Case Studies Flashcards

0
Q

Craik and Lockhart (Memory)

A

levels of processing - Lists of words
Evaluation:
1. Doesn’t explain why deeper levels of processing helps memory
2. Ecological validity - Realistic tasks aren’t list of words

LEVELS OF PROCESSING

AIM: To see if the type of questions asked affects recall
METHOD: Presented with a list of words, asked questions either semantic, structural, phonetic
RESULTS: 70% semantic, 35% phonetic, 15% structural
CONCLUSION: More deeply we think, more likely to remember

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Murdock (Memory)

A

Multi-store - Lists of words
Evaluation:
1. Everything we learn doesn’t have to be rehearsed: life events
2. Ecological validity - Realistic tasks aren’t list of words

MULTI STORE MODEL STUDY

AIM: To provide evidence to support the multi store model
METHOD: Participants had to learn a list of words presented one at a time, then recall words in order
RESULTS: Words at start (Primacy) were recalled and at the end (Recency)
CONCLUSION: Evidence for long & short term

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Bartlett (Memory)

A

Reconstructive memory - War of Ghosts

  1. War of ghosts is a confusing story
  2. Not similar to everyday experiences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Underwood & Postman (Memory)

A

Interference - Pairs of words

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Godden & Baddeley

A

Context - Underwater testing

AIM: People who learn and recall in same place will recall more info
METHOD: Deep sea divers, 4 groups.
RESULTS: Groups 1 and 3 recalled 40% more words than 2 and 4
CONCLUSION: Recall of information will be better if learnt in same place

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Loftus & Palmer

A

Eyewitness Testimony - Leading questions
Evaluation:
1. Watching films not the same as real-life experiences
2.Other factors that cause Eyewitness to be unreliable

EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY

AIM: See if leading questions affect recall
METHOD: Shown films of car accidents. Used “hit” or “smashed”
RESULTS: Those who heard “smashed” estimated a higher speed than those who heard “hit”
CONCLUSION: Leading questions can affect recall. “Smashed” led participants to believe the car was going faster

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Interference

A

AIM: To see if new learning affects previous learning
METHOD: One group asked to learn one list. Another learnt two lists. Then asked to recall first list
RESULTS: The second group had more difficulty recalling info than the first
CONCLUSION: New information can hinder accuracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Brain Damage

A

Patient had 2/3 of hippocampus removed. Unable to learn new info. Shows hippocampus is crucial to learning new information.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Eyewitness Testimony - Unfamiliar faces

A

AIM: To see if familiarity affects the accuracy of identifying faces
METHOD: Psychology lecturers caught on camera. Participants asked to identify faces.
RESULTS: More lecturers made more correct identifications than police officers
CONCLUSION: Previous familiarity helps identifying faces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Verbal Communication

A

AIM: To see if tone of voice has an affect when interpreting verbal message
METHOD: Listened to friendly or hostile messages in friendly or hostile tone of voices.
RESULTS: Found tone of voice had 5 times affect of message
CONCLUSION: Tone of voice is very important

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Eye Contact

A

AIM: To see if interrupting eye contact affects conversation
METHOD: In conversation participants wore dark glasses.
RESULTS: More interuptions when glasses were worn
CONCLUSION: Eye contact is important to the flow of conversation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Facial Expression

A

AIM: To see the relationship between the brain and facial expressions
METHOD: Pictures of peoples faces showing different emotions. New pictures were created from halves and shown to participants
RESULTS: Liked more of left face & reflection. Looked ‘warmer’.
CONCLUSION: The left side of the face seems to express emotion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Posture

A

AIM:To see the effect of open/ closed posture when having a conversation
METHOD: In half of conversations confederate had open posture, second half closed.
RESULTS: Participants saw open as friendly, attractive. Closed as unfriendly and unattractive
CONCLUSION: Posture makes a difference to likeability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Gestures

A

To see effect of gestures on waiters on tipping behaviour.
METHOD: Waiters stood or squatted down near the customer. SQUATTING = MORE EYE CONTACT
RESULTS: Larger tips for those who squatted
CONCLUSION: Gestures have a positive effect on tipping

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Touch

A

AIM: Effect of touch on people’s attitudes
METHOD: Females were handed books. Some were briefly touched, some weren’t
RESULTS: Students touched have more +ve view, but weren’t aware of being touched
CONCLUSION: Touch has an unconcious and positive effect on attitudes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Personal Space

A

AIM: Sex differences affect personal space
METHOD: Participants talked to a person of same or opposite sex.
RESULTS: More interruptions of eye contact with opposite sex at greater distance apart than same sex
CONCLUSION: We prefer larger personal space with opposite sexes.