Flashcards
Memory Research Studies/Case Studies
Cards in this deck (35)
- 1What were the conclusions of Baddeley (1966)STM is encoded acoustically
LTM is encoded semantically - 2What were the findings of Baddeley (1966)STM ppts were more likely to mistake similar sounding words whereas LTM ppts were more likely to mistake similar meaning words
- 3Evaluation of Baddeley (1966)+ve - Higher repeatability due to high control of variables in lab setting
-ve - Unrepresentative sample with Cambridge students and a small sample size of 72 - 4What were the conclusions of Peterson and Peterson (1966)S
- 5What were the findings of Peterson and Peterson (1956)80% recall after 3 seconds, but 10% after 18 seconds
- 6Evaluation of Peterson and Peterson (1956)+ve - standardised list of information
-ve - artificial task and setting therefore lower ecological validity - 7What were the conclusions of Bahrick (1975)Names and faces can be remembered unlimited and that semantic encoding is incorporated
- 8What were the findings of Bahrick (1975)90% correctly matched after 14 years
60% correctly matched after 47 years - 9Evaluation of Bahrick (1975)+ve - high ecological validity as it had real life application (task was natural)
-ve - lacks internal validity as other factors affect memory e.g. dementia, decay theory - 10What was the findings of Loftus and Palmer (1974) exp1.The more violent and severe the verbs got, the higher speed given by ppts
- 11What was the findings of Loftus and Palmer (1974) exp1.LQ can influence the participants answers therefore altering the results that can be given (response bias)
- 12What was the conclusion of Loftus and Palmer (1974) exp2.Change of verb had an impact on answers given, “smashed” had higher results suggesting that they 'saw' the broken glass
- 13What was the findings of Loftus and Palmer (1974) exp2.Substitution bias - the idea that ppts memories were altered in response to the LQ
- 14What were the conclusions of Gabbert et al (2003)Created the phenomenon, memory conformity, the idea we go along with other ppts for social approval or believing the other witnesses more
- 15What were the findings of Gabbert et al (2003)71% of ppts mistakenly recalled aspects other witnesses had seen
0% for the control group - 16Evaluation of Gabbert et al (2003)+ve - Skagerberg and Wright found post event discussion occurs 58% of the time increasing the internal validity
-ve - lower population validity due to it testing on just Aberdeen students - 17What were the conclusions of Johnson and Scott (1976)Created the Weapon Focus Effect where ppts cant identify other identifications bar the weapon used
- 18What were the findings of Johnson and Scott (1976)In the low anxiety condition 49% of ppts could identify the man
In the high anxiety condition 33% of ppts could identify the man - 19Evaluation of Johnson and Scott (1976)-ve - ppts know they are in an experiment therefore demand characteristics could apply
-ve - contradicting evidence in Yuille and Cutshall - 20What were the conclusions of Yuille and Cutshall (1986)Suggesting anxiety does not have a detrimental effect on recall
- 21What were the findings of Yuille and Cutshall (1986)High stress score were most accurate with 88% whilst low stress score were 75%
These are recalls compared to original police interviews - 22Evaluation of Yuille and Cutshall (1986)+ve - high ecological validity due to the real life setting
-ve - subjective interpretation as their stress was operationalised based off of their own scoring (may have determined characteristics) - 23What were the conclusions of Konkhen et al (1999)Indicates practical benefit to enhanced cognitive interview
- 24What were the findings of Konkhen et al (1999)When using enhanced CI it found a 45% increase in correct information but also a 28% increase in incorrect information
- 25What were the conclusions of Milne and Bull (2002)Suggests that at least two elements should be used to improve interviewing of eyewitnesses, this in turn increases the credibility of the CI
- 26What are the findings of Milne and Bull (2002)Found that using a combination of Report Everything + Reinstate the context produced better recall than any of the other components of CI
- 27What are the conclusions of Geiselman et al (1986)Cognitive interview technique improves memory recall and reduces the effect of misleading information
- 28What are the findings of Geiselman et al (1986)Participants in the cognitive interview were less likely to be affected by the leading questions
- 29What are the conclusions of McGeoch and McDonald (1931)Words with similar meaning were more likely to be replaced and harder to recall
- 30What are the findings of McGeoch and McDonald (1931)Synonym group produced worse recall whereas no change produced better recall
- 31What are the conclusions of Baddeley and Hitch (1977)Results showed that accurate recall did not depend on the time between matches, what was important was the number of intervening matches played.
- 32What are the conclusions of Godden and Baddeley (1975)Context acted as a cue to recall
- 33What are the findings of Godden and Baddeley (1975)Same environment got better results
Mixed environments got worse results - 34What are the conclusions of Goodwin et al (1969)Supports retrieval failure and state dependent memory suggesting how the mood of both encoding and recall being the same helps recall overall
- 35What are the findings of Goodwin et al (1969)Ppts in the same state both days got higher scores
Sober both days was the best
Mismatched conditions had lower results