Memory studies

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Memory studies
      • AIM: To see if rehearsal was necessary to hold information in the short-term store.
        • METHOD: Participants were given sets of three letters to remember (such as GYK, MTW), but were immediately asked to count backwards in threes out loud for different lengths of time. This was done to prevent rehearsal. Participants were then asked to recall letters in the correct order.
          • RESULTS: The results of the study showed that participants had forgotten virtually all of the information after 18 seconds.
            • CONCLUSION: It was concluded that we cannot hold information in the short-term store unless we can rehearse it.
    • MURDOCK (1962)
      • AIM: To provide evidence to support the multi-store explanation of memory.
        • METHOD: Participants had to learn a list of words presented one at a time, for two seconds per word, and then recall the words in any order.
          • RESULTS: The words at the end of the list were recalled first (known as the recency effect). Words from the beginning of the list were also recalled quite well (known as the primacy effect), but the middle words were not recalled very well at all.
            • CONCLUSION: Murdock concluded that this provides evidences for separate short-term and long-term stores.
    • BARTLETT (1932)
      • AIM: To see if  people, when given something unfamiliar to remember, would alter the information
        • METHOD: Participants were asked to read a story called 'The War Of The Ghosts', which was a Native American legend. Later  they were asked to retell the story as accurately as possible. This retelling was repeated several times during the weeks that followed
          • RESULTS: Bartlett discovered that his participants found it difficult to remember bits of the story concerned with spirits and changed other bits of the story so that it made more sense to them. Each time they retold the story they changed it some more.
            • CONCLUSION: Bartlett concluded that our memory is influenced by our own beliefs.
    • WYNN AND LOGIE (1998)
      • AIM: To see if the recall of familiar stories  changed in the same  way that Bartlett found with unfamiliar stories.
        • METHOD: They asked university students to recall details of their first week at university. They were asked to do this several times throughout the year.
          • RESULTS: The results showed that the accuracy of their descriptions remained the same no matter how many times they were asked to recall the informations. This is unlike Bartlett's participants who changed their stories with every telling.
            • CONCLUSION: Wynn and Logie concluded that memories for familiar events will not change over time.
      • AIM: To see if the type of question asked about words will have an effect on the number of words recalled.
        • METHOD: Participants were presented with a list of words, one at a time, and asked questions about each word, to which they had to answer 'yes' or 'no'. Some questions required structural processing of the words; others required phonetic processing and the remainder required semantic processing. They were then given a longer list of words and asked to identify the words they had answered questions about.
          • RESULTS: Participants identified 70 per cent of the words that required semantic processing, 35 per cent of the words that required phonetic processing and 15 per cent of the words that required structural processing.
            • CONCLUSION:  The more deeply information is processed, the more likely it is to be remembered.
      • AIM: To see if new learning interferes with previous learning.
        • METHOD: Participants were divided into two groups: GROUP A were asked to learn a list of word pairs (Cat-Tree, Candle-Table, Apple-Lake). They were then asked to learn a second list of word pairs (Cat-Glass, Candle-Whale, Apple- Sadness). GROUP B were asked to learn the first  list of word pairs. Both groups were asked to recall the first list of word pairs
          • RESULTS: Group B's recall of the first list was  more accurate than that of Group A.
            • CONCLUSION:  New learning will cause people to recall previously learned information less accurately.
      • AIM: To see if people who learn and are tested in the same environment will recall more information than those who learn and are tested in different enviroments.
        • METHOD: Participants were deep-sea divers. They were divided into four groups. All of the groups were given the same list of words to learn: GROUP 1 had to learn underwater and recall underwater. GROUP 2 had to learn underwater and recall on shore. GROUP 3 had to learn on the shore and recall on the shore. GROUP 4 had to lean on the shore and recall underwater.
          • RESULTS: Group 1 and 3 recalled 40 per cent more words than groups 2 and 4.
            • CONCLUSION: Recall of information will be better if it happens in the same context that learning takes place.
    • LOFTUS AND PALMER (1974)
      • AIM: To see  if leading questions affect the accuracy of recall.
        • METHOD: Participants were shown films of car accidents. Some were asked 'How fast was the car going when it HIT the other car?' Others were asked 'How fast was the car going when it SMASHED the other car?'
          • RESULTS: Those who heard the word 'SMASHED' gave a higher speed estimate than those who heard 'HIT'.
            • CONCLUSION: Leading questions will reduce the accuracy of recall. The word 'SMASHED' led participants to believe the car was going faster.
    • BRUCE AND YOUNG (1998)
      • AIM: To see if familiarity affects the accuracy of identifying faces.
        • METHOD: Psychology lectures were caught on security cameras at the entrance of a building. Participants were asked to identify  the faces seen on the security camera tape from a series of high-quality photographs.
          • RESULTS: The lecturers' students made more correct identifications than other students and experienced police officers.
            • CONCLUSION: Previous familiarity helps when identifying faces.
    • GEISELMAN ET AL. (1985)
      • AIM: To see  if reinstating the context of an event will affect the accuracy of witnesses' accounts.
        • METHOD: Participants were shown a police training film of a violent crime. Two days later they were interviewed about what they had seen. For half of the participants, the context of the event was recreated during the interview. For the other half of the participants, standard police interview techniques were used.
          • RESULTS: The participants who had the context recreated recalled more accurate facts about the violent crime than the other participants.
            • CONCLUSION: Recreating context during interviews will increase the accuracy of recall. This method is known as the cognitive interview.
    • COHEN (1981)
      • AIM: To see if stereotypes can affect memory.
        • METHOD: Participants were shown a video of a man and a woman eating in a restaurant. Half of the participants were told that the women was a waitress. The other participants were told she was a librarian. Later, all the participants were asked to describe the woman's behaviour and personality.
          • RESULTS: The two groups of participants gave entirely different descriptions, which matched the stereotype of a waitress or a librarian.
            • CONCLUSION: Stereotypes will reduce the accuracy of accounts of people


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Memory resources »