2.3.1 Classic- Baddeley (1966b)

Question 1

Aim?

Answer 1

Does LTM encode acoustically(sound) or semantically(meaning)?

Question 2

Hypothesis?

Answer 2

If ppts struggle recalling word order, LTM’s confused by similarity of words so therefore this would be how mem’s usually encoded

Question 3

IV and DV?

Answer 3

IV 1)Acoustically similar vs semantically similar
2) Semantically similar vs dissimilar list
3)Before- delay + interference after

DV-
1)Score of ppts based on recall of 10
> Focus= recall of words order NOT words themselves!!!

Question 4

Sample?

Answer 4

Men + women
Cambridge Uni (mainly students)
> Formal, low external validity
APRU
72 total, 15-20 per condition

Question 5

Procedure?

Answer 5

1) 4 groups following IV 1+2, slideshow
2)Conditions:
AS
> List sharing similar sounds
> Control group- monosyllabic words
SS
> List sharing similar meaning
> Control group= words w/o correlation
3) All groups carry out an ‘interference task’- hearing then writing down 8 numbers (3x each)
Then recalling words following their specific condition
4) 4 trials; ppts improve bc words stayed the same
> Words were on signs around the room, focus = word ORDER
5) After 4th round, there was a 20 min delay(incl interference task) then 5th/ final trial (final was a surprise trial)
> Unlike tests 1+2, words are displayed + order is recalled

Question 6

Results

Answer 6

Compared similar/ control + how well they performed in 5th
> AS- LTM isn’t confused by AS, scores on 5th were similar to 4th. Little/no diff
> SS- Seemed to confuse LTM, ppts lagged behind control group + never caught up. Little forgetting yet lower score than AS

Question 7

Conclusion?

Answer 7

LTM encodes semantically
> LTM gets confused when retrieving semantically similar words. Yet LTM finds no trouble w retrieving acoustically similar words because LTM isn’t attentive to how words sound.
» Acoustically similar conditions has a ‘slow start’ because interference task doesn’t completely block STM. This means that in most conditions the ppts LTM is supported by the STM- some words remained in rehearsal loop.

Question 8

GRAVE-Generalisability

Answer 8

P- Baddeley’s sample was limited
E-The consisted entirely of 72 male and female Cambridge uni
E- S, any anomalies with abnormal lvls of good/bad memory recall were averaged out, making Baddeleys findings on LTM encoding more generalisable to overall population

2.P- Low
E- ppts were volunteers, sample consisted of cambridge students including Cambridge Uni panel who had a background in psychology
E- W, risk of ppts variables eg. mainly attracted ppts w extremely good memo;ry or those who enjoyed mem tests or had more psych knowledge than gen pop. Not generalisable back to overall population when testing memory to understand LTM encoding

Question 9

GRAVE- Reliability

Answer 9

P-Standardised proceds
E- Carried out experiment twice before, had two conditions (AS and SS- with a control and experimental group per condition) and timed interference tasks of writing down 8 numbers 3x
E-S, high test-retesr R, easy to replicate for further research into memory and LTM encoding to test for consistency

Question 10

GRAVE-Application

Answer 10

P-Yes
E-Contributed to WMM (1974); Baddeleys use of interference tasks to control STM led to differentiating between STM and LTM encoding, leading to more research by Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
E-S, allows us to apply to everyday use of memory such as revision techniques because we understand how info for STM and LTM is encoded

Question 11

GRAVE-Validity

Answer 11

P- Baddeley’s sample was large and varied
E-Men and women, Cambridge students, 72 total w 15-20 per condition of the experiment
E-S, the anomalies were ‘averaged out’ so the sample became more validity to study LTM coding

2.P-High int V
E-Split ppt sample into exp groups who studied AS +SS word lists & recalled word order, compared aainst control groups who saw Sem + Acous dissimilar word lists
E-S, Baddeley could make accurate comparisons between exp + control for cause and effect between each condition for mem recall, so no EVs affecting his measurements to study LTM and STM encoding.So other researchers can use Baddeleys findings to compare to their research into memory.

3.P-Low eco V
E-Lab exp, setting was usual for cambridge students but task of recalling word list order was artificial so doesnt reflect real life situations for studying memory, incr demand characteristics.
E- W, data’s less valid for Baddeley to find causual relationship for mem