Cognitive Approach -2

Craik and Tulving (1975)
1. LOP
2. Aim - To see whether there would be a difference in the extent to which participants would recall words that had been processed structurally, phonetically or semantically.
3. Procedure - 40 words, 2 second trials, with yes or no question that required different type of processing, expected recognition test from 80 words.
  1. IV: Questions asked/processing
  2. DV: No. of words recalled
4. Results: 15% (St), 35% (Ph), 70% (Se)
  1. Recall was higher for word with questions which were answered 'YES'
5. Conclusion: Semantically processed words had higher recall / supports LOP / aided by adding meaning
6. G: LOW - cannot generalise, 24pps, would need to repeat for other cultures, ages, classes.
7. R: HIGH - standardised proc. (q's and words), lab, controlled, accurate, scientific -> repeat to check reliability
8. A: Revision - adding meaning aids recall, should answer exam questions to revise --> causes to consider meaning --> higher marks in exam (more durable)
9. V: LOW - task validity, don't usually use memory to remember lists of words, not valid test of cues aiding recall, may be different for complex tasks.
10. E: HIGH - Deceived(Did not know of test), BUT protected from harm, consent, competent.
Is Eye Witness Testimony Reliable?
1. Innocence project - 321 exonerated. --> Devlin report. (States there has to be more than 1 eye witness for a person to be convicted on EWT alone)
2. MSM - Rehearsal --> durable memory // CDF - cues aid recall.
3. Leading Questions - Loftus & Palmer 1974 - showed video of car crashed, asked to estimate speed, changing verb (crashed, contacted etc). More violent the word the higher the speed estimated. --> shows leading questions affect recall.
4. Reconstrucive memory -- Riniolo et al (2003) - 15/20 titanic survivors had accurate recall despite misrepresentation from media. Memory can be reliable if even had significance, not always affected by schemas
5. Weapon Focus - Loftus (1979) - waiting outside a room, 1 group heard a quiet conversation and saw a man come out with a pen and grease. Other group heard an argument and breaking glass, man with knife and blood. 50% could recall pen man, 33% recalled knife man. Weapon focus can decrease accuracy of recall
6. E: Leading Questions - Lab experiment, low ecological validity, watching a video (not actual event) --> likely to have less meaning --> reduce recall (LOP)
7. E: Reconstructive memory - 25% of PP's did not recall accurately. & The significance of the event is likely to be much higher than witness a crime in the street, for example, results may not apply.
8. E: Weapon Focus - Low ecological validity (LAB), low task validity --> unnatural behaviour
Practical
1. MSM - investigating rehearsal & distractor task
2. Aim: To investigate how a distractor task effects memorability
3. Experimental hypothesis - There will be a significant difference between the no. of words recalled in Condition A (with a distractor task) and Condition B (without a distractor task)
4. Null hypothesis - There will be no significant difference in the no. of words recalled in Condition A to Condition B. Any difference will be due to chance.
5. IV : the presence of a distractor task // DV: no. of words recalled (PP will write down all the words they can remember in two minutes)
6. 40 pps, 18-83 yrs old
  1. Repeated measures
7. Consent form // shut blinds // silence // Condition A - 15 words, 2 second intervals on a screen, given distractor task (count down in 3's from 276), recall for 2 minutes. // Condition B - repeat with no distractor task (different words) // debrief - true aim of study
8. Conclusion - Reject Ho : No significant difference in performance in Condition A and Condition B suggesting the distractor task has no/little impact on STM.
  1. Does not support MSM which says rehearsal is key, and distractor task would prevent rehearsal.
9. Strengths
  1. Lab, replicable, reliability
  2. Controlled, scientific, standardised proc,
    1. Darkness, silence
  3. Repeated measures - reduce effect of pp variables
    1. Convinient
10. Weaknesses
  1. Low ecological validity
  2. Low task validity
  3. Repeated measures - order effects ( NO COUNTERBALANCING)

Siguiente

Cognitive Approach -2

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por leahmay hace alrededor de 9 años