PSYCHOLOGY

PRACTICAL FILE
NAME: SOUBIYA G BEIG
CLASS: BA OPJ C

LAJWANTI JETHWANI - JAIN (DEEMED-TO-BE UNIVERSITY)

 PSYCHOLOGY RECORD

LABORATORY CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Smt. has satisfactorily completed

the course of experiments in practicals prescribed by Jain

(Deemed-to-be) University, Bangalore for the degree course in the laboratory of this school

(School of Humanities and Social Sciences - SHSS) in the year 2020 - 2021.

Signature of the Teacher Head of

Department
Incharge of the batch

Date:
Name of the Candidate:
Registration No:
Examination Centre:
Date of Practical Exam:

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

 INDEX

PRACTICA DATE PRACTICAL NAME PAGE

L NUMBER NO.

1 25/01/2021 Paired Association Test 3-7

2 12/03/2021 Effect of Chunking on Recall 8 - 13

3 22/03/2021 Ravens Standard Matrices Test 14 - 19

4 20 -

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 2

 PRACTICAL – 1

PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 3

 PRACTICAL 1
PAIRED ASSOCIATION LEARNING
Examiner: Dr SLP Date: 25/01/2021
Examinee: SGB Time: 12 PM - 1 PM

INTRODUCTION
The greatest opportunity for assessment of verbal learning in general is provided by the paired
associate procedure. The subject is required to produce a verbal unit (response item) upon the
appearance of another (stimulus item) which has previously appeared. It is an important method
since it is viewed as representative of the things people do when they learn verbal materials
under ordinary conditions. Underwood Ronquist and Scholz (1959) viewed paired association
learning as a combination of two tasks, the response learning as a phase and the associated
phases in which the stimuli are paired with associates.
Experiments conducted by researchers show that higher levels of similarities between items that
are stimulus and response pairs higher in both responses and associative learning. Forgetting,
transfer of learned material, problem solving and concept learning all these have been viewed as
special cases of the association process.

AIM: To study the effect of similar and dissimilar words on paired associate learning

MATERIALS REQUIRED
 2 List of Words
 List 1: 10 pairs of dissimilar words (stimulus-response format)
 List 2: 10 pairs of similar words (stimulus-response format)
 Writing materials
 Stop watch

PLAN: The test is conducted in two series with similar and dissimilar paired associates. The
results obtained by the examinee in recalling similar words and dissimilar words are compared
and analysed.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 4

PROCEDURE
The examinee is seated comfortably and is presented with the first series of similar words, one
pair at a time. The subject is intimated to watch the list carefully so as to not miss any word as
he/she has to recall them later. Each pair is presented at the rate of five seconds per word with a
break of 10 seconds after each presentation. Till the fifth trial both the words (stimulus and
response word) are shown and in the sixth trial only one-word i.e., stimulus word is shown. Then
the examinee is given 15 seconds per word to recall the response word. In the second series the
same procedure is followed for the dissimilar pair of words also. The results of both the series
are compared and analysed.

PRECAUTIONS
 The pair must differ in the dissimilar set.
 In each series the examinee is asked to recall the required response word and the time
permitted for recalling is 15 seconds only per word.
 The instructions must be clear and a ready signal should be given before each
presentation.
 The exposure time of 5 seconds per pair should be maintained in both the series.
 5-minute rest period should be given between the series.

ANALYSIS OF DATA
 The number of paired words recalled correctly in each series is noted down.
 The mean is computed for both the series and compared.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 5

CALCULATION
Table 1: Table showing the group results in Paired Associate Learning.
Sl. No. Name No. of words recalled correctly Difference
Series I Series II
(Dissimilar (Similar
Words) Words)
1 SGB 9 10 +1
2 SB 6 6 0
3 FE 8 10 +2
4 VP 5 4 -1
5 SJ 8 6 -2
6 SA 6 8 +2
7 SR 10 7 -3
8 SU 6 8 +2
9 SS 8 9 +1
10 LW 8 8 0
11 SD 4 9 +5
12 SM 8 9 +1
13 SB 8 6 -2
14 CW 5 6 +1
15 VPV 8 10 +2
Total 107 116
Average 7.13 7.73 +0.6
Maximum 10 10
Minimum 4 4
Range 6 6

