Memory
I created this as I feel this is the easiest way to process and sort information. I hope that it helps you too! :)
- Created by: AnisaKauser
- Created on: 11-03-14 19:18
View mindmap
- Memory
- Multi-Store
- Sensory
- Very Limited
- Under a Second
- Very Limited
- Short-Term
- 7+/- 2 Chunks
- 0-18 Seconds
- 7+/- 2 Chunks
- Long-Term
- Unlimited
- Unlimited
- Unlimited
- Murdock (1962)
- Aim
- Investigate free recall and its effect on memory
- Method
- 1. Participants given a list of words
- 2. Given free recall
- Results
- Words at end recalled best
- Recency Effect
- Words at start recalled quite well
- Primacy Effect
- Middle words were forgotten
- Words at end recalled best
- Conclusion
- Memorise first words as they were rehearsed
- Evaluation
- Learn things without rehearsing them
- Laboratory experiment so can be repeated to check results
- Practical Implications
- Chunking can be used to help us remember things
- Can chunk information and rehearse it until we understand it
- Aim
- Sensory
- Levels of Processing
- Structural
- Appearance
- Weakest level of processing
- 15% Recall
- Phonetic
- Sound
- 35% Recall
- Semantic
- Meaning
- Deepest level of processing
- 70% Recall
- Aim
- Does the type of question asked affect the number of words remembered
- Method
- 1. Participants given a list of words, one at a time
- 2. Asked questions about them. Had to answer yes or no
- 3. Questions required different types of processing
- Conclusion
- Recall is better when you understand what it means
- Practical Implications
- Producing mindmap summaries is a good way of processing deeply
- Making revision notes helps. They are in chunks so can be easily processed
- Evaluation
- Further studies support link between deep processing and memory
- Doesn't explain how deeper processing results in better memory
- Structural
- Flow
- Encoding
- Changing Info
- Storage
- Holding Info
- Retrieval
- Recovering
- Encoding
- Forgetting
- Context
- Godden and Baddeley (1975)
- Aim
- Will people recall more information when tested in different environments?
- Method
- 1. Tested 4 groups of deep sea divers on the same list of words
- Group 1 - Learned and recalled underwater
- Group 2 - Learned underwater/ recalled on shore
- Group 3 - Learned and recalled on shore
- Group 4 - Learned on shore/ recalled underwater
- Conclusion
- They did better as they were in the same environment
- Results
- Groups 1 and 3 recalled 40% more words
- Practical Implications
- Resemble the learning environment as best you can
- Aim
- Godden and Baddeley (1975)
- Inteference
- Proactive
- Stored information interferes with recent information
- Retroactive
- Recent information interferes with the previous
- Underwood and Postman (1960)
- Results
- Group B's recall was more accurate
- Method
- 1. Got control groups (A and B)
- 2. Group A asked to learn a list of word pairs. Then asked to learn another list
- 3. Group B only asked to learn the first list
- 4. After, they both had to recall the first list
- Conclusion
- Retroactive interference is worse when there is a stronger similarity between new and old information
- Aim
- Does new learning interfere with previous learning?
- Practical Implications
- Avoid studying similar subjects in an evening
- Results
- Proactive
- Amnesia
- Retrograde
- Unable to remember events before damage
- Anterograde
- Unable to learn new information after damage
- Retrograde
- Context
- Reconstructive
- Bartlett (1932)
- Aim
- People use existing knowledge to understand new information
- Results
- Participants changed the sections they didn't understand
- Conclusion
- Our beliefs influence how we remember things
- Method
- 1. Gave participants a story "The War of the Ghosts"
- 2. Over the weeks, they had to retell the story
- Evaluation
- Isn't similar to everyday experiences
- Difficult to measure accuracy of stories
- Practical Implications
- Helps us understand why people who recall same event have different versions of a story
- Aim
- Bartlett (1932)
- Eye Witness Testimony
- Loftus and Palmer (1974)
- Aim
- Effect of leading questions
- Method
- 1. 3 groups (1 control group)
- 2. Watched a film of a traffic accident and asked the same questions except at speed
- 3. Changed question to "How fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed the other car?"
- 4. Control group not asked
- Results
- Verb smashed = faster (41mph)
- Verb hit = 34mph
- Conclusion
- Memory influenced by questions asked
- Practical Implications
- Avoid leading questions
- Evaluation
- Laboratory experiment so can be repeated
- Lacks ecological validity as you are watching a film
- Aim
- Loftus and Palmer (1974)
- Multi-Store
- Results
- 2. Group A asked to learn a list of word pairs. Then asked to learn another list
Comments
Report