The collected data from all students (4 participants per student) is available HERE

Note: you’ll want to download this CSV file
on Windows, right click and select “Save as” or something similar
on Mac, Ctrl+click and select “Download linked file as…”
Your next step will be to (1) analyze the data, and (2) write up the results in an APA manuscript.

Data analysis:

Compute the mean solution times for anagrams 1 through 6 for the two conditions separately. Prepare a single graph showing any changes in solution times over successive problems for each of the two conditions.
Determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between mean solution times on the list for the organized and unrelated conditions by applying an independent samples t-test.
How to write an APA lab report:

Your lab report MUST be in correct APA format. You can use your APA template from Lab 1 as a starting place. As such, each of the major APA sections (intro, method, results, discussion, references) must be present. A sample APA lab report can be viewed here

Introduction — restate the purpose of the study (see above) in your own words. This should not be more than one or two paragraphs.

Method — Briefly describe the method of our study. Must contain the following subsections:

Participants: How many? Mean/sd/range of age? Genders?
Materials: Describe the two lists of anagrams. Use your specific lists as an example.
Procedure: Describe the procedure of data collection. What data were recorded?
Results — Describe any changes that are evident from the graph (refer to the graph as Figure 1, but put the figure at the END of the manuscript along with an appropriate caption). Also describe the results of the t-test. Tell me what you did (i.e., what analysis?) and what you found (i.e., the results).

Example (don’t just copy this!): “We analyzed the mean number of drinks in an independent samples t-test with group (experimental vs. wait-list control) as a grouping variable. Over a two-day period, participants drank significantly fewer drinks in the experimental group (M= 0.667, SD =1.15) than did those in the wait-list control group (M= 8.00, SD= 2.00), t(4) = -5.51, p=.005.”
Discussion — Answer the following questions. Note: I am not asking you to answer these in a bulleted list. Rather, craft your discussion section in such a way to smoothly address each of these questions in a flowing narrative. One good approach would be to answer each question (or related questions) in a separate paragraph. Note that you should find at least two or three additional references (journal articles, please!) to support your claims.

What changes in solution times appeared over the six successive anagrams for the organized list group? For the unrelated list group?
Were the unrelated and organized list groups approximately equal in solution time for each anagram at the outset of the experiment? At the end? Were any differences you observed in the expected direction?
Is it conceivable that the formation of a category set might actually impede rather than facilitate solution time? How? Can you suggest an experimental design to test the hypothesis that anagram solution might be impeded with the formation of a category set.
References — Please list any references that you used to support your discussion above. At a minimum, the lab report should contain the following references (cited above):

Deese, J. (1959). Influence of inter-item associative strength upon immediate recall. Psychological Reports, 5, 305-312.
Mayzner, M. S., & Tresselt, M. E. (1958). Anagram solution times: A function of letter order and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 376-379.
Safren, M. A. (1962). Associations, sets, and the solution of word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 40-45.

The Effect of Category Set on Anagram Solutions

Deese (1959) found that an important factor in free recall of verbal materials is the inter-item associative strength (IIAS) within the list to be recalled. IIAS is a measure of the interrelationships among units of a list. High IIAS exists if the units comprising a list tend to evoke each other frequently as associates, whereas IIAS is low if the units of the list seldom elicit one another as associates. When the items within a list are highly inter-associated, free recall is enhanced. The recall of a given word tends to increase total recall by eliciting other related words in the list of high IIAS.

Some investigators (Mayzner & Tresselt, 1958; Safren, 1962) saw a similarity between such verbal recall situations and anagram solution, and as such, they expected similar principles to operate in both situations. Safren (1962) attempted to exhibit this similarity by showing that a “category set” exists in anagram solution as well as in verbal recall (Deese, 1959). A category set may be viewed as a readiness to respond to words belonging to a common class or category (i.e., a group of words with high inter-item associative strength). Thus, a list of anagrams whose solutions belong to a common category might be expected to be solved more readily than a list comprised of unrelated word solutions. For example, all of the solutions to the anagrams in List 4 below (Table 1) are related to “beverages”, “breakfast”, “food”, and “taste”. If a category set comes into play during the course of solving a list, the solution time for the anagrams should be shorter than that for a control group which receives a list of equal length, but made up of unrelated words. Moreover, there should be a decrease in solution time for successive anagrams when subjects solve anagrams made from associatively related words since associations called up by previously solved anagrams will aid the participant in the solution of later problems in the list.

The participants in one group of Safren’s experiment received one of six different lists of six anagrams each. All word solutions (words from which anagrams were constructed) within any given list were highly interrelated. The control group subjects received one of 36 different lists of six anagrams each. However, the word solutions within each of these lists were unrelated.

The results of Safren’s experiment supported two main predictions: (a) that time for solution would be shorter for anagrams from organized lists where anagrams belonged to a common category, and (b) that the group with the organized lists would show a greater decrease in solution time over successive anagrams in the list.

This study is a partial replication of Safren’s experiment. A comparison of solution times and improvement within a given list of six anagrams will be made between two types of lists, organized and unrelated.