DISCUSSION
Theoretical Expectations
Based on the early work of Herman Ebbinghaus on verbal learning, Mary Whiton Calkins
invented paired associate learning in 1894. Learning is always better when stimulus words are
presented which are similar. Better performance is expected in the similar nonsense paired
words. Learning nonsense syllables of dissimilar pairs is always learned slowly. In similar word
series, the stimulus will be associated with its paired response and the similar words can be
remembered better due to its similarity and associates.
Psychological research has revealed that when people learn paired associates, they engage in two
separate mental processes. The first is the learning of the response; the second is the formation of
a bond between the two words. This second process seems to produce a one-way association in
many circumstances. That is, a learner is much more likely to remember the response word if
given the stimulus; people have a harder time remembering the stimulus if presented with the
response word.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 6

GROUP RESULTS
The above table indicates the performance of the group on Paired Associate Learning Test. In the
group, there are 15 examinees. The average score for the group in Series I is 7.13 and in Series II
is 7.73 with a difference of +0.6. This indicates that overall, for a group, number of correct
responses was higher in Series II in comparison to Series I. This indicates that the group result is
in accordance to the theoretical expectations since their performance is better in Series II, i.e.,
similar words than in Series I, i.e., dissimilar words indicating learning through association.
In the group, there are 15 participants and among them VP, SJ, SR & SB appear to be outliers
(exceptions to theory), with a higher number of correct responses in Series II than in Series I.
There are no contradictory cases in the group.
In Series I, the maximum score is 10 and minimum score is 4. Therefore, the range of Series I,
i.e., dissimilar words is 6. In Series II, the maximum score is 10 and minimum score is 4.
Therefore, the range of Series II, i.e., similar words is 6. This shows that there are statistically
significant individual differences in the group in both the series.

CONCLUSION
 The group as a whole is in accordance to the theory.
 There are 4 examinees who are exceptional to the theory.
 There are no contradictory cases in the group.
 There are statistically significant individual differences in the group for both the series.

APPLICATION VALUE
It can be applied in:
 Linguistics
 Phonological awareness
 Helps increase reading value
 Classroom Learning
 Memory Technique
As a psychometric tool paired association test is used in assessment and detection of Alzheimer’s
disease and mild cognitive impairment. As a memory tool the test is helpful in understanding
association between items which further facilitates memorization.

REFERENCES
1. Paired Associate Learning Tasks and their Contribution to Reading Skills
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27175054/

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 7

 PRACTICAL – 2

EFFECT OF CHUNKING ON RECALL

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 8

 PRACTICAL 2
EFFECT OF CHUNKING ON RECALL
Examiner: Dr SLP Date: 12/03/2021
Examinee: SGB Time: 3:15 PM – 4:15 PM

INTRODUCTION
Chunking is a process by which small bits of information are grouped. This is one of the methods
used in short term memory. It becomes important when a large amount of information has to be
held in memory because the capacity is limited to seven-plus or minus two units. By chunking
we mean to club together five or six units and reduce them to one single unit.
For example, instead of remembering ‘b-u-t-t-e-r’ as 6 different letters, we reduce them to one
unit, “butter” when we chunk them. Miller found that nonsense syllables and digits could be
learnt more effectively if they could be grouped into chunks. Considering the above information,
the examiner is aimed to study the effect of chunking on recall of verbal material. Nonsense
syllables are used here. Retention is measured by the free recall method because this method
gives us information about the actual storage capacity of short-term memory with and without
chunking. 

AIM: To study the effect of chunking on recall. 

MATERIALS REQUIRED
 Two sets of nonsense syllables:
 Set A - Ten strings of nine letters each arranged as ‘cvccvccvc’ (consonant-vowel-
consonant-vowel and so on) written on separate flash cards.
 Set B - Ten strings of nine letters each arranged as three chunks of ‘cvc’ with space
separating the chunks and each string written on a separate flash card. 
 Stopwatch
 Writing Materials 

PLAN: To conduct the experiment in two series without chunking and with chunking. Present
each stimulus string for two seconds and measure immediate free recall.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 9

PROCEDURE
I - Series: Without Chunking:
Seat the examinee comfortably and instruct him/her thus, “I will expose a few cards containing
letters, observe carefully and reproduce the letters after each card.”  With these instructions give
the ready signal and expose the first card from set ‘A’ for 2 seconds. Allow the subject to recall
and write down as many of the letters as possible. Allow a maximum of 15 seconds for recall.
Then present the second card of set ‘A’ and so on. Continue this process till all the ten cards are
exposed. Give a rest period of 5 minutes before commencing the second series. 

