Memory Mindmap Flashcards
Coding STM Research
Baddeley 1966
Coding LTM Research
Baddeley 1966
Capacity STM Research
Jacobs (1887) and Miller (1956)
Capacity STM Research Evaluation Studies
Jacobs validified by Bopp et al (2005)
Miller improved by Cowen (2001)
Duration STM Research
Peterson and Peterson 1959
Duration LTM Research
Bahrick et al 1975
Duration LTM Research Evaluation Study
Shepard 1967
Baddeley 1966 Procedure and Findings
Gave different lists of words to four groups of participants.
1 - Acoustically similar
2 - Acoustically dissimilar
3 - Semantically similar
4 - Semantically disimilar
Participants were asked to recall the correct order. When they did it immediately, acoustically similar was worse and when they did it after 20 minutes, semantically similar was wose.
Baddeley 1966 Findings suggest
Coded acoustically in STM and semantically in LTM
Jacobs (1887) Procedure and Findings
Measured digit span, reading out digits and adding if they get it correct, until the participant cannot correctly recall.
Found mean span for digits was 9.3 and for letters was 7.3.
Miller (1956) Observation
Observed that things come in sevens (deadly sins, days of the week) and concluded capacity of STM was 7+-2. Also noticed people can recall more with chunking - grouping information into chunks.
Peterson and Peterson (1959) Procedure and Findings
24 students in 8 trials. Students were given a consonant syllable to remember and had to count backwards from a number to prevent mental rehearsal.
Retention interval varies by time - 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 seconds, Findings were after 3 seconds recall was 80% and after 18 seconds was 3%.
Suggested that without verbal rehersal, STM duration is 18 seconds.
Bahrick et al (1975) Procedure and Findings
Studied 392 Americans ages 17-74. Obtained HS yearbooks and tested recall through photo recognition and free recall of names of graduating class.
Tested within 15 years were accurate to 90%.
After 48 years, it was 70%.
Free recall less accurate - 60% 15 yrs, 30% 48 yrs. Shows LTM may last a lifetime for some material.
Baddeley 1966 Evaluation
Clearly identified memory stores, important step to understanding memory and led to development of MSM.
However, artificial stimulus use may not tell us much about everyday coding - semantic may be used in STM for meaningful tasks and thus limited application.
Jacobs 1887 Evaluation
Older studies lacked validity (no control on confounding variables like distration). However, findings replicated since by controlled studies ie Bopp 2001, improving validity.
Miller 1956 Evaluation
May have overestimated capacity of STM. Cowan (2001) reviewed research and concluded probably 4+-1.
Petersen and Peterson 1959 Evaluation
Lacked external validity due to meaningless artificial stimuli.
Bahrick et al 1975 Evaluation
High external validity due to use of meaningful memories. Shepard 1967 did similar but with meaningless pictures and found lower recall, suggests Bahrick is more realistic estimate.
Who developed MSM
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968, 1971)
Draw MSM of memory
Stimulus from environment
Passes into sensory register (iconic, echoic)
Process attention passes into STM.
Prolonged rehearsal passes into LTM.
Maintenance rehearsal keeps in STM.
Retrieval passes from LTM to STM.
Response (remembering) is recall from STM.
MSM A03 Research Support
There is support that STM and LTM are different stores (ie Baddeley) and studies of capacity and duration.
MSM AO3 Ecological Validity
Many of the studies that informed MSM lacked ecological validity and used meaningless stimuli (letters and digits rather than names, faces etc). May not be valid model of everyday memory.
MSM AO3 STM Stores
There is evidence for more than 1 store. Shallice and Warrington’s KF had amnesia. STM for digits very poor when read to him, but better when he read them himself. Suggests MSM wrong for claiming only 1 and likely there are more.
MSM AO3 Rehersal
MSM says more rehearsal = more chance of going to LTM. Craik and Watkins (1973) found that type is more important - elaborative rehearsal and making semantic links to existing. MSM doesn’t explain how we remember some things after hearing them once.
MSM AO3 General Conclusion
Lots of evidence that STM and LTM are not single stores. MSM is oversimplified model of memory
Discuss research into features of STM
AO1 Points
- Coding Baddeley 1966
- Capacity Jacobs 1887 and Miller 1956
- Duration Peterson and Peterson 1959
AO3 Points
- Baddeley led to MSM but used artificial stimuli, limited application
- Jacobs older lacked validity but confirmed by controlled like Bopp et al 2005
- Miller may have overestimated - Cowan 2001 reviewed and said 4+-1 chunks.
- Peterson and Peterson lacked external validity.
Discuss research into features of LTM
AO1 Points
- Bahrick et al 1985
- Baddeley 1966
AO3
- Ba
Fill out STM, LTM X Capacity, Duration, Coding grid
STM
CAPACAITY - Jacobs 1887 and Miller 1956 and Bopp 2005 and Cowan 2001
DURATION - Peterson and Peterson 1959
CODING - Baddeley 1966
LTM
CAPACITY - none
DURATION - Bahrick et al 1975
CODING - Baddeley 1966
