To test the levels of processing theory by seeing whether words processed at different levels would affect recognition of these words.
1 of 19
What were the RESULTS of Craik and Tulving's study?
17% of words at structural, 36% of words at phonetic, 63% of words at semantic
2 of 19
What were the CONCLUSIONS of Craik and Tulving's study?
The deeper the processing, the deeper the recognition of words. The recognition was greater for those words that were processed at a semantic level.
3 of 19
What was the AIM of Godden and Baddeley's study?
To investigate whether phonetic words were recalled when the context for learning and recall was the same, rather than if the context was different. These contexts were the underwater and land.
4 of 19
What were the OVERALL RESULTS of Godden and Baddeley's study?
Recall was 46% higher on average when the context is the same for learning and recall.
5 of 19
What was the CONCLUSIONS of Godden and Baddeley's study?
Forgetting occurs when context cues are absent
6 of 19
What was the AIM of McGeoch and McDonald's study?
To test retroactive interference by comparing recall of a word list after learning similar or dissimilar information.
7 of 19
What was the overall RESULTS of McGeoch and McDonald's study?
The more similar the new information was to the original information, the lower the recall of that first list became.
8 of 19
What were the CONCLUSIONS of McGeoch and McDonald's study?
Similar information competes for memory space within old memory, and the study supports retroactive interference.
9 of 19
What were the STRENGTHS of McGeoch and McDonald's study?
It was a well controlled study, avoided confounding variable and the IV affected the DV
10 of 19
What were the WEAKNESSES of McGeoch and McDonald's study?
Small sample of participants, 12 participants used but tested 6 times, difficult to generalize because of small sample size.
11 of 19
What were the AIM of Loftus and Palmer's study?
To investigate whether the wording of a question could alter a participant's recall. Consisted of two laboratory experiments, both examples of independent groups.
12 of 19
How many participants were in experiment ONE of Loftus and Palmer's study?
There was 45 students
13 of 19
How many participants were in experiment TWO of Loftus and Palmer's study?
There were 150 students
14 of 19
What were the OVERALL RESULTS of EXPERIMENT ONE? [Loftus and Palmer]
The more important figures were smashed and contacted because there is a significant 9mph difference. The phrasing of the question brought about a change in speed estimate. Smashing elicited a higher speed estimate than contacted.
15 of 19
What were the OVERALL RESULTS of EXPERIMENT TWO? [Loftus and Palmer]
Permantely altered memory due to post event information. Shows a significant effect of the verb in the question of the mis-perception of glass in the film.
16 of 19
What were the CONCLUSIONS of Loftus and Palmer's study?
Due to the reconstructive nature of memory, post-event information can permanently alter the eye-witness original memory. Police should be careful to not ask leading questions in order to get accurate recalls of crimes.
17 of 19
What are the STRENGTHS of Loftus and Palmer's study?
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.
18 of 19
What are the WEAKNESSES of Loftus and Palmer's study?
Not realistic in that there was no personal involvement by the participants, lacks ecological validity, arguable how representative students are as a generalization.
19 of 19
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
What were the RESULTS of Craik and Tulving's study?
Back
17% of words at structural, 36% of words at phonetic, 63% of words at semantic
Card 3
Front
What were the CONCLUSIONS of Craik and Tulving's study?
Back
Card 4
Front
What was the AIM of Godden and Baddeley's study?
Back
Card 5
Front
What were the OVERALL RESULTS of Godden and Baddeley's study?
Comments
No comments have yet been made