II - Series: With Chunking:

Follow the same procedure as above but use the second set of cards (set ‘B’) where the letters are
chunked into 3 ‘CVC’ trigrams. Give the subject the following instructions. “I will expose a few
cards containing letters, observe carefully and reproduce the letters after each card.” The test
should be conducted with these instructions.

ANALYSIS OF DATA
 Count the number of letters correctly recalled from each card under chunked and
unchunked conditions.
 Find out the average number of letters correctly recalled by the subject with and without
chunking. This gives the average span of short-term memory with or without chunking. 

Average Span = Total letters recalled in series

The number of strings given

 Calculate the difference using, Score in the chunked series - Score in the unchunked
series. 
 Calculate the mean and standard deviation for the grouped data.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

0
CALCULATION
Table 1: Table showing the group results of Effect of Chunking on Recall
Sl. No. Name No. of correct responses under Difference
Series I Series II
(without (with chunking)
chunking)
1 SGB 10 10 0
2 SHK 9 9 0
3 TJ 7 10 +3
4 SNK 8 10 +2
5 TMJ 10 10 0
6 SN 9 9 0
7 SRG 8 7 -1
8 UP 9 10 +1
9 SJM 9 10 +1
10 TA 8 10 +2
11 SHS 9 10 +1
12 SIS 9 10 +1
13 FE 9 10 +1
14 SPR 8 9 +1
15 VP 9 10 +1
16 SP 8 10 +2
17 SRS 8 9 +1
18 SBS 6 10 +4
19 SU 6 8 +2
20 VRPP 8 10 +2
Total 0 167
Average 8.35 9.55 +1.2
Maximum 10 10
Minimum 6 7
Range 4 3

DISCUSSION
Theoretical Expectations
Chunking increases the efficiency of recall. According to theory, chunked series are recalled
better than non-chunked nonsense syllables. According to George Miller, various levels of
chunking exist, depending on the meaningfulness of the material, they are: 

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

1
 1. First Order Chunk: Here the individual letter may be grouped depending on the meaning
into a single word. For example, t-a-b-l-e becomes table.
2. Second Order Chunk: Here the individual should link the words together syntactically.
That is, the trace is not two units but a single unit. For example, “I am”, “If not”.
3. Third Order Chunk: Here, the number of words which form a part of a phase are linked
together to form a chunk. For example, “had been eating.” 
4. Fourth Order Chunk: Two or three phrases of a large sentence are chunked together to
form one unit. For example, ‘They took an umbrella because it was raining.’
5. Fifth Order Chunk: Meaningful sentences become chunks. For example, ‘He is my best
friend.’
There are two types of possible errors in chunking:
1. Within Chunk Error: Whole letters within a chunk are displaced or replaced.
2. Between Chunk Error: Where chunks are replaced or when limits between chunks are not
clear. 
The rate of information can be encoded depending upon the size of the chunk formed. Chunking
is not restricted to verbal or numerical material. We form chunks even when usual spatial
material is presented. The storage capacity of short-term memory can be increased by chunking.

GROUP RESULTS
The above table indicates the performance of the group on Effect of Chunking on Recall Test. In
the group, there are 20 examinees. The average score for the group in Series I, i.e., without
chunking is 8.35 and in Series II, i.e., with chunking is 9.55 with a difference of +1.2. This
indicates that overall, the group was able to recall words easier in Series II in comparison to
Series I. This indicates that the group result is in accordance with the theoretical expectations
since their performance is better in Series II than in Series I showing the effect of chunking on
recall and that chunking facilities learning and better retention in the group.
In the group, there are 20 participants and among them the examinee SRG is a contradictory case
in the group with a higher number of correct responses in Series I than in Series II. This indicates
that the use of chunked or not chunked words doesn’t have an effect on them. Examinees SGB,
SHK, TMJ & SN appear to be outliers (exceptions to theory) as there is no impact of the theory
on them.
In Series I, the maximum score is 10 and minimum score is 6. Therefore, the range of Series I is
4. In Series II, the maximum score is 10 and minimum score is 7. Therefore, the range of Series
II is 3. This shows that there are individual differences in the group, but they are not statistically
significant in either of the series.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

