychol., 1978, 48, 22-28.

482-486.

values for 925 nouns. J. Exper. Psychol. Monog., 1968, 76, (No. 1, Pt. 2), 1-25.

Psychol. Rep. , 1971, 29, 630.

Department of Educational Psychology and Measurements The University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, Nebraska 68588

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

49 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014