cognitive Flashcards
Multi Store Model
Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)
what was the aim of Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)
In this study, Glanzer and Cunitz wanted to see if the interval of time between words on a list would increase the number of words recalled at the start of the list
what was the method of Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)
The sample was made up of 240 Army enlisted men. The study used an independent samples design. There were 40 men allocated to each of the following conditions:
Each word read once at a 3-second rate
Each word read twice in succession at a 3-second rate
Each word read once at a 6-second rate
Each word read twice in succession at a 6-second rate
Each word read once at a 9-second rate
Each word read twice in succession at a 9-second rate
Participants were first given two 5-word practice lists so that they could learn the procedure.
They then listened to recordings of eight 20-word lists. The lists were the same for each group, except with the variation of time and repetition. All words on the lists were common one-syllable words. After each list was read, the participants had two minutes to write down the words they recalled in any order. A bell was used to signal the end of each list.
what were the results of Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)
The researchers found that the increased time interval between words led to an increase in the recall of all words in the list except for those at the end of the list. The effect of repetition on recall was limited to the 3-second rate. There was no significant effect on recall in the 6 or 9-second rates.
This study supports the theory that the primacy effect is the result of rehearsal. The increased time interval allowed for more rehearsal, leading to the greater overall recall of the list of words.
independent samples design
is an experimental design where different participants are used in each condition of the independent variable.
what was the aim of Landry & Bartling (2011)
The aim was to investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of a written list of phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall.
Working Memory Model
Landry & Bartling (2011)
what was the procedure of Landry & Bartling (2011)
The participants consisted of thirty-four undergraduate psychology students. The researchers used an independent samples design. The participants were tested individually. In the experimental group, participants first saw a list of letters that they had to recall while saying the numbers ‘1’ and ‘2’ at a rate of two numbers per second (an articulatory suppression task). The control group saw the list of letters but did not carry out the articulatory suppression task.
There were ten lists each consisting of a series of 7 letters randomly constructed from the letters F, K, L, M, R, X and Q. These letters were chosen because they don’t sound similar. The experimenter presented one letter series at a time. The participants received an answer sheet with seven blanks in each row. Before the experiment started, each participant viewed one practice list in order to become acquainted with the procedure.
In the control group, the experimenter showed participants a printed list for five seconds, instructed them to wait for another five seconds, and then instructed them to write the correct order of the letters on the answer sheet as accurately as possible. This was repeated ten times. In the experimental group, participants received instructions to repeatedly say the numbers ‘1’ and ‘2’ at a rate of two numbers per second from the time of presentation of the list until the time they filled the answer sheet. This was also repeated ten times. Each trial was scored for the accuracy of recall. The trial was scored as correct if the letters were in the correct position. The experimenter then calculated the average per cent correct recall for both groups.
what were the resluts of landry and bartling 2011
The results showed that the scores from the experimental group were much lower than the scores from the control group. The mean per cent of accurate recall in the control group was 76% compared to a mean of 45% in the experimental group. Although the difference in the means was large, the standard deviations were nearly identical with SD = 0.13 for the control group and SD = 0.14 for the experimental group. A T-test was calculated and found a significant difference of p ≤ 0.01.
The results supported the experimental hypothesis as the mean per cent of accurate recall in the control group was higher than the mean percent of accurate recall in the experimental group
Schema Theory
Brewer & Treyens (1981)
what is the aim of Brewer & Treyens (1981)
The aim of the study was to investigate the role of schema in encoding and retrieval of episodic memory
what is the procedure of brewer and treyens
The sample was made up of 86 university psychology students. Participants were seated in a room that was made to look like an office. The room consisted of objects that were typical of offices: a typewriter, paper, and a coffee pot. There were some items in the room that one would not typically find in an office - for example, a skull or a toy top. Finally, there were items that were omitted - such as books.
Each participant was asked to wait in the professor’s office while the researcher “checked to make sure that the previous participant had completed the experiment.” The participants were asked to have a seat. All of the chairs except for one had objects on them. In this way, it was guaranteed that all participants would have the same vantage point in the office. The researcher left the room and said that he would return shortly.
After 35 seconds the participants were called into another room and then asked what they remembered from the office. When they finished the experiment, they were given a questionnaire. The important question was “Did you think that you would be asked to remember the objects in the room. 93% said “no.”
30 participants carried out written recall and then verbal recognition; 29 participants carried out drawing recall; 27 carried out verbal recognition only.
The recall condition: Participants were asked to write down a description of as many objects as they could remember from the office. They were also asked to state the location, shape, size, and colour of the objects. They were asked to “Write your description as if you were describing the room for someone who had never seen it.” After this, they were given a recognition test in which they were given a booklet containing a list of objects. They were asked to rate each item for how sure they were that the object was in the room. “1” meant that they were sure it was not in the room; “6” meant that they were absolutely sure it was in the room. The questionnaire consisted of 131 objects: 61 were in the room; 70 were not.
The drawing condition: In this condition, participants were given an outline of the room and asked to draw in the objects they could remember.
The verbal recognition condition: In this condition, the participants were read a list of objects and simply asked whether they were in the room or not.
what are the results of Brewer & Treyens (1981)
They found that when the participants were asked to recall either by writing a paragraph or by drawing, they were more likely to remember items in the office that were congruent with their schema of an office - that is, the “expected items” were more often recalled. The items that were incongruent with their schema of an office - e.g. the skull, a piece of bark, or the screwdriver - were not often recalled. When asked to select items on the list, they were more likely to identify the incongruent items; for example, they didn’t remember the skull when doing the free recall but gave it a 6 on the verbal recognition task. However, they also had a higher rate of identifying objects which were schema congruent but not in the room.
In both the drawing and the recall condition, they also tended to change the nature of the objects to match their schema. For example, the pad of yellow paper that was on a chair was remembered as being on the desk. The trapezoidal work table was recalled as a square.
It appears that schema played a role in both the encoding and recall of the objects in the office.
Reliability of Memory
Brewer & Treyens (1981)
effect of Emotion on Memory
Sharot et al (2007
