coding, capacity, duration

Question 1

STM & LTM CODING

Answer 1

Baddeley

• used acoustic/ semantic similar & dissimilar words
• worse immediate recall with similarly acoustic words = STM is acoustic
• worse 20 min recall with dissimilar semantic words = LTM is semantic

Question 2

STM CAPACITY

Answer 2

Jacobs

• 4 digits increasing until incorrect recall
• av 9.3 numbers and 7.3 letters recalled correctly

Question 3

STM DURATION

Answer 3

peterson and peterson

• constant syllables and 3 digit number counting backwards for 3,6,9,12,15,or 18 secs
• av 80% recalled correctly within 3 sec
• av 3% recalled correctly after 18 secs
• STM w/o rehearsal = 18-30 secs

Question 4

LTM DURATION

Answer 4

Bahrick et al

• recognition and free recall test
• after 48 yrs, photo recognition = av 70% accurate & free recall was less

Question 5

what is the main evaluation point of Baddeley’s STM and LTM coding study?

Answer 5

• it doesn’t use meaningful materials = limited application and cautious generalisation
• meaningful materials are coded semantically in STM

Question 6

what is the main evaluation point in Jacobs STM capacity study?

Answer 6

• conducted a long time ago = results are invalid due to confounding variables
• lacks adequate control of extraneous variables = distractions and invalid performance

COUNTER ARGUMENT - RESULTS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED SUPPORTING VALIDITY

Question 7

what is the main evaluation point in Peterson and Peterson’s STM duration study?

Answer 7

• artificial stimulus = lacks external validity
• consonant syllables doesn’t reflect real life memories that are meaningful

COUNTER ARGUMENT - PHONE NUMBERS ARE MEANINGLESS SO THE STUDY ISN’T COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT

Question 8

what is the main evaluation point for Bahrick et al’s LTM duration study?

Answer 8

• high external validity = real life meaning of faces
• Shepard (meaningless pictures = low recall rates)

COUNTER ARGUEMENT - REAL LIFE RESEARCH HAS CONFOUDNING VARIABLES THAT AREN’T CONTROLLED > PPTS COULD REHEARSE