Cognitive: Classic Study - Baddeley (1966b) Flashcards
What were the aims of Baddeley’s study?
To see if LTM encodes semantically or acoustically (by giving P’s word lists similar in sound or meaning).
What were the IV’s?
- Acoustically similar or dissimilar word list (independent groups design).
- Semantically similiar or dissimilar word list (independent groups design).
- Performance before 15 mins “forgetting” delay and performance after (repeated measures).
What was the DV?
Score on a recall test of 10 words.
Sample of the study?
Volunteers; 72 M and F from Cambridge Uni Subject panel (mainly students): 15-20 in each cond.
What was List A?
Acoustically Similar condition (P’s get a list of words that share a similar sound, e.g. man, cab, can, max, etc).
What was List B?
Acoustically Dissimilar condition (Control group get words that sound dissimilar, e.g. pit, few, cow, pen, etc).
What was List C?
Semantically Similar condition (P’s get a list of words that share a similar meaning, e.g. huge, great, big, large, etc).
What was List D?
Semantically Dissimilar condition (Control group get words that are unconnected, e.g. good, huge, hote, safe, etc).
Procedure of the study?
- Each list of 10 words projected in a set order, rate of a word every 3 secs.
- P’s in all 4 conds carry out “interference test” which involves hearing then writing down 8 nums 3 times.
- Then given 1 min to recall words in order.
- This was repeated over 4 trials.
- After 4 trials, the groups were given a 15 min unrelated interference task involving copying 8 digit sequences to prevent rehearsal.
- Ps then given surprise retest on word sequence of their cond.
Why was the procedure repeated over 4 trials?
To make sure the P’s had learned the words, so the experiment was about recall of order and testing the LTM.
What were the results of Baddeley’s study?
LTM not confused by acoustic similarities (experimental scored > control).
LTM confused by semantically similar words (experimental score < control).
What was concluded from the study?
LTM encodes semantically: gets distracted by semantic similarities and muddles them up. No problem with acoustic similarities because it ignores how words sound.