Coding, capacity, duration of memory- A03
- Created by: MollyL20
- Created on: 04-10-21 19:17
View mindmap
- Coding, capacity, duration of memory- A03
- Baddeley’s
study didn’t use meaningful material
- 1. The words used in the study had no personal meaning to the participants
- 2. When processing more meaningful information, people may use semantic coding even for STM tasks.
- 3. This means the results of this study have limited application.
- 4. We should be cautious about generalising findings to different kinds of memory tasks.
- Millers research may have overestimated capacity of STM
- 1. For example, Cowan reviewed other research.
- 2. . He concluded that the capacity of STM was only about 4 chunks.
- 3. This suggests that the lower end of Miller’s estimate (5 items) is more appropriate that 7 items.
- Peterson and Peterson’s study has an artificial stimulus
- 1. Trying to memorise consonant syllables does not reflect most real-life memory activities where what we try to remember is meaningful.
- 2. . So, it could be argued that this study lacked external validity.
- 3. On the other hand, we do sometimes try to remember meaningless things, such as phone numbers, so the study isn’t totally irrelevant.
- Bahrick et al’s study has high external validity
- 1. Real-life meaningful memories were studied.
- 2. When lab studies were done with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates were lower (Shepard).
- 3. The downside of such real-life research is that confounding variables are not controlled, such as the fact that the Barrick’s participants may have looked at their yearbook photos and rehearsed their memories over the years.
- Baddeley’s
study didn’t use meaningful material
Comments
No comments have yet been made