Running head: WORD COHERENCE ON RETENTION

The Effect of Word Coherence on Retention

Ma. Socorro Elena C. Dizon
Kyle Erianne Pante
John Renzy P. Que
Glian John Reginald M. Raymundo
Jacobus Alexander van Schoonhoven
Bianca Grace L. Villanueva
University of Santo Tomas

Word Coherence on Retention 2

Abstract
Memorization has been part of our lives. We use different strategic techniques to help us
remember things easier. Deep processing is one of these techniques. We use the meaning of
the word to aid in remembering it. Related information too as well helps us in remembering the
word; this includes the antonym or synonym of the word itself. The experiment done was to
know whether words with definitions or sense would be easier to remember compared to words
that does not have definitions (i.e. syllables) and words that do not have any relationship at all.
Psychology students were asked to participate in the experiment. A within-groups design was
used and the results were found to show an effect of the degree of meaningfulness on memory
retention [F(3, 27) = 16.966, p < .05]. In conclusion, the use of semantics or word-meaning
makes it easier for an individual to remember the word itself.
Keywords: semantics, deep processing, coherence, assimilation, memory

Word Coherence on Retention 3

The Effect of Word Coherence on Retention
In everyday life, among the many strategies used to remember things are repeating or
reading the same content several times and seeking to establish relationships among the
information to be stored, for example, by drafting a short story or creating a mental image
(Ekuni, Jose Vaz, & Bueno, 2011). Memorization is one of the many functions our brain needs in
order to do a particular task efficiently. But how do we extract the information we get from the
brain? How do these pieces of information help us better recall a particular stimulus? Memory
consists of three main stages: encoding (acquisition of information), storage (maintenance of
information), and retrieval (use of information that was stored) (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968).
During the encoding stage, the information is received from an outside stimulus. In the storage
stage the information that was received will be stored in the memory. Lastly, in the retrieval
stage, the information that was stored will be extracted from the memory. The level of
processing, which was coined by Craik and Lockhart, plays an important role in these stages.
The levels of processing effect refers to the finding that memory for a list of words is better when
the meaning or semantics of the words is encoded (deep processing), relative to focusing on
more superficial aspects of the words (shallow processing) such as their perceptual,
phonological, or orthographic characteristics. (Craik & Tulving, 1975). Deep processing
activates more relevant knowledge than shallow processing, and this activated information
becomes associated with the word to form a more elaborate memory trace. (Gallow, Meadow,
Johnson, & Foster, 2007). Craik and Lockhart (1972) stated that in the encoding stage there is a
series of processing hierarchies. During the shallower processing level (perceptual processing),
the subject initially perceives the physical and sensory characteristics of the stimulus; the
deepest level (semantic processing) is related to pattern recognition and extraction of meaning,
with a greater emphasis on semantic analysis than in shallow processing. Memory traces are
formed as a result of these processes. Morris, Bransford, and Franks (1977) showed that

Word Coherence on Retention 4

semantic processing is better than phonological processing, but only when the retrieval task
requires the remembrance of meaning. When the retrieval task requires rhyme recognition,
phonological processing gives superior results.
Sentences, words, syllables, down to letters, people not only remember the information
about them but also the related information about them as well. An example would be their
synonyms, antonyms, rhyming, etc (Ray, 2008). As such this leads to words being related with
each other or as Irwin (1980) discussed in his study, Coherence happens between words. He
defined Coherence as the extent to which texts are interrelated with each other. It helps people
remember groups of words due to their relation with each other.
Aside from words being related to each other, their obvious similarities help also in better
retention. The Assimilation-in-Salience theory, as discussed by King & Normington (1999),
refers to a single chunk, code, unit, gestalt, meaning, etc. as a memorial group (the group of
words being memorized) and that the words are grouped due to its salience. They also said that
the higher the assimilation between words in a memorial group, the higher its salience.
Memorial stimulus used in remembering words vary in salience, noticeability, and
discriminability because of ones different mental background. It means that people have
different ways of organizing words that increase the salience of the memorial group for easier
retention. They also added that theres minimal effort for assimilation if the words are similar.
Mandler (1967) supported this theory saying that assimilation produces a chunk, thus
fewer components to be processed for better short term and long term memory recall.
Remembering such assimilated or organized groups, we tend to remember them as a cluster
(Bousfield, 1953). Categorization between members of the same group/category happens thus
being rated as similar with each other. It shows generalization and part-group assimilation that
leads to remembering the members of that category (Homa, Rhoads, & Chambliss, 1979).

