Studied by 0 people
Studies
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) Terms to define (MMS)
Multi-Store Memory
Sensory memory
Long term memory
Primacy
Recency
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) Aim (MMS)
To test the Multi-Store Memory model’s assumption that there are seperate memory stores
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) Procedure (MMS)
46 army enlisted men participated
Repeated measures design was used
Participants were shown 15-word lists of common one-syllable words
Words were displayed for 1 second each, with a 2-second interval between words
The experimenter read each word aloud as it appeared
After the list, participants saw either a # or a number between 0 and 9
If they saw a #, they immediately wrote down as many words as they could recall
If they saw a number, they counted from that number until told to stop and then wrote down recalled words
Recall conditions: immediate recall, delayed recall (10 seconds), and delayed recall (30 seconds)
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) Results (MMS)
When asked for immediate recall, both primacy and recency effects were shown
With the 10 secs distraction task, there was a significant reduction of the recency effect
In the 30 sec delay condition, the researchers reportes ‘no trace’ of the recency effect
Supports the primacy effect theory as a result of reharsal
The primacy effect occurs because words remembered from the beginning of the list have already been stored in long term memory
The words at the end of the list are still in short term memory and so are easily recalled
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) Evaluation
Landrey and Bartling (2011) Terms to define (WMM)
Working memory model
Central executive
visuospatial sketchpad
Phonological loop
Episodic buffer
Landrey and Bartling (2011) Aim (WMM)
To investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of a written list of phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall
Landrey and Bartling (2011) Procedure (WMM)
Thirty-four psychology students participated.
Independent samples design was used.
Participants were tested individually.
Experimental group performed an articulatory suppression task (saying "1" and "2" at a rate of two numbers per second) while recalling letters.
Control group recalled letters without the articulatory suppression task.
Ten lists of seven letters (F, K, L, M, R, X, Q) were used; letters were chosen because they don’t sound similar.
Participants received an answer sheet with seven blanks per row.
Each participant viewed one practice list before the experiment began.
Control group saw a printed list for five seconds, waited five seconds, and then wrote the letters in order.
Experimental group repeated "1" and "2" from list presentation until they filled the answer sheet.
Both groups repeated the task ten times.
Trials were scored for accuracy, with correct recall defined as letters in the correct position.
Average percent correct recall was calculated for both groups.
Landrey and Bartling (2011) Results (WMM)
Scores in the experimental group were much lower than in the control group.
Mean percent of accurate recall: control group 76%, experimental group 45%.
Standard deviations: control group SD = 0.13, experimental group SD = 0.14.
T-test showed a significant difference: p ≤ 0.01.
Results supported the experimental hypothesis.
Articulatory suppression prevented rehearsal in the phonological loop due to overload.
Overload caused difficulty in memorizing letter strings for the experimental group, while the control group did not experience this issue.
Landrey and Bartling (2011) Evaluation
Brewer and Treyens (1995) Terms to define (schema)
Schemas
Schema theory
Assimilation
Accomodation
Brewer and Trayens (1995) Aim (Schema)
To investigate the role of schema in encoding and retrieval of episodic memory
Brewer and Treyens (1995) Procedure (schema)
Sample: 86 university psychology students.
Participants were seated in a room designed to look like an office.
Office contained typical items (typewriter, paper, coffee pot) and atypical items (skull, toy top), with some typical items omitted (e.g., books).
All participants sat in the same chair for a consistent vantage point.
Participants waited in the room for 35 seconds without knowing the study had begun.
After 35 seconds, participants were taken to another room and asked to recall what they remembered from the office.
93% of participants did not expect to be asked to remember the objects.
Recall tasks:
30 participants: written recall and verbal recognition.
29 participants: drawing recall.
27 participants: verbal recognition only.
Written recall: Participants described objects, including location, shape, size, and color, as if describing the room to someone who had never seen it.
Recognition test: Participants rated their certainty about 131 objects (61 present, 70 absent) on a scale of 1 ("sure it was not in the room") to 6 ("absolutely sure it was in the room").
Drawing recall: Participants were given an outline of the room and asked to draw in remembered objects.
Verbal recognition: Participants were read a list of objects and asked if each was in the room or not.
4o
Brewer and Treyens (1995) Results (schema)
Participants recalling by writing or drawing were more likely to remember schema-congruent items ("expected items" in an office).
Schema-incongruent items (e.g., skull, piece of bark, screwdriver) were less frequently recalled in free recall tasks.
In the verbal recognition task, participants were more likely to identify schema-incongruent items, even if they did not recall them during free recall.
