Review of Studies Flashcards
What were the Aims of Baddeley’s study?
To Investigate the influence of acoustic + semantic word similarity, on learning and recall in the LTM
How many lab experiments did Baddeley conduct in his 1966 study?
Three different lab experiments were conducted
we focus on Experiment Three
How many participants were there in Baddeley’s study, and what levels of the IV were there?
72 participants - 15-20 ppts for each word list
The 4 Lists of 10 Words: List A: Acoustically Similar List B: Acoustically Dissimilar List C: Semantically Similar List D: Semantically Dissimilar (Lists B + D were baseline control groups for Lists A + C respectively)
What was the Procedure of Baddeley’s study?
The words were presented via projector
They were projected One Word Every Three Seconds
They did an interference test to block out their usage of the STM
They were asked to recall the words within a minute, in the correct order
They received a list of all the words, as this was a test of memory, and not learning the words.
They repeated this over 4 learning trials.
15 minute interference task
They copied down 6 lots of 8 digit sequences at their own pace
This was to block out Rehearsal
After this, they were given a surprise retest
What were the Findings of Baddeley’s study?
Recall of Acoustically Similar was Worse than Acoustically Dissimilar
These results, however, were not significant
At first, the acoustically dissimilar group did better than the similar group, but then the acoustically similar got better until they exceeded the control’s performance in the surprise retest.
This demonstrates that Acoustic Encoding is Initially Difficult (and affects STM recall), but didn’t affect LTM recall
Recall of Semantically Similar Words was Worse than Semantically Dissimilar
These results were significant
What did Baddeley conclude in his study?
The STM is Largely Acoustic
The LTM is Largely (but Not Exclusively) Semantic
What were the strengths of Baddeley’s 1966 study?
Internal Validity: Lab Experiment
Internal Validity: Control Group
Reliability: Standardised Procedure
Practical Application
What were the weaknesses of Baddeley et al’s 1966 study?
Ecological Validity: Lab Experiment
Ecological Validity/ Mundane Realism: Unnatural Behaviour
^^ Therefore, Generalisability is Questioned
Ethics: Participants weren’t informed about the surprise retest
What were the Ethics surrounding Baddeley’s (1966b) study?
Baddeley is a well-known psychologist who had previously conducted many studies into memory and cognition and therefore he was competent to conduct the study to investigate what type of encoding LTM has and so the study was ethical.
No informed consent was gained as the pps were told exactly what the study is going to be about so the encoding of the LTM.
But this was done to ensure no demand characteristics took place- so pps don’t on purpose try to focus on certain words.
What were the Practical Issues surrounding Baddeley’s study?
There was a high level of control in this study where each word was shown on a projector for only 3 seconds so it can be deduced there is a strong C and E between words and LTM encoding.
Since a lab experiment was used the whole atmosphere was artificial and the tasks given so looking at each word and trying to remember it lacks mundane realism and is not ecologically valid.
How did Badddeley’s study surround Reductionism?
This study simplified the complex nature of encoding into list of words that were either acoustically of semantically similar or dissimilar but in real life most sentences consider both types of encoding and so LTM in real may use different kind of encoding not just semantic and so the study is reductionist. It was important to simplify the type of encoding to study the LTM and so word lists were the only way to investigate this. and scientific as the effect of one variable on another can be examined
How did Baddeley’s study regard Comparisons of Explanations?
The study revealed that MSM was an accurate theory as LTM was found to have a different type of encoding to STM (semantic as opposed to phonetic).
However it does not account for other theoretical explanations of memory, such as reconstructive memory that argues memory is an imaginative reconstruction of events.
How did Baddeley’s study regard Psychology as a Science?
This was lab experiment which had a high level of control so each word only shown for 3 seconds and it has a standardised procedure so is replicable and internally valid.
This study is considered to be reductionist because memory is simplified into list of words. Also, as a result of being scientific, the study lacks ecological validity and mundane realism due to the unrealistic lab environment and task.
