- Created by: CourtneyJones98
- Created on: 20-02-15 14:22
Aim: To find evidence for sensory memory.
- Whole report technique- "How many do you remember?".
- Partial report technique- A cue for recall.
- CV- Pps didnt know which row they'd have to recall.
- Iconic memory evidence - duration= 1/4sec.
- Primacy and recency effect show evidence for sensory memory.
- Lacks ecological validity; experiment doesn'r resemble real life. Recalling rows.
- Lab experiment means high level of control over variables.
- Extraneous variable - familiarity of words to pps.
Peterson & Peterson, 1959
Aim: Find evidence for the duration of the STM.
- Pps presented with consonant trigrams i.e. CDK, LHY
- Recall tested after varying intervals
- Immediate interference task to prevent rehearsal in STM
- After 18secs, recall was fewer than 10% trigrams
- Evidence of decay when rehearsal is prevented
- Interence may have caused displacement.
- Loss of info could be down to capacity rather than duration
- Lacks ecological validity
- Trigrams are a proactive interface
Aim: To find evidence for encoding in STM.
- Rapid sequence of 6 random consonants on a screen.
- C1: letters were acoustically similar
- C2: letters were acousticallt disimilar
- PPS had to write serial order (Digit-span=7)
- Errors in recall- substitutung simialr sounding letters (Acoustic confusion)
Conclusion: Encoding in STM is mainly acoustic.
- Lacks ecological valididty- Sample of students is not representative of whole population
Glanzer & Cunitz, 1966
Aim: To find a distinction between STM and LTM.
- Pps presented with list of words then tested on free recall
- C1: recall immediately after presentation
- C2: recall after distractor task
- C1: serial position curve
- C2: distractor task disrupoted recency effect
- Counting backwards displaced last letters in STM
- Lacks e-v
- Functional dissociation; age, familiarity etc
Aim: To find evidence for encoding in LTM
- 5 words for each category are presented. Pps immediatley write down serial order.
- 4 categories: acoustically similar&disimilar, semantically similar&disimilar
- 10 words per category (exceeds capacity of STM)
- Prevention of rehearsal & list is presented 4 times
- Recall after 20mins
- Same results as Conrad
- Semantically similar words= harder to recall
- Lacks e-v
- Familair words not consonants
Baddeley et al. 1973
Aim: To find evidence for the visuo-spatial sketchpad
- Pps follow dot of light in cicular motions and visualise either H, F, T or E
- Starting at bottom left-hand corner, pps reply 'yes' or 'no' if the lights was at any of the angles at the top or bottom of the letter
- Tasks compete for the same limited resources of VSS
- Highly controlled
- Repeated measures design eliminates individual differences
Baddeley, Thomson & Buchanan, 1975
Aim: Find evidence for phonological loop.
- Visual presentations of word lists. Brief exposure.
- Pps recall in serial order.
- C1: 5 monosyllabic, familiar words.
- C2: 5 polysyllabic words
- 'Word length effect'
- Capacity of loop is determined by time taken to say the word
- Long word=less familiar?
Loftus & Palmer, 1974
Aim: Effects of misleading information of EWT.
- 45 students shown film of car accident
- They were asked leading questions, including a critical one about speed
- The verb was manipulated; 'hit', 'smashed', 'collide', 'bumped', 'contacted'.
- Group with 'smashed' said a faster speed
- Group with 'contacted' said a slower speed
- People alter their estimates depending on verb used in leading question
- Not cross-cultural
- Independant measures design
- Low in mundane realism; not like real life. In real life, there is an element of surprise.
Aim: To apply the idea of schemas to EWT. (reconstructive memory)
- Made a list of elements that could occur in shoplifting scenario
- People rated the likelihood of the occurance of elements
- Video showed to new pps, 8 different shoplifting incidnets with some of the highest and lowest rated elements
- A week later they had to recall what they saw
- Pps are more liekly to recall high probablility events
- Pps often recalled high probablility elements that weren't in the video
- Pilot study
- Low in mundane realism
- Unable to obtain informed consent
Poole & Lindsay, 2001
Aim: Test the effects of age on EWT.
- 3-8 year olds shown a science experiment
- Their parents then read them a story containing elements of demonstration
- Children questions on demonstartion
- Children incorporated much of the new information into their original memory
- Younger children have poor source monitoring- older children revised their answers
- Difficult to eliminate extraneous variables
- Young children have to understand and pay attention
- Children less susceptible to investigator effects due to parents involvement