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.
Procedure - 40 words, 2 second
trials, with yes or no question that
required different type of
processing, expected recognition
test from 80 words.
IV: Questions asked/processing
DV: No. of words recalled
Results: 15% (St), 35% (Ph), 70% (Se)
Recall was higher for word
with questions which were
answered 'YES'
Conclusion:
Semantically
processed words had
higher recall / supports
LOP / aided by adding
meaning
G: LOW - cannot
generalise, 24pps,
would need to
repeat for other
cultures, ages,
classes.
R: HIGH -
standardised proc. (q's
and words), lab,
controlled, accurate,
scientific -> repeat to
check reliability
A: Revision - adding meaning
aids recall, should answer exam
questions to revise --> causes to
consider meaning --> higher
marks in exam (more durable)
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.
E: HIGH - Deceived(Did not
know of test), BUT
protected from harm,
consent, competent.
Is Eye Witness Testimony Reliable?
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)
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.
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
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
E: Leading Questions - Lab experiment,
low ecological validity, watching a video
(not actual event) --> likely to have less
meaning --> reduce recall (LOP)
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.
Aim: To investigate
how a distractor task
effects memorability
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)
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.
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)
40 pps, 18-83 yrs old
Repeated measures
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
Conclusion - Reject Ho : No
significant difference in
performance in Condition A and
Condition B suggesting the
distractor task has no/little
impact on STM.
Does not support MSM which says
rehearsal is key, and distractor task
would prevent rehearsal.
Strengths
Lab, replicable, reliability
Controlled, scientific, standardised proc,
Darkness, silence
Repeated measures -
reduce effect of pp
variables
Convinient
Weaknesses
Low ecological validity
Low task validity
Repeated measures - order effects ( NO COUNTERBALANCING)