Suppose you were asked to learn a list of words. One way would be to simply memorize the words. Another approach would be to try to use a mnemonic (i.e., memory) aid. One such mnemonic aid is called the "word-pegging" technique. This technique is based on the children's rhyme "one is a bun, two is a shoe, three is a tree," and so on. Using this technique, a person uses the rhyme to form a mental image of the word to be learned. For example, suppose the first three words in the list to be learned were luggage, pancake, and garage. Using the rhyme, a person would form an image of a piece of luggage in a bun, an image of a pancake wrapped around a shoe, and an image of a tree growing in a garage. It appears this strategy might work well with concrete words, words such as those given above that refer to concrete objects all of us have seen in our lives. But would the strategy work with abstract words, such as heat, debt, or justice, words that don't refer to concrete objects? A psychologist hypothesized that the word-pegging strategy would improve learning with concrete words, but not abstract words. The psychologist also hypothesized that learning using simple memorization without a word-pegging strategy would not differ between concrete and abstract words. To test this hypothesis, the psychologist randomly assigned 20 students to one of four treatment conditions: (1) using a pegging strategy with concrete words, (2) not using a pegging strategy with concrete words, (3) using a pegging strategy with abstract words, and (4) not using a pegging strategy with abstract words. Four subjects were assigned to each treatment condition. Each subject was given one trial to learn a list of 20 words. After the learning trial, the subjects were asked to recall as many words from the list as possible. The following data was obtained. The scores represent the number of words correctly recalled by a subject.

The following calculated means are provided to save you time in your calculations since it is assumed you can calculate each of these required means to obtain the different F-ratios. Grand Mean = 12.4; Pegging (A1) Mean = 13.9; No Pegging (A2) Mean = 10.9 Concrete Words (B1) Mean = 13.4; Abstract Words Mean = 11.4 Cell Means: A1B1 = 16.8; A1B2 = 11; A2B1 = 10; A2B2 = 11.8

For Problem 1: Test the hypotheses for the main effects and the interaction - clearly show your calculations on your own calculation sheets...plus, as a final display of the results of your calculations...you should provide a completed table that shows: SumSquares Df MS F A: Peg vs. Not B: Concrete vs. Abstract AxB Interaction Error Total In order to consider whether these main effects and interaction are significant or not, assume you are testing the difference at a probability level of ? = .05. Refer to the F-probability distribution table at the end of this instruction sheet...after referencing that distribution table, provide the critical values for each of the F-ratios that you have calculated - and - note whether each of the three F ratios is significant or not at the ? = .05 or not. After you've finished with your primary calculations...consider any post-hoc comparisons that might be necessary in a 2 x 2 analysis ... to make your decisions about simple effects in the analysis, assume Tukey HSD CD = 2.56 for comparing individual cells. A final requirement of Problem 1: Report your Results

\f