IB Psychology Studies

Studies for Paper 1 ERQ

Milner (1966) – Case Study of HM

Aim: To investigate the role of the hippocampus in memory formation through the case study of patient HM, who had parts of his medial temporal lobe, including the hippocampus, removed to treat severe epilepsy.

Procedure:

• Longitudinal case study using multiple data collection techniques:

  • Psychometric testing (IQ tests)

  • Observations

  • Cognitive testing (memory recall, learning tasks)

  • Later MRI scans

• HM was asked to perform mirror-drawing tasks and recall exercises.

Results:

• HM could not form new long-term episodic memories (anterograde amnesia).

• His short-term and procedural memory remained intact.

• MRI confirmed damage to the hippocampus.

Strengths:

• Triangulation increased credibility.

• Breakthroughs in understanding memory localization.

• High ecological validity.

Limitations:

• Single case—low generalizability.

• Cannot replicate due to ethics.

• No baseline for comparison pre-surgery.

Methodology: Case study

Ethical Considerations:

• HM could not give informed consent.

• Guardians and ethics boards approved procedures.

• Anonymity was preserved.

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)

Aim: To investigate the serial position effect and support the distinction between short-term and long-term memory stores.

Procedure:

• Participants were shown a list of words and asked to recall them.

• In one condition, recall was immediate.

• In another, there was a 30-second delay with a distractor task.

Results:

• Immediate recall showed a primacy and recency effect.

• With delay, the recency effect disappeared, supporting the idea of separate memory stores.

Strengths:

• Controlled, replicable experiment.

• Supports Multi-Store Model.

Limitations:

• Artificial task.

• Low ecological validity.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment

Ethical Considerations:

• Informed consent likely obtained.

• Minimal risk.

Miller (1956)

Aim: To investigate the capacity of short-term memory.

Procedure:

• Participants were asked to recall strings of numbers or letters.

• The length of the strings increased until participants could no longer recall them correctly.

Results:

• STM capacity is 7 ± 2 items.

• Chunking improves recall.

Strengths:

• Simple, replicable.

• Influential on memory models.

Limitations:

• May underestimate individual variation.

• Overly simplistic.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment

Ethical Considerations:

• Ethical standards maintained.

• No deception or harm.

Baddeley & Hitch (1974)

Aim: To develop and provide evidence for the Working Memory Model (WMM).

Procedure:

• Participants performed dual tasks (e.g., reasoning task + digit span task).

• Compared performance when tasks used the same or different components.

Results:

• Participants could perform two tasks if they used different systems (e.g., visuospatial and phonological).

• Interference occurred when using the same system.

Strengths:

• Demonstrates working memory components.

• Realistic multitasking tasks.

Limitations:

• Still lacks clarity on interaction between components.

• Overemphasis on structure.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment

Ethical Considerations:

• Ethical procedures followed.

• No harm or deception.

Landry & Bartling (2011)

Aim: To test the WMM by investigating the effect of articulatory suppression on recall.

Procedure:

• Two groups: one performed articulatory suppression (repeating numbers) while memorizing letter sequences.

• Control group memorized letters with no interference.

Results:

• Suppression group had lower recall.

• Supports existence of phonological loop.

Strengths:

• High control.

• Supports WMM.

Limitations:

• Lacks ecological validity.

• Lab setting.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment

Ethical Considerations:

• No deception.

• Informed consent obtained.

Warrington & Shallice (1974) – KF

Aim: To examine the memory impairment of KF, a brain-damaged patient, to understand STM.

Procedure:

• Case study with neuropsychological testing.

• Tested auditory and visual STM.

Results:

• Impaired verbal STM, intact visual STM.

• Suggests separate STM components.

Strengths:

• Supports WMM.

• Detailed data collection.

Limitations:

• Cannot generalize from one case.

• Retrospective analysis.

Methodology: Case study

Ethical Considerations:

• Informed consent may be unclear.

• Anonymity maintained.

Bartlett (1932)

Aim: To investigate how memory is influenced by prior knowledge (schemas).

Procedure:

• British participants read “The War of the Ghosts,” a Native American folk tale.

• They were asked to recall the story over various time intervals (serial and repeated reproduction).

Results:

• Participants changed details to fit cultural schemas (e.g., canoes became boats).

• The story was shortened and distorted.

Strengths:

• Introduced schema theory.

• Showed memory is reconstructive.

Limitations:

• Lacked standardization.

• Low reliability by modern standards.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment with repeated reproduction

Ethical Considerations:

• No deception or harm.

• Informed consent assumed for the era.

Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Aim: To investigate the effect of leading questions on eyewitness memory.

Procedure:

• Participants watched videos of car crashes.

• Asked questions using different verbs ("smashed" vs. "hit").

• Later asked if they saw broken glass.

Results:

• Stronger verbs led to higher speed estimates.

• Participants “saw” glass when the word "smashed" was used.

Strengths:

• Shows memory distortion.

• Controlled design.

Limitations:

• Low ecological validity.

• Deception involved.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment

Ethical Considerations:

• Mild deception.

• Debriefing necessary.

Anderson & Pichert (1978)

Aim: To test if schema processing influences encoding and retrieval.

Procedure:

• Participants read a story about a house from either a burglar’s or homebuyer’s perspective.

• Then they recalled the story.

• Later, they were asked to recall it again from the other perspective.

Results:

• Participants recalled new schema-consistent details after switching roles.

• Retrieval was schema-dependent.

Strengths:

• Highlights schema influence on memory.

• Experimental design.

Limitations:

• Artificial task.

