Grant et al (1998) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

(Grant et al) Define and explain the term ‘context dependent memory’.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

(Grant et al) Background: Explain Godden & Baddeley’s study.

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

(Grant et al) Background: What were the results of Godden & Baddeley’s study?

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

(Grant et al) Background: What did Smith’s study suggest?

A

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).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

(Grant et al) What were the aims of this study?

A

To investigate context dependent memory for recall and recognition in relation to memorising meaningful prose (not a list of words).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

(Grant et al) Describe the sample of this study?

A
  • 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

(Grant et al) Describe ‘Step 1’ of the procedure: Learning.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

(Grant et al) Describe ‘Step 2’ of the procedure: Testing.

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

(Grant et al) Describe the summary of the conditions: ‘noisy-noisy’.

A

Reading the 2 page article with cafeteria noise and doing the 2 tests with cafeteria noise.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

(Grant et al) Describe the summary of the conditions: ‘noisy-silent’.

A

Reading the 2 page article with cafeteria noise and doing the 2 tests in silence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

(Grant et al) Describe the summary of the conditions: ‘silent-silent’.

A

Reading the 2 page article in silence and doing the 2 tests in silence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

(Grant et al) Describe the summary of the conditions: ‘silent-noisy’.

A

Reading the 2 page article win silence and doing the 2 tests with cafeteria noise.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

(Grant et al) What was the recall result (out of 10) for the ‘silent-silent’ condition?

A

6.7

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

(Grant et al) What was the recall result (out of 10) for the ‘silent-noisy’ condition?

A

4.6

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

(Grant et al) What was the recall result (out of 10) for the ‘noisy-silent’ condition?

A

5.4

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

(Grant et al) What was the recall result (out of 10) for the ‘noisy-noisy’ condition?

A

6.2

16
Q

(Grant et al) What was the recognition result (out of 16) for the ‘silent-silent’ condition?

A

14.3

17
Q

(Grant et al) What was the recognition result (out of 16) for the ‘silent-noisy’ condition?

A

12.7

18
Q

(Grant et al) What was the recognition result (out of 16) for the ‘noisy-silent’ condition?

A

12.7

19
Q

(Grant et al) What was the recognition result (out of 16) for the ‘noisy-noisy’ condition?

A

14.3

20
Q

(Grant et al) What was the conclusion of this study?

A

Participants performed better in the ‘matching conditions’ which provides support for context dependent memory (at least in terms of sound).

21
Q

(Grant et al) Evaluate the use of opportunity sampling in this study.

A

Participants were obtained through the 8 student researchers (who didn’t participate themselves).
They were used as who the researchers had available to them at the time.

22
Q

(Grant et al) Evaluate the use of independent measures in this study.

A

Each participant had 1 of the 4 conditions (e.g noisy reading then silent test).

The participants were not matched on any characteristics.

23
Q

(Grant et al) How is this study ‘useful’?

A

Grant’s research is useful to students by helping them identify conditions in which they should revise (e.g in silence) to help them perform best in assessments.

24
Q

(Grant et al) How is this study ‘situational’?

A

rant’s research can be argued to be situational as the environmental cues (noise) made a difference in the recall and recognition of participants.

25
Q

(Grant et al) How is this study ‘reductionist’?

A

Grant’s research is reductionist as focuses on context dependent memory in terms of noise conditions. They do not look at any other reasons or factors related to context dependent memory (like location)

26
Q

(Grant et al) What are the similarities of this study and ‘Loftus & Palmer’? (5)

A

Experimental design
Sample size
Use of students
Lab conditions
Use of self report

27
Q

(Grant et al) What are the differences of this study and ‘Loftus & Palmer’? (2)

A

Focuses on different influences on memory
Type of stimulus given to participants (video clips vs written description)

28
Q

(Grant et al) Evaluate what this study HAS done in changing the understanding of memory. (1)

A

Investigating a new type of memory (context-dependent vs reconstructive).

29
Q

(Grant et al) Evaluate what this study HASN’T done in changing the understanding of memory. (2)

A

Both done on students (not others who may have worse memory).
Both about external influences on memory.

30
Q

(Grant et al) How has/hasn’t this study changed our understanding of diversity, regarding cultural diversity?

A

HASN’T: Both studies about situational (rather than individual influences).

31
Q

(Grant et al) How has/hasn’t this study changed our understanding of diversity, regarding social diversity?

A

HASN’T: Both studies were done on university students.

32
Q

(Grant et al) How has/hasn’t this study changed our understanding of diversity, regarding individual diversity?

A

HASN’T: Both studies were done in the USA.