Word Coherence on Retention 5

The organizations in group of words also contribute in its retention. People tend to
remember words when theyre organized in their group (King & Normington, 1999). Compared
to randomized words, the more organized the words are, the better its retention. Begg (1972)
added that the position of the words in a group help in retention of it just like the rules in forming
a sentence.
Assimilation in groups does not only happen in words but between sentences also.
Sachs (1967) said that sometimes people associate new sentences as old if it matches the
meaning of the old sentence that their familiar with. Thus relationship and familiarity of the
sentence also helps in the retention of sentences.
Still, difficulty persists during retrieval. An example would be output interference wherein
there is interference in remembering the original item due to the remembrance of its specific
information (Smith, 1971). Hunt and McDaniel (1993) also questioned the retrieval process of
organized groups. They asked how one unpacks an organized group to access its elements.
This shows that even though groups of words are organized, bringing them to retrieval is
another matter to deal with. Also, what if words are not coherent with each other? Inferences are
made to supply the links between these words to be able to remember them together.
Consequentially, it will lead to increased processing demands and difficulty in comprehension
thus difficulty in retrieval (Frederiksen, 1977).
In the current study, the researchers want to determine whether logical connections have
a significant effect on the amount of retention. Also, the current study aims to explore the effect
of varying length of information with the capacity to recall.

Word Coherence on Retention 6

Methodology
Participants
Twenty-eight undergraduate students from the University of Santo Tomas participated in
the study. A section among the students of BS Psychology was selected as the participants
through non-probability sampling.
Materials
The materials used for this experiment consisted of an answer sheet with 4 sets of 20
blank boxes and writing materials. A list of 20 nonsense syllables, 20 prefixes and suffixes, 20
nouns and 20 words in a cohesive sentence were prepared by the experimenters.
Procedure
Once seated and given the answer sheet and writing materials, the participants were
told to not write anything on the paper until told to do so by the lead experimenter. The lead
experimenter then recited a list of 20 nonsense syllables to the subjects with a 1-second interval
between each word. After rereading the list, the lead experimenter then instructed the subjects
to count from 1 to 12 aloud. Then, they were instructed to write down the syllables that they
remembered in order on the answer sheet under the 20 boxes that said Set 1 for 1 minute.
The procedure was repeated for the list of 20 prefixes and suffixes and the participants counted
from 1 to 12 aloud then wrote their responses under Set 2. The procedure was repeated for
the list of 20 nouns and the participants counted from 1 to 12 aloud then wrote their responses
under Set 3. Finally, the procedure was repeated for the list of 20 words in a cohesive
sentence and the participants counted from 1 to 12 aloud then wrote their responses under Set
4.

Word Coherence on Retention 7

Design
The experiment made use of a Within-groups design to test the effect of different word
meanings in the stimulus on the memory retention of the participants. To determine if an effect
exists, a Within-groups ANOVA statistical test was used.
Results
In order to reveal the existence of an effect of the degree of meaningfulness of the 4
stimuli (syllables, prefixes and suffixes, nouns, and words in a cohesive sentence) on the recall
scores of the subjects, a Within-Subjects ANOVA test was used.
The results were found to show an effect of the degree of meaningfulness on memory
retention [F(3, 27) = 16.966, p < .05]. Subjects tended to retain less syllables in their memory
compared to the other three stimuli while they retained more words in a cohesive sentence in
their memory better than the other three. In order of how well subjects retained the stimuli in
their memory, Syllables were recalled the least often, followed by suffixes and prefixes, then
nouns and finally words in a cohesive sentence were recalled the most often.
Discussion
The experiment examined the effects of different degrees of meaning in the stimulus on
the amount of retention. The words in a cohesive sentence were recalled more often compared
to nouns, prefixes and suffixes and syllables. These results is consistent with the study of Irwin
(1980) in which words with relation to one other is recalled more often than words without
relations. The words in the fourth treatment condition can be linked to each other eventually
forming a sentence. But nouns, prefixes, suffixes and syllables are random words without
connection with each other. The results also support the levels of processing that was coined by

