Grant et al (1998) Flashcards
(Grant et al) Define and explain the term ‘context dependent memory’.
The idea we are able to recall information best if we return to the same context in which the information was learned in the first place. It is suggested that when a memory is first formed, features of the environment are encoded in it.
(Grant et al) Background: Explain Godden & Baddeley’s study.
Godden & Baddeley decided to study context dependent memory within divers. The divers were split into 4 groups:
- Learnt a list of words underwater and were tested underwater
- Learnt a list of words on land and were tested underwater
- Learnt a list of words underwater and were tested on land
- Learnt a list of words on land and were tested on land
(Grant et al) Background: What were the results of Godden & Baddeley’s study?
They found that the best memory was found in the two ‘matching conditions’. In other words, the underwater-underwater group and the land-land group.
(Grant et al) Background: What did Smith’s study suggest?
Smith suggested that there was an Outshining hypothesis. He theorised that context-dependent memory only worked for recall and not for recognition tasks. This is because the familiar environmental cues will be ‘outshone’ by cues from the questions (e.g multiple choice options).
(Grant et al) What were the aims of this study?
To investigate context dependent memory for recall and recognition in relation to memorising meaningful prose (not a list of words).
(Grant et al) Describe the sample of this study?
- 8 student researchers (these are the experimenters and not the sample) who each recruited 5 people to take part in the study.
- Participants were aged 17-56.
- 17 females and 23 males.
- They were split into 4 conditions and tested individually.
- 1 person was removed due to low scores, leaving 39 total participants.
(Grant et al) Describe ‘Step 1’ of the procedure: Learning.
Participants were asked to read a 2 page article on psychoimmunology. They read the article whilst wearing headphones which either had no noise being played (silence) or a cassette tape was played with recordings of noise from the cafeteria during lunch (noise).
They were timed and asked to read the article only once. They then had a 2 minute break.
(Grant et al) Describe ‘Step 2’ of the procedure: Testing.
Participants were then given two sets of questions about the article they’d read. Again, they did this under silent (with headphones on) or noisy (with headphones playing cafeteria noise).
The tests were given in this order:
- Recall test (10 short answer questions)
- Recognition test (16 multiple choice questions)
(Grant et al) Describe the summary of the conditions: ‘noisy-noisy’.
Reading the 2 page article with cafeteria noise and doing the 2 tests with cafeteria noise.
(Grant et al) Describe the summary of the conditions: ‘noisy-silent’.
Reading the 2 page article with cafeteria noise and doing the 2 tests in silence.
(Grant et al) Describe the summary of the conditions: ‘silent-silent’.
Reading the 2 page article in silence and doing the 2 tests in silence.
(Grant et al) Describe the summary of the conditions: ‘silent-noisy’.
Reading the 2 page article win silence and doing the 2 tests with cafeteria noise.
(Grant et al) What was the recall result (out of 10) for the ‘silent-silent’ condition?
6.7
(Grant et al) What was the recall result (out of 10) for the ‘silent-noisy’ condition?
4.6
(Grant et al) What was the recall result (out of 10) for the ‘noisy-silent’ condition?
5.4
