Memory Studies 2

Memory Studies

1. Interference

   • Underwood and Postman (1960)
     • A: To see if new learning interferes with previous learning.
     • M: Pps were divided into 2 groups. Group A learnt a list of word pairs (cat-tree). They had to learn a second list of word pairs. Group B only learnt the first list. Both groups had to recall the first list.
     • R: Group B's recall of the first list was more accurate than that of Group A's.
     • C: New learning interferes with Pps ability to recall the first list.

2. Reconstructive Memory Model

   • Wynn and Logie (1998)
     • A: To see if the recall of familiar stories changed in the same way that Bartlett found with unfamiliar stories.
     • M: They asked university students to recall details of their first week at university. They were asked to do this several times throughout the year.
     • R: The results showed that the accuracy of their descriptions remained the same no matter how many times they were asked to recall the information. This is unlike Bartlett's Pps who changed their stories with every telling.
     • C: Memories for familiar events will not change over time.
   • Bartlett (1932)
     • A: To see the effects of unfamiliarity on the recall of folk story.
     • M: English Pps heard an unfamiliar North American folk tale called "The War of the Ghosts". The story contained words and ideas that would not have appeared in a conventional Western story. After 20 hours, Pps were asked to recall as much of the story as possible. Hereafter, Pps were asked to retell the story many more times.
     • R: The recalled story was distorted in a number of ways. Pps retold the story using narrative techniques that were influenced by their own cultural and literary background. Distortions became even more pronounced over time, so that it increasingly resembled an ordinary English story.
     • C: Memory for the folk tale continued being reconstructed over time and became less like the original story. The reconstruction made the story more coherent and so more easily remembered by the Pps.

3. Context

   • Godden and Baddeley (1975)
     • A: To find out the importance of context based retrieval.
     • M: Pps learned lists of words either on land or 15 feet under water. They were asked to recall the words either on the same setting or the opposite setting.
     • R: When the setting for learning and recall were the same the Pps significantly recalled more words in comparison to learning and recalling the words in opposite settings.
     • C: We remember things better when we're in the same context in which we learnt them in.