Landry and Bartling (2011)

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of a written list of phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall.

Question 2

Method

Answer 2

• 34 undergraduate psychology students.
• The experimental group 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Question 3

Results

Answer 3

Scores from the experimental group were much lower than the scores from the control group.

Question 4

Conclusion

Answer 4

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.
In line with the Working Memory Model, articulatory suppression is preventing rehearsal in the phonological loop because of overload.

Question 5

Strengths

Answer 5

• High internal validity.

* Easily replicable and therefore reliable.

Question 6

Limitations

Answer 6

• Lacks ecological validity.