STEP: Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity [35090]

This article applies to:

E-Prime 3.0

E-Prime 1.0

Detail

Experiment Author: Conway, A.R.A., & Engle, R.W., Adapted from STEP and used with permission of Brian MacWhinney

Experiment Description

This experiment takes a standard operation span test, where participants alternate between solving math problems and learning words then recall the words at the end and modifies it to adjust for the difficulty of the operations.

One of the hypotheses that has been put forth to explain individual differences in operation span tasks is that some people are more able to do the intevening tasks, so they have more resources left over to rehearse or remember the words. This experiment controls for that by making the math problems more difficult for those who are more able to do them.

The basic format is a standard operation span test, followed by a set of different kinds of math problems to determine math ability, then an operation span test adjusted for math difficulty.

Experiment Instructions

This experiment uses three critical procedures and lists to present math equations and words. Participants solve a math equation and then a word is shown after each equation. After six words and equations, participants are asked to recall each word shown, typing on a keyboard.

Experiment Citation

Conway, A.R.A., & Engle, R.W. (1996). Individual differences in working memory capacity: More evidence for a general capacity theory. Memory 4, 577-590.

Experiment Abstract or Original Experiment Abstract

The causes of the positive relationship between comprehension and measures of working memory capacity remain unclear. This study tests three hypotheses for the relationship by equating the difficulty, for 48 individual subjects, of processing demands in complex working memory tasks. Even with difficulty of processing equated, the relationship between number of words recalled in the working memory measure and comprehension remained high and significant. The results favor a general capacity view. We suggest that high working memory span subjects have more limited-capacity attentional resources available to them than low span subjects and that individual differences in working memory capacity will have implications for any task that requires controlled effortful processing.

Works Cited by the Experiment

Anderson, J.R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451-474.

Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.

Cantor, J., & Engle, R.W. (1993). Working memory capacity as long-term memory activation: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 5, 1101-1114.

Cantor, J., Engle, R.W., & Hamilton, G. (1991). Short-term memory, working memory, and verbal abilities. How do they relate? Intelligence, 15, 229-246.

Carrol, J.B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). Word frequency book. New York: American Heritage.

Case, R. (1974). Structures and strictures, some functional limitations on the course of cognitive growth. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 544-573.

Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York: Academic Press.

Case, R., Kurland, M.D., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386-404.

Conway, A.R.A, & Engle, R.W. (1994). Working memory and retrieval: A resource-dependent inhibition model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 354-373.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.

Engle, R.W. (1995). Individual differences in memory and tehir implications for learning. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of intelligence. New York: MacMillan.

Engle, R.W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J.J. (1992). Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 972-992.

Engle, R.W., Nations, J.K., & Cantor, J. (1990). Is working memory capacity just another name for word knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 799-804.

LaPointe, L.B., & Engle, R.W. (1990). Simple and complex word spans a measures of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1118-1133.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages. Acta Psychologia, 63, 301-345.

Schneider, W. (1988). Micro-Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 20, 206-217.

Towse, J.N., & Hitch, G.J. (1995). Is there a relationship between task demand and storage space in tests of working memory capacity? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 108-124.

Turner, M.L., & Engle, R.W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.