Key Studies Flashcards
(38 cards)
Peterson & Peterson
>Lab experiment >Nonsense Trigrams (No cues or LTM) >Count back in 3's from 3 digit number for between 3-18 seconds >More letters recalled after 3 seconds >Less than 10% recalled after 18 seconds >STM has v short duration >STM decays quickly without rehearsal
Clive Wearing
> Virus that damaged his brain
Damaged LTM, couldn’t move STM to LTM
Still has procedural memory
Suggests more than one LTM store
Baddely
ENCODING LTM/STM
> Gave pps four sets of words that were acoustically similar/dissimilar or semantically similar/dissimilar
>Independent groups
>Had to recall immediately (STM) or after 20 minutes (LTM)
>STM affected by acoustically similar words
>LTM affected by semantically similar words
Bahrick
DURATION LTM
> 400 pps aged 17-74
>Independent Groups
>Recognition/recall task from yearbook
>Recognition = 90% correct 15 years after graduation
>Recall = 60% correct 15 years after graduation
>Concluded: recognition better than recall, memory for meaningful information long duration
Bunge
WMM
>Brain scans
>Showed different parts of the brain were active when verbal or visual tasks were undertaken
> In dual-task processing, the decision making part of the brain in the prefrontal cortex was more active so greater input from CE.
KF
> KF had amnesia after a motorcycle accident
His STM was poor when he heard information
STM improved when he read information
Suggests more than one STM, one visual one verbal
McGeogh & McDonald
> pps had to learn word list 100%
Then they had to learn another list (either same/different meaning/ nonsense syllables/ numbers/ no list)
Then recall original list
Tulving
> 6 pps including himself and his wife
Injected radioactive gold into brain
Asked to think of an episodic or semantic memory
Found that different brain areas involved in semantic and episodic memory
Suggests biological basis to LTM differences
Baddely (Encoding)
ENCODING LTM/STM
> Gave pps four sets of words that were acoustically similar/dissimilar or semantically similar/dissimilar
>Independent groups
>Had to recall immediately (STM) or after 20 minutes (LTM)
>STM affected by acoustically similar words
>LTM affected by semantically similar words
Bunge
WMM
>Brain scans
>Showed different parts of the brain were active when verbal or visual tasks were undertaken
> In dual-task processing, the decision making part of the brain in the prefrontal cortex was more active so greater input from CE.
> Biological evidence for the model’s three components
Baddely (Dual-task)
> Condition one: track moving light on a whiteboard (VSS)
and picture capital F and speak the directions as if walking around it (VSS)
2 VSS tasks
> condition two: track moving light on a whiteboard (VSS)
and repeat the word “the” (PL)
2 tasks using different stores
> Supports model, idea VSS has limited capacity
Supports more that one STM store as pps could carry out tasks using different stores
EVR
> EVR had a cerebral tumour
Performed well on tests that required reasoning
Poor at decision making
CE is too simplistic
Grossman & Grossman
> Strange situation
Germany
46% Insecure Avoidant
Takahashi
> Strange situation
Japan
No avoidant
32% resistant
Van Ijzendoorn
> Meta-analysis of 32 strange situation studies
Secure attachments were the most common
Greater variation within a culture than between
Attachments are likely innate because of small differences between cultures
Secure attachments are likely to be the best for healthy development
McGeogh &McDonald
> pps had to learn word list 100%
Then they had to learn another list (either same/different meaning/ nonsense syllables/ numbers/ no list)
Then recall original list
results depended on which list they had, same meaning led to worst recall, numbers and no list being best recall
Interference is worse if information is similar
EVR
> EVR had a cerebral tumour
Performed well on tests that required reasoning
Poor at decision making
CE is too simplistic
Ainsworth
STRANGE SITUATION
>Research room split in to 9x9 squares
>Observed through video and behind one way mirror
>Observed for:
-stranger anxiety
-separation anxiety
-safe base and exploration
-proximity seeking behaviour
-reunion behaviour
>8 events that happen (mother leaves etc)
>100 middle class American infants and mothers
>Concluded 3 types of attachment (Secure, avoidant, resistant)
>Secure 66%
>Avoidant 22%
>Resistant 12%
Yuille & Cutshall
> Study of real shooting in Canada
13 witnesses
Shop owner had shot thief dead
Interviewed 4-5 months after
Testimonies compared with original testimony
Anxiety measured using 7 point self report scale
Asked 2 leading questions
Results:
>Very accurate, LQ’s did not affect their recall
>Pps with higher anxiety were 88% accurate, less stressed were 75% accurate
Johnson & Scott
Weapon focus
>Pps sat in waiting room and overheard an argument
>Low anxiety condition- man walked out with pen and grease on hands
>High anxiety- holding a paper knife and had blood on his hands
>Asked to pick man from photo of 50 men
Results: > 49% picked man (LOW ANXIETY) >33% picked man (HIGH ANXIETY) >Difference was weapon focus >Shows anxiety has negative effect on recall
Gabbert PED
> PPS watched video of the same crime from different perspectives (They saw different things)
pps discussed what they had seen with a partner then had individual recall test
Results:
>71% of pps mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but gained from the discussion (0% of control group did this)
>Witnesses often go along with each other, memory conformity
Pickel
> Used scissors, handgun, wallet and raw chicken
Suggests weapon focus in lab studies is due to weapon being unusual rather than increasing anxiety
Lab studies don’t tell us about real life anxiety
Baddely & Hitch
> Football players
>
Geiselman
CI
>Aimed to test effectiveness of CI
>89 students shown police training video
> Interviewed 48 hours later using either CI or SI
>CI led to more correct information but no increase in incorrect info.
