Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 816–823 | Cite as

On the use of wireless response systems in experimental psychology: Implications for the behavioral researcher

  • Moses M. LangleyEmail author
  • Anne M. Cleary
  • Bogdan N. Kostic


A method of data collection is presented that unites the efficiency of mass testing with the ease of instant electronic data collection that is typical of computer-based experiments run on individual participants. A wireless response system (WRS), originally designed as a teaching tool, is used to replicate three classic and robust effects from the memory literature (effects of false memory, levels of processing, and word frequency). It is shown that for these types of experimental designs, data can be collected more efficiently (in both time and effort) with the WRS method than through traditional mass- and individual-testing methods alone. The advantages and limitations of WRSs for use in mass electronic data collection are discussed.


False Memory Study List Critical Word Mirror Effect Projection Screen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1974). Verbatim and propositional representation of sentences in immediate and long-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodner, G. E., &Lindsay, D. S. (2003). Remembering and knowing in context.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 563–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunz, U. (2005). Using scantron versus an audience response system for survey research: Does methodology matter when measuring computermediated communication competence?Computers in Human Behavior,21, 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, S. K., &DeLosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect.Memory & Cognition,34, 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Challis, B. H., Velichkovsky, B. M, &Craik, F. I. M. (1996). Levelsof-processing effects on a variety of memory tasks: New findings and theoretical implications.Consciousness & Cognition,5, 142–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, S. E. (1992). Word frequency effects in associative and item recognition.Memory & Cognition,20, 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardiner, J. M., Java, R. I., &Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1996). How level of processing really influences awareness in recognition memory.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,50, 114–122.Google Scholar
  10. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1985). Surface information loss in comprehension.Cognitive Psychology,17, 324–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kucera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., &Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,16, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sherif, M. (1936).The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  16. Slamecka, N. J., &Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 592–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thapar, A., &Greene, R. L. (1994). Effects of level of processing on implicit and explicit tests.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 671–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Voyer, D., Rodgers, M. A., &McCormick, P. A. (2004). Timing conditions and the magnitude of gender differences on the metal rotation test.Memory & Cognition,32, 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weldon, M., &Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1160–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilhite, S. C. (1981). Word-frequency cueing effects: Recognition and encoding interference factors.American Journal of Psychology,94, 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moses M. Langley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anne M. Cleary
    • 2
  • Bogdan N. Kostic
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIowa State University of Science and TechnologyAmes
  2. 2.Colorado State UniversityFort Collins

Personalised recommendations