Memory studies

Question 1

What did Miller and Jacobs aim to investigate?

Answer 1

Capacity of STM

Question 2

What was Jacobs procedure

Answer 2

Participants were asked to repeat back strings of digits or letters of increasing length until they could no longer recall them correctly.

Question 3

What did Miller conclude from Jacobs study?

Answer 3

STM had a capacity of 5-9 items (7 +/- 2).

Question 4

What technique did Miller / Jacobs discover can improve capacity of STM

Answer 4

Chunking

Question 5

What were the strengths of Miller / Jacobs study

Answer 5

Reliable and replicable findings through standardised procedure

Question 6

What were the weaknesses of Miller / Jacobs study

Answer 6

Lacks ecological validity (artificial tasks), capacity may vary with individual differences

Question 7

What were Peterson & Petersons (1959) aims?

Answer 7

Duration of STM (without rehearsal)

Question 8

What was Peterson and Petersons procedure

Answer 8

Participants were given trigrams (e.g., “XQJ”) and asked to recall them after intervals (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 seconds) while counting backwards to prevent rehearsal.

Question 9

What did Peterson and Peterson find

Answer 9

STM duration is about 18–30 seconds without rehearsal

Question 10

Strengths of Peterson and Peterson

Answer 10

Controlled, replicable lab experiment

Question 11

Weaknesses of Peterson and Peterson

Answer 11

Low ecological validity, counting backwards may cause interference, not just prevent rehearsal

Question 12

What did Baddeley (1966) aim to investigate

Answer 12

Coding of STM and LTM

Question 13

Procedure of Baddeley

Answer 13

Participants learned lists of words that were acoustically similar or semantically similar, and then recalled them immediately (STM) or after a delay (LTM).

Question 14

Findings of Baddeley

Answer 14

STM encodes mainly acoustically; LTM encodes mainly semantically

Question 15

Strengths of Baddeley

Answer 15

Clear evidence for different coding in STM and LTM.

Question 16

Weaknesses of Baddeley

Answer 16

Artificial word lists, may not reflect real-life.

Question 17

What did Baddeley & Hitch aim to investigate (1974)

Answer 17

To provide a more detailed explanation of STM as an active, multi-component system. Working memory model

Question 18

Baddeley and Hitch (1974) procedure

Answer 18

Developed from dual-task experiments showing people can perform auditory and visual tasks simultaneously, suggesting separate stores

Question 19

Baddeley & Hitch (1974) findings

Answer 19

STM consists of several components: central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer

Question 20

Baddeley and Hitch (1974) strengths

Answer 20

Explains multitasking and dual-task performance.
Supported by brain imaging and case studies

Question 21

Baddeley and Hitch (1974) weaknesses

Answer 21

Central executive is poorly defined.
Some components may be more complex than described

Question 22

What did Tulving (1972) aim to investigate / distinguish

Answer 22

To distinguish between different types of LTM: episodic, semantic, and procedural memory.

Question 23

Tulving (1972) procedure

Answer 23

Tulving used case studies and neuroimaging to show different brain areas are active during different memory tasks.

Question 24

Tulving (1972) findings

Answer 24

LTM is not unitary; episodic (personal events), semantic (facts), and procedural (skills) memories are distinct.

Question 25

Tulving (1972) strengths

Answer 25

Supported by clinical cases (e.g., Clive Wearing). Neuroimaging shows different brain areas involved.

Question 26

Tulving (1972) weaknesses

Answer 26

Overlap between types of memory in real life. Difficult to study procedural memory in isolation.

Question 27

What did Postman (1960) aim to investigate

Answer 27

Retroactive interference in forgetting

Question 28

Postman (1960) procedure

Answer 28

Participants learned a list of paired words. The experimental group learned a second list with different pairings; the control group did not. Both groups were tested on recall of the first list.

Question 29

Postman (1960) findings

Answer 29

Experimental group recalled fewer words from the first list. Learning new information interferes with recall of old information (retroactive interference)

Question 30

Postman (1960) strengths

Answer 30

Reliable, robust laboratory findings.

Question 31

Postman (1960) weaknesses

Answer 31

Artificial tasks (word lists). May not generalize to everyday memory

Question 32

What did Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) aim to investigate

Answer 32

To test whether recall improves with cues.

Question 33

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) procedure

Answer 33

Participants learned lists of words in categories. Some were given category cues at recall; others were not.

Question 34

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) procedure

Answer 34

Participants learned lists of words in categories. Some were given category cues at recall; others were not.

Question 35

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) findings

Answer 35

Recall was higher with cues, supporting cue-dependent forgetting.

Question 36

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) strengths

Answer 36

Explains why forgetting happens even when information is stored.

Question 37

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)

Answer 37

Cues in real life are more complex than in experiments.