Memory studies Flashcards
Capacity
Amount of information each memory store can hold
Duration
Length of time that information can be held in a memory store
Coding
Way in which information is translated into a form that the memory store can understand
Sensory register capacity
sperling (1960)
3x4 grid, played a tone
Tone corresponds to row, asked to recall letters displayed, could 75%
Suggests capacity of sensory register is relatively large as could recall most information despite being shown for a v short time
Sensory register duration
Triesman (1964)
Played message followed by another; same or different
Delay between 2, could only identify difference when delay was less than 2seconds
Suggests duration of sensory register for auditory information <2s
Sensory register coding
Crowder (1993)
Shown visual & auditory info
Recalled straight after, milliseconds or seconds
Couldn’t recall visual from iconic store if delay more than milliseconds, could recall auditory from echoic after seconds
Suggests coding is different for different stores, held for different times
STM capacity
Jacobs (1890)
Age 8-adults, shown series of letters & numbers at half-second intervals
Capacity, on average 7 +/-2
Miller (1956)
Observed things come in 7s, found people could recall 5 words as well as letters, chunking material by grouping them
STM duration
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
Trigrams, brown-Peterson
90% recalled after 3 seconds, 5% after 18 seconds
Duration is v short, approx 18 seconds
Later research shows 6-30 seconds
STM coding
baddeley (1966)
Encodes acoustically, able to remember acoustically dissimilar words
LTM capacity
Unlimited
LTM duration
Bahrick (1975)
392 graduates asked to name class mates by
- Identifying from name recognition test
- Photo recognition test
80% in name
70% in photo
Suggests LTM is v long, up to a lifetime
LTM coding
Baddeley (1966)
Encodes semantically as able to remember semantically dissimilar words, made semantic confusion errors
Limitation P&P, Baddeley
Low ecological validity
Which is when the findings of a study cannot be generalised to real life settings
This is because both studies used artificial stimuli rather than meaningful information, which is unlike information we are required to remember in everyday life
This means that the findings have limited application to real life settings
Miller limitation
Findings haven’t been replicated, suggesting that findings may not be reliable
Cowan (2001) reviewed other research investigating capacity of STM and concluded capacity of STM was only about 4 chunks
Suggests that capacity of STM is not as extensive as 7 items suggested by Miller
Therefore, lower end of Miller’s estimation is more appropriate; five items rather than 7
Bahrick strength
High external validity
Which is when findings of a study can be generalised to real life settings
This is because real life memories were studied, as it required recall of classmates
Shepard (1967) found that when studies into LTM were conducted using meaningless pictures, recall rates were lower
Confounding variables weren’t controlled, e.g. may have selected participants who regularly looked at yearbook photos or kept in contact with school friends, rehearing their memories over the years