were identical for the most part. The MDMA users in our study were not more likely to make target intrusions. In the recall area of the study, the non-MDMA users recalled an average of 8.8600 words out of 16, and MDMA users averaged 8.1125 words. For the intrusion part of the study the non-MDMA users made 1.0200 intrusions on average and the MDMA users averaged 1.0000 intrusions. This result for the intrusion was so similar it would not be considered significant to make any conclusion in the study.Discussion: the result in the study showed that there was less than 1 word difference between two groups regarding the number of words recalled out of 16. The result that was collected in the study for the most part makes little connection between MDMA and memory. The data that was received could not be analyzed, because the differences between the two are very small to make any conclusion. The result that we received compared to the two articles is very different. This could be due to the way the experiment was conducted in the psychology class. The study was conducted similarly to that of Parrott and Lasky, the results could have been different. In their study, the subject groups: non-MDMA, novice MDMA, and regular MDMA users, were determined after a screening process. There was a set standard to define the three different groups. Also, the study could have been different if they followed the procedure of the Parrott, Lees, Garnham, Jones and Wesnes study. In their study, the participants for the three groups were defined and tested to line up with the participant’s answers of classification. In the study that was conducted in class the subject were not classified clearly, and our result turned out differently than the two experiments. There was also another limitation that affected our result, 7 of the 237 people did not participant in the recall part of the study. It should be noted that six out of seven participants had used MDMA i...
