Baddeley classic case study - 1966 Flashcards
Aim:
To see if LTM was like STM or specifically if in LTM acoustic similarity of words would lead to more memory impairment than would semantic similarity of words
method
research method - lab experiment
design - independent measures
IV - types of words list that is given
DV - recall of the order of words list (the amount wasn’t important but to see if they *could remember the order of the words)
Describe experiment 1
*for this instance give answers to who, what, when, where and how
Who - approx 20 servicemen per list (controlled for hearing ability using listening test)
What - independent measures: 1 list per group
A (acoustically similar); B (acoustically dissimilar)
C (semantically similar); D (semantically dissimilar)
Where - lab; applied psychology research unit, Cambridge
When - 1966
How - 1 . 4 trials of same list, words presented by tape recorder, 1word/3s, 1min to write down the 10 word list in order after each trial.
- 20min task of memory for 8 digit
- asked to write down the 10 word list
What was the conclusion to experiment 1
- acoustically similar list perform worse but forgotten less
why - forgetting effects is due to the words are still in STM in trial tests for semantically similar words, this is lost by the time of retest (*Baddeley is only interested in LTM)
Baddeley needed all word list to have a chance to enter the LTM so he made experiment 2 just for that
Describe experiment 2
*for this instance give answers to who, what, when, where and how
Who - housewives from APRU subject panel. approx. 20 per group (controlled for hearing ability using listening test)
What - *2 lists (acoustically and semantically similar) in *3 groups
X: same as exp 1 (4 trials, presented and tested)
Y: 4 trials of (presented, distraction, test)
Z: 4 trials of (presented, test, distraction); this is was a control for practice effects
Where - lab; applied psychology research unit, Cambridge
When - 1966
How - 1. 4 trials of same list, words presented via tape recorder, 1word/3s, 1min to write down the 10 word list in order after each trial
- 20 min task of memory for 8 digits
- asked to write downt the 10 word list in order
- Y & Z intervening( distraction) task; 6 lots of 8 digit sequence, 1 digit/1s. 8s to write down
What was the conclusion to experiment 2
- conventional test (without distraction task) confounds the effects of STM and LTM and so affects recall - as was also found by Peterson and Peterson
+ also if participant can see their response throughout the recall it may help transfer from STM to LTM
Baddeley found a way of making sure info enters LTM and to control the previous confounding effects hence exp 3 was used for said improvements
Describe experiment 3
*for this instance give answers to who, what, when, where and how
Who - mixed men and women from APRU subject panel, approx 20 per group
What - 4 lists, 1 per group = exp 1. method = exp 2, 4 lots of presentation, distraction and test
Where - lab; applied psychology research unit, Cambridge
When - 1966
How - 4 list, 1 per group (acoustically and semantically similar and dissimilar)
Method: 1. presented with word list (10 words each presented/ 3s)
2. digit task (8s to write down) meant that acoustic encoding was prevented in the STM
3. test - asked to write down the words list in the correct order (4 times for the 4 trials) this repetition is so that the info can transfer to LTM
4. 15 min digit copying task
5. surprise recall test on the words list - to be recalled in order (words around the room)
What was the finding for experiment 3
- acoustically similar list no sig diff
- semantically similar list: control list sig better recall
What was the conclusion for experiment 3
- learning of words sequences impaired by semantic similarities
- LTM based on semantic encoding and STM based on acoustic encoding
- transferal to LTM involves intermediate stage where material is in STM. this was shown by greater difficulty in learning list in exp 3 when STM is minimised
Strengths
- it has high level of standardisation in the procedure. presentation of words was 3s per word via projector, each group had 10 high frequency word list and all had 1 min to recall the lists therefore can replicate the study to test for reliability of the results
- high control over extraneous variables is a strength. eliminating the confounding variables in exp 2 and ensuring the words were in the LTM, by introducing task and using a projector to view the words for those who may nor hear therefore this increases the internal validity ensuring clear cause and effect can be established
- got good operationalisation of DV and IV. word lists of high frequency were used, hence all the words are familiar to the participants and had to be recalled in order to reflect typical recall of LTM therefore results will be accurate in finding cause and effects between semantic encoding and LTM, enabling useful conclusions to help contribute towards society
- has some ethics is stuck to nonetheless some were broken as participants were given a 5th trial they were not told about hence this creating some deception. even though this breaks deception, it didn’t cause any harm due to the nature of the task and this part reduced the risk of demand characteristics in order to obtain valid results
- had application uses to help education improve learning. the results found that forgetting for semantically similar words was around 85% compared to 60% for the semantically dissimilar group i exp 3therefore teachers and students could use the results to improve, don’t revise 2 similar topics and teachers should ensure students understand the material and note just writing it down and reading it
- results could help provide strategies for people with dementia. Baddeley concluded that LTM benefits from semantic encoding and STM from acoustic encoding. for example when giving instructions to those with dementia, they should be simple and repeated a few time to allow acoustic encoding and also make sure the instructions are not similar to each other as this would cause confusion
Weaknesses
- it has low ecological validity. the study took place in a laboratory where individual words were read out/shown to the participants which is a controlled, artificial situation therefore unable to generalise results to explain how memory works in a real life setting within society because the participants may have a changed their behaviour from real life and could have tried harder to learn the words unlike their daily use of memory
- it has low mundane realism as it provided participants with lists of words to assess memory through the recall of a list of 10 high frequency words which they had to recall in the right order therefore unable to generalise results to explain how we use our memory in real life as we don’t learn word list, the info is more complex such as people usually remember conversations or phone numbers but not words lists so the findings may not represent of how memory is used in real life circumstances