How did Baddeley’s study regard Culture + Gender?
Baddeley study used Western students who most probably were similar in social class therefore the study is ethnocentric
How did Baddeley’s study regard Nature v Nurture?
Baddley’s findings suggest LTM and STM encode differently for everyone, therefore it could be deduced that genes affect encoding of memories, since it appears to be innate rather than learned.
However, Baddeley found that when rehearsal in the STM was not blocked in the first experiment, this acted as a confounding variable and improve memory. Since the amount of rehearsal someone carries out can be determined by nurture, this implies the encoding of long term memories can be affected by nurture aswell.
How did Baddeley’s study regard Psychology Over Time?
Baddley’s investigation was very important in its time, as it provided convincing empirical evidence for the separation of LTM and STM and MSM was the most up to date theory of memory at the time.
Since Baddeley’s investigation, LTM has been further separated into episodic and semantic memory, and STM into the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad, showing how our understanding of memory has developed over time.
How did Baddeley’s study regard Psychology in Society?
This study allowed us to identify that LTM has semantic encoding so now during a diagnosis after an accident on the brain, doctors can easily identify if memory has been lost and what kind of memory is affected depending on the type of encoding the patient is unable to do.
What was the aim of Sherif’s (1956/61) study?
To investigate relations between groups:
To see whether strangers who have common goals will form a close group.
To see whether 2 groups that compete with each other will become hostile towards each other.
What was the Procedure of Stage 1 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
For 1 week, the two groups were kept apart and allowed to form group norms + identities
Boys developed an attachment to the group throughout the first week of the camp, by doing various activities together (hiking, swimming, etc)
The boys chose names for their groups- The Eagles + The Rattlers- and stencilled them onto shirts + flags
What was the Procedure of Stage 2 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
The boys were told about another. They went through a tournament of a series of competitions; where the winner get trophies, medals, and camping knives
The researchers recorded phrases used by the boys, and analysed if they’re derogatory
A bean counting competition was included-boys had to then estimate how many each found; which was to see if they’d overestimate the in group/ underestimate the out group
What was the Procedure of Stage 3 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
To achieve harmony within the group, the boys started doing tasks that brought them all together
Examples: Fixing a water tank, pulling a broken truck out of mud
Data was collected through the observation of the boys’ friendship, an analysis of friendship, through the experiments and tape recordings.
What were the Results of Stage 1 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
The boys bonded with their groups and both groups had a recognised leader.
They discussed the existence of the other group in negative terms e.g. ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’.
What were the Results of Stage 2 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Towards the end of stage one, the groups began to become competitive and prejudice became apparent between the two groups
At first this was only verbally expressed but as the competition wore on this expression took a more direct route
The Eagles refused to sit with the Rattlers, the Eagles burned and Rattlers flag. The next day the Rattlers ransacked the Eagles cabin overturned beds and stole private property
What were the Results of Stage 3 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
The hostility between the groups initially remained, but the problem solving problems began to reduce the hostility towards each other.