2
INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
The examinee SGB scored 10 in Series I, i.e., without chunking and 10 in Series II, i.e., with
chunking. This indicates that the examinee is exceptional to the theory, i.e., chunking or not
chunking does not facilitate recall on the examinee.

CONCLUSION
 The group is in accordance with the theory.
 There are 4 examinees who are exceptional to the theory.
 There is 1 contradictory case in the group.
 There are individual differences in the group, but they are not statistically significant in
either of the series.

APPLICATION VALUE
Chunking is a mnemonic to retain information in short term memory. Chunking makes it easier
to recall larger groups of data, including words and numbers. Also used in CBT to help clients to
detect or isolate negative thoughts, and replace them with more accurate, positive ones. It is used
in diagnosing neuro-psychological functions too.
 Psychometric assessment of memory
 Used as a technique of memorization.
 Facilities rehearsal when information is processed from STM to LTM.
 Can be used as a part of working memory.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

3
 PRACTICAL – 3

RAVEN’S PROGRESSIVE MATRICES

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

4
 PRACTICAL 3
RAVEN’S PROGRESSIVE MATRICES
Examiner: LMJ Date: 22/03/2021
Examinee: SGB Time: 3:15 PM – 4:15 PM

INTRODUCTION
This is a nonverbal intelligence test. It is a test suitable for comparing people with respect to their
immediate capacities for observation and clear thinking.
The RPM is a test of a person's capacity at the time of the test to apprehend meaningless figures
presented for observation, see the relation between them and conceive the nature of the figure
completing each system of relations presented based on systematic method of reasoning. Factor
analysis suggests that this test measure largely general factor.
The scale consists of 60 problems divided into 5 sets - A, B, C, D, and E. Each set has 12
problems. In each set problems become progressively more difficult.
The scale can be given as a self-administered, individual or group test. A person's total score
provides an index of his intelligence capacity.

AIM: To determine the level of intelligence or capacity for perceptual accuracy analytical
reasoning of the subject.

MATERIALS REQUIRED
 RPM Test Booklet
 Answer Sheets
 Writing Materials
 Scoring Key
 Norms
 Stopwatch

PLAN: To administer Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. Score responses and determine
the percentile rank and grade of the subject.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

5
PROCEDURE
The subject is seated comfortably in a well-ventilated and bright room. The booklet along with
the answer sheet is placed in front of the subject and instructions are given, with the example of
the first pattern. It is ensured that the subject has understood the instruction before starting the
test. With the signal ‘Start,’ allow the subject to work. There is no time limit. Generally, the
subjects complete the test within an hour.
Instructions:
“On every page of the booklet there is a pattern with a piece missing (the experimenter points
them). You have to choose which of the pieces below is the right one to complete the pattern.
When you think you have found the right piece, write its corresponding number next to the
problem number in the answer sheet. If you make a mistake, or want to change your answer, put
a cross through the incorrect answer, and then write the corresponding number of the correct
answer on your answer sheet. Go on like this by yourself until you get to the end of the booklet.
They are quite simple in the beginning and get difficult progressively if you attend to the pattern
with concentration, they get less difficult. Work at your own pace. Do not miss any item. Do not
turn back. Begin when I give the ‘start’ signal. There are 60 problems, 12 in each set.”

PRECAUTIONS
 Ensure that the subject has understood the instructions clearly, before starting the test.
 Problems should be solved one after the other.
 All the problems in the test booklet should be attempted by the subject.

ANALYSIS OF DATA
1. Score the answers with reference to the scoring key.
2. Total number of problems solved correctly constitutes the subject's raw score.
3. Convert the raw score into percentile point.
4. Consistency score is found by calculating the difference between subjects score on each
set from that of the normal expected score.

