BADDELEY - Coding in STM and LTM:
Aim - Investigate coding the the STM and LTM.
Method - Independant group design, 3 conditions:
- Learn a list of acoustically similar words (rain, pain, train)
- Learn a list of semantically similar words (quick, fast, swift)
- Learn a list of unrelated words (control condition)
P's then asked to recall the words (DV) either immediately (STM) or after 20 minutes (LTM)
Results - When p's recalled immediately they made most mistakes with acoustically similar words, whereas after 20 minutes more errors occurred in semantically similar words.
Conclusion - Interpreted as showing that an acoustic code was used in STM which made it difficult to remember the similar sounding words immediately. In LTM p's had difficulty with semantically similar words suggesting info is stored semantically.
- Interpreted as using an acoustic code in STM, but more recent findings suggest other codes e.g visual, can also be used in STM.
-Highly controlled lab experiment, lacks E.V
MURDOCK - primacy/recency effect:
Method - List of words varying in length from 10-40 words were presented at intervals of 2 seconds for each word. P's asked to recall them in any order.
Results - When P's recalled in any order, more words were recalled from the beginning and end of the list irrespective of the length of the list. When plotted on a graph this shows a serial position curve referred to as the primacy recency effect.
Primacy - the better recall of words at the beginning of the list. (rehearsed and transferred into LTM)
Recency - the better recall of the last few words at the end of the list. (still in STM)
Conclusion - Words in the middle have been displaced from STM but not yet consolidated into LTM.
- Lab study - lacks E.V
+Shows evidence for the existence of two separate memory stores.
CRAIK AND TULVING - depth of processing.
Aim - Investigate depth of processing by giving participants a number of tasks requiring different levels of processing and measuring recognition.
Method - Repeated measures design, 3 conditions. P's given a list of 60 words, one at a time and were required to process each word at 1 of 3 levels(IV):
- Deep level - asked Q like "does this word fit into this sentence?"
- Intermediate level - asked Q like "Does this word rhyme with...?"
- Shallow level - asked Q like "Is this word in capital letters?"
After the task P's unexpectedly given a list of 180 words, containing the original 60 words and 120 "filter" words and asked to identify the ones they recognised from the original 60,
Results - Significantly more words words were recognised if they had been processed at a deep level (approx. 65%) than either phonetic (37%) or shallow (17%) levels.
Conclusion - As deeper processing resulted in better recognition, then the level at which material is processed must be related to memory.
+Study relies on incidental learning, rather than intentional learning, higher E.V.
-This means P's are…