Cognitive Case Studies
- Created by: Ella
- Created on: 15-04-13 17:01
Craik and Tulving 1975 AMR
Aim: to test the "Levels of Processing" theory by seeing whether words processed at different levels would affect recognition of these words
Method:
- 24 participants
- Shown a series of 60 words through a tachistoscope
- Asked a series of questions about the words
- Questions required either a structural, phonetic or semantic processing
- Participants were then asked to recognise words in a grid consisting of the original 60 words amongst 180 in total
- All 24 participants did all three levels of processing
Results:
- 17% of words recognised were at the structural level
- 36% of words recognised were at the phonetic level
- 63% of words recognised were at the semantic level
Craik and Tulving 1975 C/V/R
Conclusion:
- The deeper the processing, the deeper the recognition of words
- The recognition was greater for those words that were processed at a semantic level
Validity
- Controls were the number of words at each level, word length, time words displayed, same participants, random order for three levels
- = good experimental validity, only the IV variable [types of processing] was affecting then DV
- DV [extraneous variable controlled] = not good ecological validity, task was artifical, could not relate to real life learning experiences
Reliability
- Hyde and Jenkins - 5 different levels, deep processing, participants rated pleasantness of words
- no different if memory was intentional or not
- high reliability
Craik and Tulving 1975 A/O
Applications
- Good for revising
Overall
- Experiment support theory and experimental validity, IV directly affects the DV
- Good reliability as results were consistent and constant
- Not good ecological validity as cannot be related to everyday life
Strengths
- Led to experiments, most of which confirmed the superiority of 'deep' semantic processing
Weaknesses
- Concepts of depth is vague and cannot be observed, therefore cannot be objectively measured
- Does not explain how the deeper processing results in better memories
Loftus and Palmer 1974 AM Exp 1
Aim: To investigate whether the wording of a question could alter a participant's recall. Consisted of two laboratory experiments, both examples of independent groups.
Method
- 45 students
- 7 film clips of traffic accidents
- Ranged from 5 to 30 seconds
- Following each clip, students had to write an account of the accident they had just seen
- Asked questions, critical ones concerning speed of vehicle e.g. hit, smashed, contacted
- Independent variable = verb used
- Dependent variable = speed estimate by participants
Loftus and Palmer 1974 RESULTS Exp 1 & 2
Experiment One
Smashed 40.8
Collided 39.3
Bumped 38.1
Hit 34.0
Contacted 31.8
Experiment Two
Smashed = 16 said yes, 34 said no
Hit = 7 said yes, 43 said no
Control Group = 6 said yes, 44 said no
Loftus and Palmer 1974 EXP2 C, Overall S/W
- Permanent altered memory due to post even information
- Show a significant effect of the verb in the q on the mis-perception of glass in the film
EXP 2 - Conclusions
- Post-event info permanently altered the eye-witness original mmemory of the event
- Police should be careful to ask leading questions when doing eyewitness interviews as these could change the witness' recall of the crime
Strengths
- Well controlled, high experimental validity
- Large samples more likely to be generalizable
- Application to real life in that it has important implications to police interviews
Weaknesses
- Not realistic in that the participants did not have direct involvement, lacks ecological v
- Arguable how representative students are as a generalisation
Godden and Baddeley 1975 AMR
Aim: To investigate whether phonetic words were recalled when the context for learning and recall was the same, rather than if the context was differen - land and underwater.
Method:
- Conducted in Scotland, groups of four
- 18 participants - 13 male, 5 female
- Repeated measures design
- 4 minute gap for divers to change context
- Task was to learn words from a list of 36
Results:
Land Land - 13.5
Land Underwater - 8.6
Underwater Land - 8.4
Underwater Underwater - 11.4
Godden and Baddeley 1975 C/Info
Conclusions:
- Forgetting occurs when context cues are absent
Extra Info
- First experiment had 4 minutes change in context
- Second experiment was conducted to see if the gap in changing of context could allow rehearsal
- No advantage from rehearsal
- No difference in results
Godden and Baddeley 1975 EVALUATION
Validity
- Experimental = high, set out to test what they did, not realised but realistic situations, lacked mundane realism
- Ecological = fairly high, realistic situation for divers, low = the way they learnt
Reliability
- Lang et Al showed similar findings - context/state cues do play a role in learning & recall
- High reliability, showed similar findings to Abernethy, standardised procedures
Generalizability
- Only used 18 participants, fairly small sample size, used both sexes, not specialised for one gender. Difficult to generalise because contexts e.g. underwater would not realistically/normally be used
Applications - future to ensure good recall/learning, accurate eye witness statements
Godden and Baddeley DESIGN EVAL
Strengths
- Highly controlled experiment makes it more reliable
- The only variable that changed is the IV
- All of the divers were in the same wet and cold state for 4 minutes between land and underwater
Weaknesses
- Diver could rehearse
McGeoch & McDonald 1931 AMR
Aim: to test retroactive interference by comparing recall of a word list after learning similar or dissimilar information.
Method:
- 12 participants
- Repeated measures experiment - counterbalanced to avoid order effect
- Task of words to learn
- 10 words to learn
- Followed by six other tasks
Results:
- Rest for 10 minutes = 4.5
- 3 digit numbers = 3.7
- Nonsense syllables = 2.6
- Unrelated words = 2.2
- Antonyms = 1.8
- Synonyms = 1.3
McGeoch & McDonald 1931 C/EVAL
Conclusion
- Similar information competes for memory space within old memory
- Supports retroactive interference
Strengths
- Well-controlled study
- Avoided confounding variable
- IV affected the DV
Weaknesses
- Small sample of participants
- 12 participants but tested 6 times
- Difficult to generalise, very small sample size
Comments
No comments have yet been made