When they fixed the water tank they celebrated together, and there was cooperation by all the boys contributing the same amount to hire a film
For tasks helped to reduce friction and by the end of the stage, although friendship choices still favoured the in-groups, there was increased friendships between the groups
The Rattlers even spent a $5 prize from one of the competitions on drinks for all of the boys
What was the conclusion of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Groups bonded and developed hierarchies within them, as expected
When the groups met in competition, in-group solidarity and cooperation increased, and hostility towards the other group was strong
Contact between the two groups was not enough to reduce hostility, and friction was reduced by the groups having to solve problems together and cooperate
What were the Strengths of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Reliability: all boys experienced the same team-building and competitive activities in three stages – standardised
Ecological Validity: The boys behaviour was tested on summer camp at the Robbers Cave National Park, Oklahoma - natural environment
Internal Validity: The ppts were all very similar, meaning participant characteristics couldn’t affect results
The covert observations mean that the researchers (initially) weren’t going to affect their behaviour
Practical Application
What were the Weaknesses of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Generalisability: The participants were twenty two 11 and 12 year old boys who are all athletic/sporty, and are white American Protestants
Ecological Validity: The procedure involved strangers meeting and competing, which is artificial as usually people in competition have a history of social interaction
Internal Validity: The naturalistic environment meant that the researchers couldn’t really control extraneous and confounding variables
Internal Validity/Mundane Realism: Unpublished researcher notes and interviews many years later revealed that the boys were aware that behaviour was being recorded, and the researcher may have encouraged hostility between the boys by breaking down tents and blaming rival teams – demand characteristics
What are the Ethical Issues surrounding Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Protection From Harm: They were given pen knives as prizes, allowed to set fire to flags
Sherif encouraged high levels of conflict in order to gain successful study outcomes
Deception: The boys believed it was a study of leadership, rather than hostility
Where did Sherif et al’s (1954/61) study take place?
Robber’s Cave State Park, Oklahoma
it occurred during the boys’ summer camp
Who created Realistic Conflict Theory, and when?
Sherif, 1966
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Ethics?
Arguably it is unethical since the boys who were the participants of this study were unware that they are part of a study which tested prejudice and so deception was used, however this was necessary to reduce the chances of demand characteristics in the study which would mean the results are not valid.
—It’s also true that possible psychological harm was caused to the boys who took part as the researchers tried to create conflict between the 2 groups in order to get their results to prove or disprove the idea of realist conflict theory.
—This leads to the assumption that perhaps the code of practice was broken because the researchers had to intervene to get the results which arguably breaks the integrity guideline that all psychologists must follow.
—The boys were prone to physical harm as the researchers were unaware of where this conflict may go, perhaps physical aggression could’ve arise which would’ve harmed the boys.
however although the pps were unaware of taking part in a study, the right to withdraw was still given to them as it was found 2 of the boys left the camp in the first week; this shows how the right to withdraw was exercised.
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Practical Issues?
This study took place in a summer camp which is a natural environment for the American populations and so the boy’s behaviour had ecological validity.
Since only boys were used who were only 11 years old the study’s findings on prejudice cannot be generalizable to everyone.
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Redctionism?
This study simplified the complex nature of prejudice into into 3 stages of group formation, competition and collaboration, where in reality these 3 factors can all be occurring simultaneously within a group and can interact to affect behaviourso the study is reductionist.
One can say this study was not reductionist because Sherif ensured to consider the psychology and sociology of a person, where the way a person thinks and how their surroundings may have influenced their behaviour.
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Comparisons of Explanations?
This study explains how competition is the thing that increases prejudice between groups and that it can be reduced by a superordinate goal
But Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory explains that prejudice arises to maintain high self-esteem within the group that you identify yourself with.
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Psych as a Science?
The study involved having 3 stages to this study; group formation, intergroup conflict and the integration phase. This was a standardised procedure and is replicable. In addition, the prejudice was observable which is empirical.
The study may lack internal validity since unpublished researcher notes and interviews many years later revealed the boys were aware their behaviour was being recorded and the researchers may have encouraged hostility between the boys by breaking down tents and blaming rival teams. This lack of control may have caused demand characteristics and is unscientific. (
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Culture + Gender?
This study involved only using 22, 11-year-old American boys- androcentric, to study prejudice and so the findings cannot be generalizable to other societies, cultures and the female population. The sample was also all white male Protestants, therefore it was ethnocentric (biased towards Western culture).
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Nature v Nurture?
This study shows how nurture has an effect because the boys that were studies were American and all showed prejudice so perhaps the way Americans are brought up has something to do with prejudice.
The boys may have some kind of biological predisposition that led them to show prejudice so nature plays a role especially as they were quite a homogenous group who may have shared genetic trends (similar in terms of gender ethnicity and social class).