• Limited generalizability.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment

Ethical Considerations:

• Fully informed consent.

• No psychological harm.

Brewer & Treyens (1981)

Aim:
To investigate whether people’s memory for objects in a room is influenced by existing schemas.

Procedure:

• Participants sat in an office for 35 seconds.

• Asked to recall items from the room.

• Some schema-consistent objects were not present, and some schema-inconsistent ones were included.

Results:

• More likely to remember schema-consistent items (e.g., books not present).

• Less likely to recall schema-inconsistent items (e.g., skull).

Strengths:

• Supports schema theory.

• High ecological relevance (realistic setting).

Limitations:

• Deception involved.

• Memory task was short and artificial.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment

Ethical Considerations:

• Deception used but debriefed.

• Informed consent obtained.

Wason (1968)

Aim:
To investigate how people solve logical problems using conditional reasoning (System 1 vs System 2).

Procedure:

• Participants completed the “Wason selection task” (cards with letters/numbers).

• Asked to test a logical rule (e.g., If a card has a vowel on one side, it must have an even number on the other).

Results:

• Most chose incorrect answers, showing reliance on intuitive (System 1) thinking.

• Few used analytical reasoning (System 2).

Strengths:

• Demonstrates dual processing in decision making.

• Simple, clear design.

Limitations:

• Highly abstract and artificial.

• Doesn’t show real-world decision making.

Methodology: Laboratory task / cognitive problem-solving

Ethical Considerations:

• No deception or risk.

• Anonymous, voluntary participation.

Strack & Mussweiler (1997)

Aim:
To investigate the anchoring bias in decision making.

Procedure:

• Participants asked a comparative question (e.g., "Was Gandhi older or younger than 9 when he died?").

• Then asked to estimate his actual age.

Results:

• Anchoring effect: low anchor → lower estimate; high anchor → higher estimate.

• Judgment influenced by the first number presented.

Strengths:

• Demonstrates cognitive bias in a clear way.

• Controlled and replicable.

Limitations:

• Low ecological validity.

• Anchoring may vary by individual factors.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment

Ethical Considerations:

• No harm or deception.

• Debriefing conducted.

Tversky & Kahneman (1974)

Aim:
To explore heuristics and biases in human judgment.

Procedure:

• Participants made estimates on problems involving probabilities or numbers.

• Anchoring, availability, and representativeness heuristics tested.

Results:

• Participants relied on mental shortcuts.

• Often led to systematic errors in judgment.

Strengths:

• Groundbreaking research on heuristics.

• Highly cited, foundational work.

Limitations:

• Mostly hypothetical scenarios.

• Cultural and educational factors not always controlled.

Methodology: Series of experiments

Ethical Considerations:

• Ethical research, minimal risk.

• Consent and anonymity ensured.

Brown & Kulik (1977)

Aim:
To investigate whether shocking, emotional events are recalled more vividly (Flashbulb memories).

Procedure:

• Participants (Black and White Americans) asked about their memories of major events (e.g., JFK assassination).

• Asked to describe how they heard the news and their feelings.

Results:

• Flashbulb memories were more common for shocking personal events.

• African Americans recalled MLK’s death more vividly.

Strengths:

• Introduced flashbulb memory theory.

• Real-world emotional events.

Limitations:

• Retrospective, prone to memory distortion.

• No verification of accuracy.

Methodology: Questionnaire

Ethical Considerations:

• Potential emotional distress.

• Voluntary, with consent.

Kulkofsky et al. (2011)

Aim:
To explore cultural differences in the formation of flashbulb memories.

Procedure:

• Participants from five countries (individualistic and collectivist cultures).

• Asked to recall shocking public events.

• Completed questionnaires on memory and importance.

Results:

• Individualistic cultures had more personal FBMs.

• Collectivist cultures focused less on personal emotions.

Strengths:

• Cross-cultural insight into memory.

• Controlled translation and administration.

Limitations:

• Self-report, prone to bias.

• Cultural generalizations may oversimplify.

Methodology: Questionnaire / Cross-cultural study

Ethical Considerations:

• Cultural sensitivity required.

• Consent, anonymity ensured.

Sharot et al. (2007)

Aim:
To investigate the role of emotion in the creation of flashbulb memories.

Procedure:

• Participants were shown words associated with 9/11 and asked to recall the event while undergoing fMRI scans.

• Compared with control memories (e.g., summer vacation).

Results:

• Activation of the amygdala was higher in 9/11-related memories.

• Especially strong in participants closer to the event.

Strengths:

• Biological evidence for emotional memory.

• High-tech brain imaging.

Limitations:

• Small sample size.

• Interpretation of fMRI is correlational.

Methodology: fMRI + recall task (quasi-experiment)

Ethical Considerations:

• Emotional sensitivity (9/11).

• Informed consent, right to withdraw, anonymized data.

McGaugh & Cahill (1995)

Aim:
To study the role of emotion and the amygdala on memory consolidation.

Procedure:

• Participants heard one of two stories:

  • Boring version.

  • Emotional version (boy in car accident).

• Two weeks later: memory test.

• Follow-up: participants given beta-blockers (propranolol) to block amygdala function.

Results:

• Emotional story group remembered more details.

• Propranolol group had no memory advantage.

Strengths:

• Strong causal inference.

• Shows biological basis for emotional memory.

Limitations:

• Use of drugs raises ethical questions.

• Artificial story content.

Methodology: Laboratory experiment (with pharmacological manipulation)

Ethical Considerations:

• Use of propranolol must be ethically approved.

• Full informed consent essential.