Word Coherence on Retention 8

Craik and Lockhart. In which deep processing is used for the fourth treatment condition, stating
that pattern recognition among the presented stimulus promotes better retention.
The third treatment condition which are classified as nouns are recalled better than
syllables and prefixes and suffixes because it is more organized. This result is supported by the
study of King and Normington (1999) in which organization of group of words contributes in its
retention. The fourth and the third treatment conditions are more organized than the second and
the first treatment condition, thus they are better recalled.
Aside from words being related to each other and having been organized into groups,
their obvious similarities also help in better recall. (King & Normington, 1999) Like for example,
soap and comb, which are nouns, are presented in the third treatment condition could be
classified under objects that is related to hygiene. The higher the assimilation of words in the
memorial group, the higher its salience. Mandler (1967) supported this theory stating that
assimilation of words would produce a chunk, thus it would provide fewer components to be
processed. These studies is supported by the results of the experiment in which the fourth and
the third treatment condition having words that are assimilated with other words is recalled
better than the first and second word having no assimilation.
Words having a connection with other words, organized into meaningful groups and can
be assimilated to other words are recalled better than words having no sense like syllables,
prefixes and suffixes.
In conclusion, semantics of the words to be remembered makes it easier for us to
memorize or be familiar with them.

Word Coherence on Retention 9

References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control
processes. In K.W. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances
in research and theory, 2, 89-195. New York: Academic Press.
Begg, J. (1972). Recall of meaningful phrases. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
11, 431-439.
Bousfield, W. A. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged
associates. The Journal of General Psychology, 49, 229-240.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.
Ekuni, R., Jose Vaz, L., & Bueno, F.A. (2011). Levels of processing: the evolution of a
framework. Psychology & Neuroscience, 4(3), 333 339.
Frederiksen, J.R. (1977). Sources of process interactions in reading. Education Resources
Information Center: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?
id=ED208342
Gallo, D. A., Meadow, N. G., Johnson, E. L., & Foster, K. T. (2007). Deep levels of processing
elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of
Memory and Language, 58, 1095-1111.
Homa, D., Rhoads, D., & Chambliss, D. (1979). Evolution of conceptual structure. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 11-23.

Word Coherence on Retention 10

Hunt, R. R. & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness. Journal
of memory and language, 32, 421-445.
Irwin, J. W. (1980). The effect of linguistic cohesion on prose comprehension. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 7 (4), 325-339.
King, D. L. &Normington, J. (1999). Regular versus randomized sentences, nouns versus
prepositions, and assimilation in salience. The Journal of General Psychology, 126 (2),
177-183.
Mandler, G. (1967). Organization and memory. The psychology of learning and motivation, 1,
327, 372.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transferappropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533.
Ray, S. (2008). An investigation of time course of category and semantic priming. The Journal
of General Psychology, 135 (2), 133-148.
Sachs, S. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects connected
discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437-442.
Smith, A. D. (1972). Output interference and organized recall from long-term memory. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 400-408.

Word Coherence on Retention 11

Table
Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of the Four Different Stimuli
Stimulus
Syllables
Prefixes and
Suffixes
Nouns
Words in a
sentence
p < .05

Mean
4.32
4.68

Standard Deviation
2.20
2.23

6.36
9.54

3.19
4.18