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Psychology Over Time?
This study led to the understanding that prejudice arises when competition is in place however further theories have developed like social identity that explain prejudice is a way of maintaining high self-esteem and not when something is to gain, this has allowed prejudice to be explained in a more holistic manner where cognitive and social factors are considered so in group and out group relations with high self-esteem.
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Psychology in Society?
Now that we know competition is the main cause of prejudice, schools have adopted the jigsaw technique to ensure pupils maintain harmony within themselves.
How does Sherif’s (1954/61) study regard Socially Sensitive Research?
This research was viewed as unethical since no informed consent from the boys was gained and deception was used which is bad.
However, it allowed the development of the realist conflict theory which now allows schools to maintain harmony within pupils by using jigsaw technique.
Who conducted the Little Albert experiment?
Watson and Rayner
When was the Little Albert study conducted?
1920
What was the aim of the Little Albert study?
To investigate whether a child can be classically conditioned to fear a white rat.
What happened before the conditioning in Little Albert’s experiment?
- 9 month old Albert was shown a variety of objects, including a mask, a monkey and a white rat
- He showed no fear to any, and petted the white rat
- NS = White Rat
What happened during the conditioning stage of Little Albert’s experiment?
- A week after the initial showcase of objects, he was shown the same objects. When the pet rat appeared, they banged a steel bar. This made Albert scared.
- They did this four times a week
- UCS = Steel Bar UCR= Fear
What happened during the conditioning stage of Little Albert’s experiment?
- A week after the initial showcase of objects, he was shown the same objects. When the pet rat appeared, they banged a steel bar. This made Albert scared.
- They did this four times a week
- UCS = Steel Bar UCR= Fear
What happened after the conditioning of Little Albert’s experiment? (Results part 1)
- Albert was scared of the pet rat, and cried every time it came near
- This fear generalised to similar objects, like a Santa’s beard, a white coat + a rabbit
- CS = White Rat CR= Fear
What happened 3 months after the Little Albert experiment? (Results part 2)
- 3 months later, extinction happened with his fear of the similar objects. He was still scared of the rat.
- He was removed from the experiment before they could get rid of his phobia
What did Watson + Rayner conclude about their Little Albert study?
You can be classically conditioned to fear an object.
Generalisation + extinction occurs with conditioning.
Was the Little Albert study Internally Valid?
Lab experiment, where variables were controlled; making results internally valid
Was the Little Albert study Ecologically Valid?
Lab experiment, where things aren’t natural (aren’t presented with object and strategically give the UCS of steel bar), possibly unnatural behaviour; limiting ecological validity
Which Ethical Guidelines did the Little Albert study break?
Protection from Harm (they inflicted fear)
Right to Withdraw (a 9 month old can’t discuss this)
Informed Consent (a 9 month old can’t consent)
Deception (the mother said she never knew what was going on)
Debriefing (the mother took Albert away before they could debrief)
How did Watson + Rayner’s (1920) study regard Ethics?
The little infant, Albert, was classically conditioned to develop fear of a white rat which was paired with a loud bang and this procedure caused him a lot of psychological harm as he developed fear of something most children would not be scarred of,
This was study was a good study to prove humans too can be classically conditioned and so then it can be used in society to help people for example to treat phobias.
Since he was just a little boy, he was unable to given full informed consent so arguably the study took place without him having the knowledge of being part of it so its unethical
However his mother did give consent which in the case of an infant should be considered.
However, she was still not explained fully about what the study was going to be about so issues with consent remain.
—-The infant was not deconditioned and the mother was not debriefed which breaks many ethical guidelines so the study was unethical.
But its fair to say extinction may have occurred so Little Albert didn’t really need to be deconditioned.
Since this was the first ever human study on classical conditioning the competence of the researchers could be put into question as perhaps they didn’t really have the required knowledge to carry out this experiment.
