Psychology - studies and experiments - memory

?
  • Created by: AlMaSin
  • Created on: 06-03-18 14:19
SPERING (SR) [CAPACITY]
flashed a 3x 4 letter grid for 1/20th of a second and asked puts to recall // high recall suggesting large capacity
1 of 36
TREISMAN (SR) [DURATION]
puts given identical auditory messages to both ears with a slight delay between // correctly recalled as identical if delay is less than 2 seconds
2 of 36
CROWDER (SR) [CODING]
only retained visual information for a few milliseconds // retained auditory for 2-3 seconds // info coded in different formats
3 of 36
JACOBS (STM) [CAPACITY]
puts had to recall letters and digits in the same order they were given // list increased by one each time // average span 5-9 items
4 of 36
PETERSON ET PETERSON (STM) [DURATION]
puts recalled nonsense trigrams after 3,6,9,12,15 or 18 seconds // rehearsal prevented by counting back in 3's from 999 // maximum recall duration of 18-30 seconds
5 of 36
BADDELEY (STM) [CODING]
ppts recalled an acoustically similar list worse than an an acoustically dissimilar list (interference)
6 of 36
BAHRICK (LTM) [DURATION]
90% of ppts remembered classmates names 15 years // 80% could recall them after 48 years
7 of 36
BADDELEY (LTM) [CODING]
ppts recalled a semantically similar list worse than a semantically dissimilar list
8 of 36
WICKENS - PROACTIVE SUPPORT
3 letter based trigrams and 1 number based trigram // recall declined 1-3 // 100% recall on 4
9 of 36
BADDELEY ET HITCH - RETROACTIVE SUPPORT
some rugby players had played all games and some had missed a few // whose who played all had poor recall on old games
10 of 36
CHANDLER - INTERFERENCE EVAL
studying of similar subjects close together should be avoided
11 of 36
KANE ET EAGLE - INTERFERENCE EVAL
those with a greater working memory span are less susceptible to interference as they have more resources to counteract the effects
12 of 36
GODDEN ET BADDELEY - CONTEXT DEPENDANT SUPPORT
18 divers learned word lists on land or underwater // recalled in same or different environment // best recall when contexts were consistent
13 of 36
GOODWIN ET AL - STATE DEPENDANT SUPPORT
males learnt a word list either sober or drunk // recalled after 24 hours in the same state // best recall when internal mental state is consistent
14 of 36
CARTER ET CASSADAY - RETRIEVAL CUES EVAL
similar studies to GOODEN ET BADDELEY and GOODWIN ET AL with drowsy anti-histamine drugs and found best recall when state the same
15 of 36
EYSENCK - RETRIEVAL CUES EVAL
'retrieval failure is the main form of forgetting'
16 of 36
ABERNETHY - RETRIEVAL CUES EVAL
mental reinstatement is just as effective as physical reinstatement (cognitive interview)
17 of 36
GODDEN ET BADDELEY - RETRIEVAL CUES EVAL
replicated original diver study with a recognition task and found recall was not affected by the context
18 of 36
TULVING ET AL - TYPES OF LTM EVAL
conducted PET scans whilst ppts completed different tasks // episodic recall = pre-frontal cortex // semantic recall = posterior region of the cortex
19 of 36
BELLEVILLE ET AL - TYPES OF LTM EVAL
showed ppts with training performed better on episodic tasks than an untrained control group
20 of 36
CLIVE WEARING - MEMORY C.S.
suffered brain damage and lost his episodic memory but maintained procedural // couldn't remember his wedding but could still play piano
21 of 36
LOFTUS ET PALMER - LEADING QUESTIONS SUPPORT
45 students showed 7 different films of a car accident // asked critical question with verb of contact: hit, smashed, collided, bumped, contacted // estimated speed depended on verb
22 of 36
GABBERT ET AL - POST EVENT DISCUSSION SUPPORT
ppts watch a simulated robbery and either discussed it after or didn't // 71% mistakenly reported aspects
23 of 36
LOFTUS - MISLEADING INFO EVAL
students recalled meeting bugs bunny to Ariel at Disneyland previously after seeing false ads // bugs bunny isn't Disney and Ariel hadn't been introduced yet
24 of 36
FOSTER ET AL - MISLEADING INFO + ANXIETY EVAL
identification of the perpetrator was more accurate If it was a real life robbery
25 of 36
YUILLE ET CUTSHALL - MISLEADING INFO EVAL
real witnesses still recalled/identified accurately despite being given two leading questions
26 of 36
LOFTUS ET AL - ANXIETY SUPPORT
high anxiety cond = ppts heard a heated convo and someone emerged holding a blood covered knife = 33% identification // low anxiety cond = heard a calm convo and emerged with a pen = 49% // weapons focus effect
27 of 36
LOFTUS ET BURNS - ANXIETY SUPPORT
ppts watched a non violent or violent simulated robbery // non-violent had better recall // shock caused disrupted memory storage
28 of 36
CHRISTIAN ET HUBINETTE - ANXIETY EVAL
real life witnesses recalled better if they'd been threatened in their respective crime experiences
29 of 36
BADDELEY ET HITCH - WMM EVAL
demonstrated an individual could complete a verbal and central executive task simultaneously without recall being affected
30 of 36
COHEN ET AL - WMM EVAL
conducted PET scans whilst ppts completed tasks // verbals tasks = Broca's area // visual tasks = Occipital lobe
31 of 36
EVR - MEMORY C.S.
brain damage // could reason but not decision make suggesting CE isn't unitary
32 of 36
BERZ - WMM EVAL
'it doesn't account for musical memory' - we can listen to instrumental music without performance on an acoustic task being affected
33 of 36
GEISELMAN ET AL - COGNITIVE INTERVIEW EVAL
interviewed ppts 48 hours after them viewing a simulated violent crime // cognitive interview elicited better recall than standard int. and hypnosis
34 of 36
MILNE ET BULL - COGNITIVE INTERVIEW EVAL
found a combination of context reinstatement and report everything worked best
35 of 36
KOHNKEN ET AT -COGNITIVE INTERVIEW EVAL
81% increase in accurate recall but also a 61% increase in inaccurate recall with cognitive interview
36 of 36

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

puts given identical auditory messages to both ears with a slight delay between // correctly recalled as identical if delay is less than 2 seconds

Back

TREISMAN (SR) [DURATION]

Card 3

Front

only retained visual information for a few milliseconds // retained auditory for 2-3 seconds // info coded in different formats

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

puts had to recall letters and digits in the same order they were given // list increased by one each time // average span 5-9 items

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

puts recalled nonsense trigrams after 3,6,9,12,15 or 18 seconds // rehearsal prevented by counting back in 3's from 999 // maximum recall duration of 18-30 seconds

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Memory resources »