Consistency Score = Subject's score – Normal Expected Score*

If the subject's score on any one of the sets deviates by more than 2 from the normal expected
score, his/her total score on the scale cannot be accepted of its face value, as a consistent
estimate of his/her general capacity for intellectual activity
5. Compute total and mean for the total raw score for the group.
6. Subjects are graded according to the norms.

*For normal expected score refer – SPM II Normal (expected) score composition (1979)
standardization.

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

6
 CALCULATION
Table 1: Table showing the group results on Ravens Progressive Matrices Test
Sl. Name Set Raw Percentile Grade Interpretation
No. A B C D E Score
1. SGB 12 12 10 10 11 55 95 I Intellectually Superior
2. SIS 12 11 9 8 7 47 50 III Intellectually Average
3. VP 8 12 7 8 2 37 25 IV Definitely below
average in intellectual
capacity
4. TJ 11 11 11 11 9 53 90 II+ Definitely above
average in intellectual
capacity
5. SP 12 11 11 12 10 56 95 I Intellectually Superior
6. SMS 11 11 9 9 5 45 50 III Intellectually Average
7. SHK 12 10 11 10 7 50 75 II Definitely above
average in intellectual
capacity
8. UP 12 12 10 10 11 55 95 I Intellectually Superior
9. SJM 9 10 5 8 1 33 10 IV Definitely below
average in intellectual
capacity
10. SPR 12 10 7 6 2 37 25 IV Definitely below
average in intellectual
capacity
11. SRG 11 11 9 9 5 45 50 III Intellectually Average
12. SHS 9 5 9 11 11 45 50 III Intellectually Average
13. TMJ 12 11 10 8 6 47 50 III Intellectually Average
14. SRS 11 11 5 9 9 45 50 III Intellectually Average
15. TA 11 12 8 10 6 47 50 III Intellectually Average
16. SK 11 10 8 7 5 41 25 IV Definitely below
average in intellectual
capacity
17. SN 9 12 9 9 4 43 25 IV Definitely below
average in intellectual
capacity
18. SBS 12 12 11 12 11 58 95 I Intellectually Superior
19. SJ 12 11 7 9 6 45 50 III Intellectually Average
Total 0 209 205 166 176 128
Average 11 10. 8.7 9.2 6.7 46.5
7

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

7
DISCUSSION
Theoretical Expectations

GROUP RESULTS
The above table indicates the performance of the group in Ravens Progressive Matrices Test.
There are 19 examinees in the group. The average score of the group in set A, B, C, D and E is
11, 10.7, 8.7, 9.2 and 6.7 respectively. The average raw score of the group is 46.5 which
indicates that overall, the group lies at the 50th percentile, i.e., Grade III. This shows that the
group is intellectually average is average in all areas of conceptual development and social and
daily living skills.
The examinees SGB, SP, UP & SBS are the outliers. They lie at the 95 th percentile, i.e., Grade I.
This indicates that these examinees are intellectually superior. These examinees have an
advanced ability to learn and process information rapidly and have an extreme need for constant
mental stimulation.
The examinees VP, SJM, SPR, SK & SN are also outliers. They lie at the 25 th percentile, i.e.,
Grade IV. This indicates that these examinees are definitely below average in intellectual
capacity. These examinees are consistently slow in processing information and have limited
ability to solve problems, reason, and generalize.
INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
The examinee SGB has scored 12 in set A, 12 in set B, 10 in set C, 10 in set D and 11 in set E
with a raw score is 55. The examinee lies at the 95th percentile, i.e., Grade I. This indicates that
the examinee is intellectually superior. The examinee has an advanced ability to learn and
process information rapidly and has an extreme need for constant mental stimulation.

CONCLUSION
 There are 4 examinees who lie at the 95th percentile and are intellectually superior.
 There are 5 examinees who lie at the 25 th percentile and are definitely below average in
intellectual capacity.
 No one lies below the 25th percentile.
 The group as a whole lies at the 50th percentile and is intellectually average.

APPLICATION VALUE
 Education
 Recruitment and Selection

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

8
 PRACTICAL – 4

RAVEN’S PROGRESSIVE MATRICES

SOUBIYA G BEIG – OPJ C 1

9