Baddeley

Baddeley

1. AIM

   • To find out if LTM encodes semantically or acoustically
     • ppts are given word lists that are similar in the way they sound or their meaning

2. IV

   • 1) Acoustically similar word list or acoustically dissimilar
     • 2) semantically similar word list or semantically dissimilar
       • Performance before 15 minutes 'forgetting' delay and performance after

3. DV

   • score on a recall test for 10 words, must be in correct order

4. SAMPLE

   • Men + women from cambridge university (volunteers)
     • 72 participants .
       • 15-20 in each condition. ( 15 in acoustically similar, 16 in semantically similar)

5. PROCEDURE

   • ppts split into 4 groups , according to IV and DV. Each group views a slideshow of a set of 10 words. Each word appears for 3 seconds.
     • Acoustically similar- ppts get a list of words that share a similar sound but control get words that one syllable but do not sound the same
       • Semantically similar - words that share a similar meaning but control gets words that are unconnected
         • ppts carry out interference tasks - hearing and then writing down 8 numbers, three times
           • There are 4 trials, ppts get better each time because words stay the same. Words are displayed around the room, getting correct order is key.
             • After 4th trial, get a 15 minute break and perform an unrelated interference task. Then they ask to recall words again.
               • Fifth and final trial is unexpected. Words are on the board and have to recall right order.

6. RESULTS

   • Acoustically similar words- confusing at first but ppts soon 'catch up' with control and overtake them.
     • LTM is not confused by acoustic similarities, scores on the last test are same to 4th trial which suggests no forgetting has taken place.
   • Semantically similar- seem to be confusing and experimental group seem to be behind and control group. They never catch up with control and perform worse.
     • very little forgetting and scores lower.

7. CONCLUSIONS

   • LTM encodes semantically
     • His earlier experiments suggest STM encodes acoustically
   • LTM pays no attention to how words sound.
     • LTM gets distracted by semantically similarities and muddles them up
       • No problem retrieving acoustically similar words

8. GENERALISABILITY

   • Large sample of 72. Anomalies would be singled out and anyone would be able to generalise from this sample
   • Many conditions which has only 15-16 people. Any anomalies would make a difference to the score.
   • sample is represenatative
   • volunteers- may have good memories so not representative in general

9. RELIABILITY

   • standardised procedures that can be replicated
     • could use the same words as Baddeley's
   • Baddeley improved the reliability of his own study, by getting rid of reading words aloud and putting them on the board for 2 seconds.

10. APPLICATION

    • LTM encoding semantically means revision can be done by mind mapping and using semantic links
      • use of Baddeley's interference task on STM has been infleuntial

11. VALIDITY

    • He improved internal validity by putting in controls
      • He told the ppts to recall the word order instead of recalling the words as it may be unfamilar or harder for them to remember them
    • Low ecological validity- remembering words is not something an individual does always. It is an artificial task.
      • He improved this by adding the 5th trial 'forgetting'. This is where they were asked to recall info unexpected like they could be asked to do in real life

12. ETHICS

    • No problems with ethics so not needed when evaluating