Carmichael et al. (1932): language & form

The point examiners record here — and most answers omit. Vague: "shapes with words, so language affected memory." Creditworthy: the label primes the drawing — labelled eyeglasses it came back with a curved bridge, labelled dumbbells with a thick bar. Self-test: does my sentence say why the drawings differed? "Language affects memory" just restates the finding.

Examiners record candidates proposing changes that wreck the design, commonly replacing the ambiguous figures with recognisable images such as a company logo. But the design rests on each figure being open to two readings: a logo has one reading, so a label cannot shift the drawing and no effect remains. Any improvement must keep the ambiguity and the control.

An improvement is what you would change if the study ran again; a weakness is what is wrong as it stands. Examiners record a weakness given where an improvement was asked, and the reverse, most series. Here "the task is artificial" is a weakness; "also test it with a real remembered event" is an improvement. It must be in the researcher's control.

"Told to draw the object": no — they reproduced the figure shown; the label only said what it resembled. "Saw a different shape": no — all saw the same figure; the difference is at recall, a memory claim. "No control group": there was one, given no label. "Any pictures work": no — figures must be ambiguous. "It is Gregory's theory": no — this is a study supporting it (8.1.3).

A result is what the drawings showed and needs no psychology to state; a conclusion is what the researchers infer from it. Result: the eyeglasses group drew a curved bridge. Conclusion: a verbal label becomes part of what is remembered about an ambiguous figure. Asked for a conclusion, do not restate the drawing — say what it shows about memory.

On a 2-mark describe, one point reworded scores one mark across both sentences. Same finding twice: "the labelled groups changed their drawings towards the label" and "their drawings looked more like the word they were given." A genuine second point is the control staying close to the original, or the same figure redrawn two ways by the two groups.

Asked for the difference between two conditions, two definitions side by side score one mark — the difference was never stated. One mark: "the labelled group shifted; the control did not." Two marks: "the labelled group shifted towards the label, whereas the control drew it as shown." The connective — whereas, while, but — earns the second mark.