Psychology

Psychology

1. Memory

   • Murdock
     • Aim: To provide evidence to support the multi-store explanation of memory.
     • Method: Participants had a list of words presented one at a time, for two seconds per word, and then recall the words in any order.
     • Conclusion: Murdock concluded that this provides evidence for separate short-term and long-term stores.
       • Murdock claimed that the recency effect is evidence that the last few words were still in the short-term store.
         • The primary effect was evidence that the first few words flowed into the long-term store.
     • Results: The words at the end of the list were recalled first (known as the recency effect).
       • Words from the beginning of the list were also recalled quite well (known as the primary effect), but the middle words were not recalled very well.
   • Wynn&Logie
     • Aim: To see if the recall of familiar stories changed in the same way that Barlett found with unfamiliar stories.
     • Method: They asked university students to recall details of their first week at university.
       • They were asked to do this several times throughout the year.
     • Results: The results showed that the accuracy of their descriptions remained the same each time they called the information.
       • This is unlike Barlett's participants who changed their stories with every telling.
     • Conclusion: Wynn and Logie concluded that memories for familiar events will not change over time.
   • Underwood&Postman
     • Aim: To see if new learning interferes with previous learning.
     • Method: Participants were divided into two groups:
       • Group A were asked to learn a list of word pairs and then asked to learn a second list.
       • Group B were asked only to learn the first list.
       • Both groups were asked to recall the first lists of word paisr.
     • Group B's recall of the first list was more accurate than that of Group A.:
     • Conclusion: New learning interfered with participants ability to recall the first list.
   • Craik&Lockhart
     • Aim: To see if the type of question asked about words will have an effect on the number of words recalled.
     • Method: Participants were presented a list of words, one at a time, and asked questions about each word, to which they had to answer yes or no.
       • Some questions required structural processing of the words; others required phonetic processing and others semantic processing.
         • They were given a longer list of words and asked to identify the words they had answered questions about.
     • Results: Participants identified 70 per cent of the semantic processing, 35 per cent of phoentic and 15 of structural.
     • Conclusion: The more deeply information is processed, the more likely it is to be remembered.
   • Godden&Baddley
     • Aim: To see if people who learn and are tested in the same environment will recall more information than those who learn and are tested in different.
     • Method: Participants were deep-sea divers. They were divided into four groups. All of the groups were given the same words to learn:
       • Group 1 had to learn underwater and recall underwater.
       • Group 2 had to learn underwater and recall on the shore.
       • Group 3 had to learn on the shore and recall on the shore.
       • Group 4 had to learn on the shore and recall underwater.
     • Results: Groups 1 and 3 recalled 40% more words than groups 2 and 4.
     • Conclusion: Recall of information will be better if it happens in the same context that learning takes place.
   • Miller
     • A patient suffering from epilepsy underwent an operation in which two thirds of his hippocampus was removed.
     • Since the operation he was unable to learn new information. This shows that the hippocampus is crucial for recording new memories.
   • Loftus&Palmer
     • Aim: To see if asking leading questions affect the accuracy of recall.
     • Method: Participants were shown films of car accidents. Some were asked 'How fast was the car going when it hit the other car?'.
       • Others were asked 'How fast was the car going when it smashed the other car?'.
     • Results: Those who heard the word smashed gave a higher speed estimate than those who heard hit.
     • Conclusion: Leading questions will affect the accuracy of recall. The word 'smashed' led people to believe the car was going faster.
   • Bruce&Young
     • Aim: To see if familiarity affects the accuracy of recall.
     • Method: Psychology lecturers were caught on security cameras at the entrance of a building.
       • Participants were asked to idnetify the faces seen on the security camera tape from a series of high quality photographs.
     • Results: The lecturers' students made more correct identifications than other students and experienced police officers.
     • Conclusion: Previous familiarity helps when identifying faces.

2. Personality

   • Buss and Plomin
     • Aim:
     • Method:
     • Results:
     • Conclusion:
   • Kagan and Snidman
     • Aim:
     • Method:
     • Results:
     • Conclusion:
   • Eynsenck
     • Aim:
     • Method:
     • Results:
     • Conclusion:
   • Raine
     • Aim:
     • Method:
     • Results:
     • Conclusion:
   • Farrington
     • Aim:
     • Method:
     • Results:
     • Conclusion:
   • Elander
     • Aim:
     • Conclusion:
     • Method:
     • Results:
   • Thomas, Chess and Birch
     • Aim: To discover whether ways of responding to the environment remain stable throughout life.
     • Method:
     • Conclusion:
     • Results:

3. Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination

4. Communication