85276
| Question | Answer |
| Context dependent retrieval - Smith 1979 | Participants given a list of 80 words to learn whilst sitting in distinctive basement room. Following day, tested some participants in same basement room and others in a fifth floor room with completely different furnishings and atmosphere. Average recall for for basement group was 18 items, and fifth floor room 12 items. Another group tested in an upstairs room, but were asked to imagine being back in basement room , recalled 17 items on average. |
| Drunken state - Goodwin 1969 | Heavy drinkers who learn when drunk more likely to recall these things when drunk. Eich in 1980 supported same thing with range of drugs including marijuana. |
| Study into mood dependence - Ucros 1989 | Less conclusive evidence, but Ucros found a fairly strong relationship between mood when learning and mood at retrieval stage. Mood dependence more likely when stimulus material was about real life rather than artificial material, and adults more likely to demonstrate mood dependence than children are. |
| Peg words - Bellezza 1996 | Peg word mnemonics more flexible and effective than method of loci. |
| Organising study time effectively - Donovan and Radosevich 1999 | Distributed practice produces superior learning and remembering as opposed to massed practice. |
| Relationship between learning and retrieval environments - Godden and Baddeley 1975 | Divers learned 40 unrelated words either on land or 15 feet under water. Their recall was then tested in either the same or different location, half of the divers switched locations before recalling. Those who learned and recalled in same location recalled the most words, an average of 12.5. Supports encoding specificity principle. Recall average for other group was 8.5. |
| Difference between elaborative and maintenance rehearsal - Craik and Watkins 1973 | Maintenance often used by young children, it involves repeating something over and over again, but only helps maintain information for a few seconds, as it's in STM. Elaborative is when information is made meaningful, e.g linking it to previous knowledge. This makes it easier to recall as several different routes can be used to reach items in memory. |
| Meaningful chunks - Bower 1969 | Asked participants to learn a list of words. Experimental group saw words organised in conceptual hierarchies, while control group saw words presented randomly. Organised group recalled an average of 73 out of 112 words correctly (65%). Control only recalled 21 words on average (19%). |
| Use of a story - Bower and Clark 1969 | Participants asked to memorise 12 lists of unrelated words by organising each list as a story. When tested later, participants could recall more than 90% of words. Participants in control group recalled only 10%. |
| Proactive interference - Underwood 1957 | Students who had learned a list of nonsense syllables showed a greater rate of forgetting when tested after 24 hours than would be expected. Seeing as students hadn't learned any more nonsense syllables in between, he decided retroactive interference wasn't causing problem, so must be proactive, as he realised the students had taken part in previous studies. Confirmed this by gathering data about a number of previous studies taken part in by the students, and found that the more lists of nonsense syllables previously been required to learn, more likely they were to forget a new list over a 24 hour period. |
| Learning and relearning adjectives -McGeoch and MacDonald 1931 | Asked participants to learn and relearn lists of adjectives and then compared their performance on recall tests after delays in which they carried out unrelated tasks. Forgetting rates were lowest when participants simply had to rest during the interval between learning and recall. Forgetting rates increased when participants were required to learn unrelated material, such as nonsense syllables in the interval. Forgetting rates were even higher when other adjectives were learned in the interval, and highest when the adjectives were similar in meaning to the original list. |
| Encoding specificity principle - Tulving and Thompson 1973 | When acquire memories we encode them with links to the context which existed at time of learning. This context becomes a potential retrieval clue. Therefore, the closer the retrieval clues are to the original coding situation, the better the retrieval. May explain why recognition memory is better than recall memory. Forgetting occurs when the correct retrieval clues are not available. |
| Weakly associated cue word - Tulving and Osler 1968 | Presented participants with a list of words, each of which was paired with a weakly associated cue word. Participants were then tested by free recall, or were cued with the associated word. Cued recall consistently produced better performance than free recall. |
| Counteracting argument that any semantically associated word might have drawn out the target - Tulving and Osler 1968 | Gave some participants weak, semantic associates that had not been original cue words. Such cues did not facilitate recall, so they concluded that 'specific retrieval clues facilitate recall only if the information about them is stored at the same time as the information about the word of the given list'. |
| Later acknowledgement - Tulving 1983 | Cues not present at the time of learning may be helpful under certain circumstances. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.