Participants often falsely identified schema-congruent items that were not actually in the room.
In both drawing and recall tasks, participants altered objects to fit their schema (e.g., a pad of yellow paper on a chair was remembered as being on the desk; a trapezoidal table was recalled as square).
Schema influenced both the encoding and recall of objects in the office.
Brewer and Treyens (1995) Evaluation (schema)
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) Terms to define (Thinking and decision making) (Cogntivie biases)
Dual processing theory
System one
System two
Heuristics (just for cognitive biases)
Framing effect (just for cognitive biases)
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) Aim (Thinking and decision making) (Cogntivie biases)
To investigate the effect of anchoring on estimate the value of a mathematics problem
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) Procedure (Thinking and decision making) (Cogntivie biases)
High school students participated in the study.
Participants in the "ascending condition" estimated the value of 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 × 8 in five seconds.
Participants in the "descending condition" estimated the value of 8 × 7 × 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 in five seconds.
Researchers hypothesized that the first number seen would act as an anchor, influencing the estimate.
The "ascending condition" was expected to produce lower estimates due to "1" as the anchor.
The "descending condition" was expected to produce higher estimates due to "8" as the anchor.
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) Results (Thinking and decision making) (Cogntivie biases)
The median estimate for the ascending group was 512.
The median estimate for the descending group was 2250.
The actual value of the calculation is 40,320.
The study demonstrates the effect of anchoring on estimating the value of a mathematical problem.
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) Evaluation (Thinking and decision making) (Cogntivie biases)
Loftus and Palmer (1974) Terms to define (reconstructive memory)
Recontructive nature of memory
Schemas
Loftus and Palmer (1974) Aim (reconstructive memory)
To investigate whether the use of leading questions would affect the estimation of speed
Loftus and Palmer (1974) Procedure (reconstructive memory)
Researchers predicted that the word "smashed" would result in higher speed estimates than "hit."
Independent variable: intensity of the verb used in the critical question.
Dependent variable: participants' estimation of speed.
45 students participated, divided into five groups of nine.
Seven traffic accident films (5–30 seconds long) from driver’s education films were shown.
Independent samples design; each participant watched all seven films.
After watching a film, participants gave an account of the accident and answered a questionnaire.
The critical question asked participants to estimate the speed of the cars.
The verb in the critical question varied: "hit," "collided," "bumped," "smashed," or "contacted."
Loftus and Palmer (1974) Results (reconstructive memory)
Mean speed estimate was highest in the "smashed" condition and lowest in the "contacted" condition.
Results were statistically significant at p ≤ 0.005.
The critical word in the question consistently influenced participants' answers.
Researchers suggested two possible explanations:
Response bias: Participants uncertain about speed may be influenced by the verb, with "smashed" biasing responses toward higher estimates.
Memory reconstruction: The verb "smashed" may activate a cognitive schema of a severe accident, altering participants' mental representation and memory of the event.
Memory distortion occurs through reconstruction, aligning memories with cognitive schemas rather than actual details.
Findings support Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory and schema processing.
Participants’ memory of an accident can be influenced by suggestive questions.
Loftus and Palmer (1974) Evaluation (reconstructive memory)
Brown and Kulik (1977) Terms to define (emotion)
Flashbulb memory
Recontructive memory
Brown and Kulik (1977) Aim (emotion)
To investigate whether surprising and personally significant events can cause flashbulb memories
Brown and Kulik (1977) Procedure (emotion)
40 Black and 40 White American male participants completed a questionnaire.
The questionnaire focused on the deaths of public figures (e.g., President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.) and someone personally known to the participant.
Questions asked included:
Where were you when you heard about the event?
Who was with you when you heard about the event?
What were you doing when you heard about the event?
How did you find out about the event?
How did you feel when you heard about the event? (to measure emotional impact)
How important was this event in your life? (to measure personal relevance)
How often have you talked about this event? (to measure rehearsal)
Study conducted in 1977.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.
Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968
Brown and Kulik (1977) Results (emotion)
90% of participants recalled significant details about the day of the events.
Most participants had detailed memories of the death of a loved one.
Memories of public official assassinations varied based on personal relevance:
75% of Black participants had flashbulb memories of Martin Luther King's assassination.
33% of White participants had flashbulb memories of Martin Luther King's assassination.
Brown & Kulik proposed the concept of flashbulb memories, likening them to mental photographs of significant events.
Flashbulb memories occur when events are both surprising and personally relevant to the individual.
Brown and Kulik (1977) Evaluation (emotion)
