PSYCHOLOGY AS UNIT 1 (MEMORY AND METHODS)
MEMORY AND METHODS
- Created by: rosielulu
- Created on: 16-04-14 21:41
View mindmap
- UNIT1
- MEMORY
- SEMANTIC ENCODING IN LTM:BADDELEY
- RESULTS: recall was worse for semantically similar words compared to dissimilar e.g. 55%:85%
- METHOD: britissh housewives were divided in to 4 groups and shown 10 words: A) Acoustically similar words B) Acoustically dissimilar C) Semantically similar D) Semantically dissimilar After 20 mins they were asked to recall in the correct order this was done 4 times
- CONCLUSION: Encoding in LTM is mainly semantic
- AIM: to investigate encoding in LTM
- CAPACITY: amount of info a store can hold DURATION:length of time memory store holds info. ENCODING: Transferring info in to a form that it can be stored in memory
- EVALUATION OF MOST STUDIES: lab-establishes cause and effect-high control over extraneous variables- can be repeated low ecological validity-not test memory in a realistin way- cannot be generalised
- THE PRIMACY AND RECENCY EFFECT: GLANZER AND CUNITZ
- CONCLUSION: 2 seperate stores in memory -primacy effect occurs-able hto rehearse first few items on the list -Recency effect occurs-still fresh in STM.
- RESULTS:Recall best for first and last few items-best recall for last
- AIM:investigate if recall of words is affected by order presented
- METHOD: hear long list of words-recall any order
- ACOUSTIC ENCODING IN STM:CONRAD
- RESULTS:more difficult to recall strings of letters that sound the same
- METHOD: Visually presented with a series of letters-recall them. TWO CONDITIONS: letters sounded similar, letters sounded disimilar
- CONCLUSION: STM codes information ecoustically
- AIM: investigate encoding in STM
- REHEARSAL: MAITENECE: maintains info in the STM in which it has limited capacity and duration. ELABORATIVE: info transferred in to LTM which has unlimited capacity
- EVIDENCE FOR LTM DURATION-BAHRICK ET AL
- RESULTS: 1) 90% correct after 14years, 60% after 47years. 2) 60% accurate after 7years, less than 20% after 47 years
- METHOD: interviewd 392graduates from american high school over 50yr period-shown photographs from a year book. 1) RECOGNITION GROUP: given names-match to person in photo 2) RECALL GROUP: name people in photots from memory
- EVALUATION: STRENGTH: high ecological validity LIMITATION: low control over extraneous variables
- AIM:investigate the length of time memories can be retained for in LTM
- CONCLUSION: LTM is virtually lifelong
- KEY FEATURES OF THE WORKING MODEL MEMORY: ATKINSON AND SHIFRON makes a distinction between the different stores and suggests LTM and STM are unitary stores. This suggests one store can be damaged when one isn't. structured model
- CAPACITY OF STM: SIMON: shorter memory span-large chunking. JACOBS:average digit span 9.3 items, 7.3 letters Miller: 7+/-2-chunk things in 3's
- EVALUATION: limitations:age of sample affects the conclusions-its contradictory strength: iut has practical implications
- CLIVE WEARING CASE STUDY
- He caught herpes which attacked his brain and cause encephalitis. Anterograde amnesia - unable to encode new memories as part of his brain was damaged. He spends everyday restarting his memories Retrograde amnesia - Remember little of his life before 1985. Greets his wife happily thinking he hasn't seen her in years when she leaves the room for a few secs. He recalls how to play the piano and conduct a choir. But once he stops he forgets he has just played.
- LIMITATIONS OF THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL: Over emphasise rehearsal, not fully supported, stm no longer single store
- DURATION OF STM-PETERSON AND PETERSON
- RESULTS: Recall 80% trigrams after 3secs. 18secs fewer than 10% recall correctly
- METHOD: presented with consonant trigram- 3letters CPW -Prevented- counting backwards in 3's from a certain number. After intervals 3-18SECS asked to stop counting and repeat trigram. Recorded after each time interval if correctly recalled
- CONCLUSION: if prevented info vanishes rapidly from STM
- AIM: test how long STM can last when rehearsal is prevented
- THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL
- THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE: In charge of co-ordinating the 2 slave. Limited capacity, process info from any mode, acts like an attention system
- directing info in slave systems. calling info from LTM Merging info together
- THE VISUO SPATIAL SCRATCHPAD: stores/manipulates visual and spatial info, deals with what items look like, active during visual tasks
- 3 ain components of STM : the central executive, the phonological loop, the visuo-spatial scratchpad
- MEMORY IMPROVEMENT: strategy one: organising info. strategy two: give info meaning
- CRAIK AND TULVING
- RESULTS: more likely to recall better when they processed the words through semantic processing
- METHOD: were shown words and were asked questions, the de[pth of processing required for the questions were different. some questions required semantic processing
- CONCLUSION: giving meaning to work improves recall
- AIM: investigate if material that is processed for meaning was recalled better
- BOWER
- CRAIK AND TULVING
- YUILLE AND CUTSHALL
- LOFTUS ET AL- ANXIETY
- POOLE AND LYDNSAY- AGE
- LOFTUS AND PALMER-MISLEADING INFORMATION
- RESULTS: mean estimate highest: 40.8 smashed lowest estimate contacted 31.8
- split in to 5 conditions: smashed collided bumped hit contacted
- CONCLUYSION: post event information can cause material to be altered before it is in store
- EXPERIMENT 2
- 150 participants split in to 3 groups. shown a 1 min video clip of a car accident. then asked if they saw any broken glass on the floor. 16 said yes for smashed, 6 said yes in the control group
- ANASTI AND RHOADES-AGE
- BADDELEY AND HITCH-THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL
- RESULTS: task 1 was completed more slowly with both tasks
- METHOD: given task using central executive then put in to one of 3 conditions aswell. CONDITION 1:task using articulary loop repeatthe. CONDITION 2 using both articulatory loop and central executive repeating numbers CONDITION 3 no additional task.
