1. Running head: COGNITIVE LOADING & RECALL 1
Impact of Cognitive Loading on Recall of Names
Cassie C. Strickland
Reinhardt University
Author Note
Cassie C. Strickland, Reinhardt University
There are many people I would like to thank for making this research possible. First, I
would like to thank my research director and professor Dr. Katrina Smith. She taught me
everything I know about conducting a research project and how to do statistics. I would also like
to thank my classmates Kristina Jones, Adrienne Lawrence and Aleah Cooper for helping run my
experiment. Thank you so much for helping me with my game; I am not sure what I would have
done without you. Lastly, I would like to thank the Psychology Department of Reinhardt
University for their support.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cassie C. Strickland
at Reinhardt University, Waleska, Georgia,30183.
Strickland114488@students.reinhardt.edu

2. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 2
Abstract
Many people report that they have difficulty remembering names. Helder and Shaughnessy
(2008) found that name recall can be improved by multitasking if it involves a conversation. In
the present study, the impact of task loading on name recall was examined for 39 student
volunteers who were asked to play either a familiar (n=20) or an unfamiliar (n=19) card game.
After playing the game through to completion, each participant was taken aside and shown
pictures of their fellow players. They were asked to recall the player's middle name that was
given at the beginning of the session. The mean number of player names correctly recalled did
not vary across the two game conditions (familiar and unfamiliar) (t (37) =.60, p>0.05). There
may be other factors that influence name recall. Repetition and rehearsal may be needed for
name recall.

3. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 3
Impact of Cognitive Loading on Recall of Names
Meeting new people and introducing one’s self to others is an everyday occurrence that
happens in people’s lives. However, when people meet someone new, there is a good chance that
they may fail at remembering the other person’s name. Recall comes from short term, long term
and working memory. The construct of short-term memory refers to a type of memory where a
person holds a small amount of information for a very short period of time. The information held
in short-term memory is typically held for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, at most, before it is recalled.
Information recalled after about 2 minutes is usually considered to be coming from long term
memory. Working memory was offered to extend the scope of short-term memory by adding a
processing component. This type of memory allows individuals to both hold new information in
a temporary storage as well as manipulate that information. Working memory’s capacity is
usually about 2 units smaller in capacity than short term memory. Working memory’s capacity is
also related to performance on a variety of cognitive tasks such as name recall and other tasks
such as learning languages and comprehension. Working memory requires the human brain to
process temporary information and to store information by using what psychologist Baddeley
calls working memory (Gathercole & Baddeley,1993).
Working memory has four parts that it allows to process and store temporary information
which are the central executive, the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad and the
episodic buffer (Baddeley,2000). The central executive helps working memory by directing the
limited information to the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer.
The central executive is where cognitive loading occurs, and it also has access to long-term
memory and therefore, it can retrieve information from there (Gathercole & Baddeley,1993). The
central executive needs the phonological loop which is where verbal information goes.

4. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 4
According to Gathercole and Baddeley (1993), it is important to repeat verbal
information because it deteriorates over a period of time. Therefore, the phonological loop needs
to stay active for a period of time to remember names. The visuospatial sketchpad is also
necessary for working memory to process visual information, and it changes verbal information
into images. When people hear names, they will also see faces and try to connect the names with
these images by using the visuospatial sketchpad. Lastly, the episodic buffer shows that working
memory is able in incorporates information from different areas (Baddeley, 2000). This part of
working memory has a limited capacity. However, it does play a significant part when
contributing to receiving information from the long-term memory; which the episodic buffer will
do after people are asked to recall names. (Baddeley, 2000). All of these components to working
memory are necessary when recalling limited information such as names or anything else that
lasts for a short amount of time.
Previous research on working memory has shown that this temporary storage system is
complex and that it has a limited storage capacity. Since working memory is limited in storage
capacity (Heathcote, Coleman, Eidels, Watson, Houpt, Strayer, 2015), remembering names is
difficult for people. It becomes even more challenging because of the social conditions people
are placed in when they are trying to learn names. Heathcote et al. (2015), measured working
memory’s workload capacity by asking participants to retain information and control the
information. They tested this by comparing the two inferences that are needed in working
memory which is proactive interference and dual-task interference. Proactive interference is
remembering a list of information becomes more difficult because existing information gets in
the way. Dual-task inference requires people to do things at the same time to compare the
performance to doing one thing at a time. For example, Heathcote, et al. (2015), measured dual

5. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 5
task inference by asking the participants to do simple math problems. After each math problem,
there was a letter presented for later recall. Participants did three sets of math problems and were
asked to recall the letters they saw on the computer screen. Researchers then tested proactive
interference by asking the participants to do a task on Firefox while listening to audio with
headphones. The results for the single task control group showed that half of the participants’
performance stayed the same within the limited capacity of working memory and very few
reached unlimited-capacity. Results for the dual task group showed that performance was less
than the fixed capacity, showing that dual task performance is limited. However, there is a
proactive interference when doing more than one task.
According to the research even though working memory has a limited capacity
(Heathcote et al.,2015), Cocchini, Logie, Sala, MacPherson, and Baddeley (2002), demonstrated
that processing within verbal and visual working memory systems appear to operate
independently of one another. More specifically, verbal working memory was not impacted
when participants were also given a concurrent visual working memory task. This finding would
suggest that it is possible for participants to do more than one task at a time. For example,
Cocchini et al. (2002) conducted several experiments that tested working memory using a serial
digit recall method. Participants listened to a tape that called out numbers at a rate of two per
second, and the participants were asked to repeat the numbers in order. The participants were
presented three lists of numbers, and if they got two of the lists correct, the list would get longer
by one number. If they failed to recall two out of three lists, the test would end. When the
participants were allowed to rehearse the numbers they heard, there was a significant effect that
showed that it is important to maintain preloaded information because it will help with
performance.

6. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 6
The second test, Cocchini et al. (2002) did had to do with visual pattern recall. In this
experiment, participants were asked to remember a black and white checkerboard pattern.
Participants with different matrixes finished at different times. For example, the more squares in
the matrixes, the more difficult recall were. The experimenters compared the results of the digit
recall and visual pattern recall. They found that participants who did poorly on these tests were
below 70% for the memory tests. Results also showed that when participants were asked to
perform the dual task for digit recall their recall rate decreased by 8% while visual pattern recall
rate declined by 5%. Therefore, there was no significant disruption in retention when doing these
two tasks. Before the participants were asked to recall the digits and visual images, there was a
15-second delay between the tasks allowing for participants to rehearse the information. With
this in mind, working memory holds information for about 10 to 15 seconds, and if it is
rehearsed, then it helps it change from short-term to long-term memory. If people were asked to
do a task such as remember names for a longer period of time, they would have to rehearse the
names more than once during that period of time to keep the temporary activation of long-term
memory.
The present study was designed to explore whether task loading in working memory
impacts name recall. Working memory research has shown us that task loading does affect our
ability to do other things. For example, Helder and Shaughnessy (2008) got participants do a
math task while being introduced to 12 people. Participants were shown pictures of the people
that they were introduced to and were asked to recall the names of each individual. Helder and
Shaughnessy's findings for their first experiment showed that math problems that involved five
numbers compared to three numbers made name recall difficult. Therefore, the more difficult
the task is, the greater the effect on participants’ ability to recall names. It also revealed that there

7. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 7
was a 54% recall rate for people who heard the names more than once than individuals who
heard the names once.
In the second part of this experiment, Helder, and Shaughnessy (2008) also looked at the
effects of recall on long-term retention. One group was in the 24-hour delay group; participants
were asked to recall names after 24 hours, and there was a no delay control group. There was a
recall rate for the no delay of 46.5% when hearing the names only once and there was a 28.7%
recall rate for the 24-hour delay. When participants of the no delay group were multitasking and
heard repeated names, the recall rate was 55.9% and for names only heard once the recall rate
was 37.0%. For the 24-hour delay group that multitasked and heard repeated names, their recall
rate was 35.2% and for once presented names the recall rate was 22.2%. These results show that
practicing names improve name recall; however, it is smaller after 24 hours. Therefore, task
loading is an important part of remembering names. Since this is the case, people will remember
more names when playing a familiar card game than an unfamiliar card game.
Methods
Participants
Participants in the current study consisted of student volunteers approached by the
principal investigator from a small rural university in North Georgia. There was a total of 41
participants; two participants did not show up for the days of the experiment. Out of the 39
participants that agreed to participate, there was 66% females and 33.3% males. In the first Uno
group during the first day, there was 9 females and 1 male and 7 females and 2 males in The
Werewolves. During the second day in the Uno group, there were 5 females and 5 males and 6
females and 4 males in The Werewolves. The ethnicity of the participants in this study was
predominantly white/Caucasian (74.4% white, 10.3% black/African-American, 2.6%

8. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 8
Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.1% biracial, 7.7% unidentified) Participants majors were predominantly
Biology (23.1% Biology,17.9 % Education, 7.7 % Psychology, 2.6% Criminal Justice, 5.1%
Undecided, 10.7% Communication, 7.7% Graphic design/Digital art, 5.1% Sociology, 2.6%
Music, 2.6% English, 2.6% digital film,2.6 % Math, 2.6% Sports Media,2.6 % Theater,2.6 %
History, and 2.6% Creative Writing)
Materials and Procedures
Participants were asked to go into one of the study rooms in the Reinhardt library to play
the card games. There were two games that was used for this experiment: Uno for the familiar
card game and The Werewolves for the unfamiliar card game. Testing took place over two days.
Both games were run simultaneously but on different floors of the library. On the first day, 9
participants played The Werewolves and 10 played Uno. On the second day, 10 participants
played The Werewolves and 10 played Uno. Before the game started, the principal investigator
and game moderators waited for participants on the third and second floor. The principle
investigator sorted the participants by randomly putting participants into groups by what day the
participants were available. On the day the participants came, the principle investigator sent the
participants to a room by the order they came. For example, the first participant that came in
were sent to Uno, the second would be directed to The Werewolves, the third one was sent to
Uno and so on. The participants then proceeded to the study room where they waited for the
others players and for the game to start.
The principal investigator then started one game first while the game moderators
watched the other group. The principal investigator explained the consent form, received the
signed consent forms, took pictures with a camera for one group and a cell phone for the other.
Then the participants were asked to introduce themselves by their middle names to make sure

9. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 9
that a ceiling effect is avoided and the principal investigator explained how to play the card game
according to the instructions of each card game. After this, the principle investigator left the
room, while a game moderator came in to watch over them. Each game moderator and the
principal investigator had a list of names to make sure that the participants said the correct name
when referring to one another.
The researcher then went to the other group and repeated the same thing that they did in
the previous group. At the end of the card games, the game moderators gave the questionnaires,
located in Appendix A, to the participants to fill out. Game moderators sent participants with
the questionnaires to the experimenters one by one to be tested for name recall. After the name
recall test was completed, pictures were then deleted. The principle investigator explained to The
Werewolves group on the second day that one of the questions on the survey refers to their
ethnicity, not the card that they identify within the game to avoid confusion like the previous
Werewolves group. This was clarified to only this Werewolves group since the error occurred
the day before in the last Werewolves group. The two Uno groups continued for approximately 8
minutes, and the name recall took 15 minutes overall while the two The Werewolves groups
lasted for about 25 minutes, and the name recall also took 15 minutes overall.
Results
A total of 39 men and women were asked to play either a familiar card game or an
unfamiliar card game. They completed a questionnaire at the end of the card games and were
tested for name recall, in order to see if there was a relationship between task loading and name
recall. The program SPSS was used to calculate and analyze the data by conducting a T-test.
Before the data was analyzed, the yes or no questions on the questionnaire were recoded from
yes or no to no=0 and yes=1.

10. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 10
Among the groups playing the unfamiliar card game, most participants remembered 4 or
5 of the names of the other players (Mode= 4 and 5, M=3.24, SD=2.000). Among the group
playing the familiar card game, most participants remembered 3 of the names of the other players
(Mode=3, M=3.35, SD=3.35). Figure 1 provides a summary of these results. During the first and
second session in the familiar game there were 10 players. (Recall of first session (M = 3.7)
(SD=1.83) (Recall of the second session: (M=3) (SD=2.221) During the first and second session
in the unfamiliar game there were 9 players. (Recall of first session: M=3.56 and SD=1.88) On
the second day there was a total of 10 people. (Recall of second session: M =3.9 and SD=2.18)
Table 1 provides a summary of these results.
Overall between the two groups, people remember by using these descriptives provided
above and other information, the tests mentioned above is used to see if there are any significant
relationships within the datum. By using an independent samples t-test differences in name
recall, was measured for each card game. Table 2 provides a summary of these results. The
differences are not significant between the two variables t (37) =.603, p>0.05.
The results from the questionnaires were also measured. The results from the
questionnaires are as follows: 53.8% of the participants said that they did not feel like they
would be friends with anyone in the group that they were in after playing the card game. While
46.2% said that they did feel like they would be friends with people in the group they were in
after playing the card game. 2.6% of participants said that did not like playing card games with
new people, and 97.4% stated that they did. 46.2% of the participants talked to people more
while 53.8% said that they did not. 48.7% of participants said that they did play the card game
before, and 51.3 said that they did not. 66.7% of participants said that they felt like people they
played with were helpful, and 33.3% said people they played with were not helpful. 100% of the

11. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 11
participants stated that they enjoy card games. Lastly, 53.8% of people said that they did not talk
to anyone more while 46.2% said that they did.

12. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 12
Figures
Figure 1
Note: This bar graph shows that 44% of people in The Werewolves recalled more names than
37% of the people who played Uno. Therefore, less than half of the participants recalled less
than half of the names. This bar graph does not mean the datum is significant.
Percentofnamescorrectlyrecalled

13. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 13
Tables
Table 1
Descriptives for card games
Uno The Werewolves
Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2
n
M
SD
10
3.7
1.83
10
3
2.221
9
3.56
1.88
10
3.9
2.18
Note: This table shows the descriptives for the groups by the days the card games were played.
The data shows that there is no significance between the means and the SD.
Table 2
Independent Samples T-test Name Recall
Note: Not Significant at **p<0.05 two tailed
n df t
Equal Variances
Assumed
39 37 .603

14. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 14
Discussion
The results of this study did not support the original hypothesis; however, the results do
prompt an interesting discussion. In Helder and Shaughnessy (2008), their findings were that
multitasking while learning names is effective. However, the present results show that even
though the unfamiliar card game group remembered a little more than the familiar card game
group, asking participants to do more than one thing may not effect name recall. The results in
the present study’s datum may have to do with proactive interference (Heathcote, et al.,2015).
Not only were the participants asked to play a card game and to answer questions but they were
asked to recall player’s middle names. People in the groups were familiar with each other to the
point where they knew each other’s first name. In doing so, it made task loading increasingly
more challenging than it was intended to be. For example, one participant said, “I know their
first name, but I do not know their middle name.”
Furthermore, Heathcote et al. (2015), study showed that working memory is limited and
that working memory only lasts for about 15 seconds. Working memory’s temporary storage
stays active if there is repetition involved. Since this is the case, participants would have had to
rehearse the names they heard during the 8 to 25 minutes of the card games to remember more
than 4 to 5 names. However, even though names were repeated during the card games, it was
not actively repeated which is necessary for the temporary activation of long-term memory. In
fact, in one group some people did not hear the names of the other players when the players were
introducing themselves. Not everyone in the card games spoke to each other. Because of this,
some names were not repeated during game play after the introduction. Another causation to the
present results may be because of the different times for the two card games. One lasted longer
than the other, which may have led to decay especially since names were not repeated. Lastly,

15. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 15
during the introductions, some names were not heard because the individual did not speak loud
enough.
This preliminary research into task loading and name recall has provided an excellent
starting point for future studies. However, this study was limited by time and resources. A larger
and more diverse sample could help identify any demographic differences exist between name
recall and task loading. By using a larger sample, it may also help avoid ceiling effects and
proactive inferences if the participants are not familiar with each other. In addition, future
research could benefit in matching the times for the card games or any task loading activity.
Future research should also take note on what names were said the most to see if those names
were the names most recalled.
The present study demonstrates that it may be possible to recall names while task
loading, and it may be necessary to rehearse and repeat names when meeting new people. These
findings add to the research out there that gives advice for improving people’s memory when it
comes to names. For people to be successful for remembering names, they should pay attention
when the person is introduced, and they should rehearse and repeat the name after the
introduction. Then people might stop saying that they are bad at remembering names.

16. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 16
References
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423. doi:10.10/16/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Cocchini, G., Logie, R. H., Sala, S. D., Macpherson, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2002).
Concurrent performance of two memory tasks: Evidence for domain-specific working
memory systems. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1086-1095. doi: 10.3758/bf03194326
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. (pp. 1-23). Hove,
NY: Psychology Press.
Heathcote, A., Coleman, J. R., Eidels, A., Watson, J. M., Houpt, J., & Strayer, D. L. (2015).
Working memory's workload capacity. Memory Cognition, 43, 973-989.
doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0526-2
Helder, E., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (2008). Retrieval opportunities while multitasking improve
name recall. Memory, 16(8), 896-909. doi:10.1080/09658210802360611

17. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 17
(Appendix A)
Questionnaire for Group Dynamics
1. Were any of the people you played with particularly helpful?
Yes or No
2. What’s your Major?
3. Do you feel like you will be friends with anyone in the group after playing this card
game?
Yes or No
4. Did you enjoy playing the card game with new people?
Yes or No
5. Do you like card games?
Yes or No
6. What game did you play?
The Werewolves or Uno
7. What’s your gender?
Male or Female
8. Have you played this game before?
Yes or No
9. What race do you identify with?
10. Did you talk to anyone more?
Yes or No
11. When you are done with this survey, please turn it in to do the last question of this
questionnaire.

18. COGINITIVE LOADING AND RECALL 18