- EVALUATION: strength: best current way of how to explain stm. limitation: STM is difficult to study
- AIM: investigate if you can use two slave systems at the same time simustaneous
- CONCLUSION: completing two tasks using the same slave system causes difficulty
- COGNITIVE INTERVIEW: CONTEXT RESISTENT-recreate image of situation REPORT EVERYTHING-report all detail RECALL IN REVERSE ORDER RECALL FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
- THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE: In charge of co-ordinating the 2 slave. Limited capacity, process info from any mode, acts like an attention system
- SEMANTIC ENCODING IN LTM:BADDELEY
- RESEARCH METHODS
- EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS MATCHED PAIRS: Different people are in different conditions but participants are matched on a key variable Strengths: participant effects less likely Weaknesses: Difficult and time consuming INDEPENDENT GROUPS Different people are in different conditions Strengths: No order effects, same materials can be used. Weaknesses: Participant variables, order effects
- SELF-REPORT METHODS QUESTIONs Closed: · - Easy to analyse -Lots of information lost Open: · - Lots of rich information - Difficult to analyse Strengths: Easy to deal with misunderstanding, good for sensitive topics. Weaknesses: Interviewer effects, misinterpretation of data. Self Report Data: Participants can lie/give false info
- EXPERIMENTS:
Lab: Controlled setting
Field: Natural setting, IV
manipulated
Natural: – IV occurs naturally
- FIELD EXPERIMENT Strength: High Ecological Validity. Weakness: Low control over variables. LAB EXPERIMENT Strength: High control over extraneous variables. Weakness: Low ecological validity, demand characteristics
- jCORRELATIONS No IV / DV, only variables. Show a relationship between 2 variables Positive Correlation: Both variables go up / both variables go down. Negative Correlation: One variable goes up as the other goes down
- OBSERVATIONS Controlled: Controlled setting e.g. lab · -High control over variables -Low Ecological Validity Natural: Natural setting. -High E. Validity -Low control over variables. Disclosed: -Participants know that they are being observed. · -Ethical · Participants may change their behaviour Undisclosed: -Participants do not know that they are being observed. · -Measuring natural behaviour · Unethical Participant: Researcher is part of the group that they are observing Non-Participant: Researcher is not part of the group that they are observing Event sampling: Recording behaviour every time it occurs. Time-point sampling: Recording only behaviour that occurs at given points in time Time interval sampling – Observing and recording what happens in fixed time
- SAMPLING: TARGET POPULATION:The wider group of people that the sample is drawn
from and whom the research is aimed at. RANDOM SAMPLE:has an equal chance of being selected (like a raffle). OPPOURTUNITY SAMPLE:most accessible members of target population. VOLUNTERR SAMPLE.
- Strengths / Weaknesses: Random Sampling: Most representative of the target population, take the longest to conduct. Opportunity Sampling/volunteer sampling: Quick and easy to conduct but not representative of the target population.
- REPEATED MEASURES Strengths: Participant variables eliminated, less participants needed. Weaknesses: Order/practice effects (Counterbalancing to reduce order effects), time consuming
- GRAPHS: -title,key,label axis
- ETHICS: =informed consent -withdrawal -deception -debriefing -confidentiality -protection from harm
- VARIABLES: IV:what the researcher manipulates. DV:what is being measured. EVS:any other variable than can affect the dv.
- CASE STUDY: Strength: Produce rich, detailed information, high ecological validity. Weakness: Difficult to replicate, can’t generalise the findings to everyone.
- PIOLET STUDY: small study run through main study e.g. practice run through
- MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY: mean,median,mode
- RELIABILITY:can repeat and get same results. VALIDITY:measuring what you're supposed to be measuring
- QUALITATIVE-words QUANTITATIVE- numbers
- AIM: to investigate HYPOTHESIS:prediction
- MEMORY
Comments
No comments have yet been made