IB Psychology Cognitive ATB Studies Study Guide 2023
with complete solution
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
Lab experiment
24 participants
Had to recall trigrams (meaningless 3-consonant combo)
To prevent recall, participants were given a distraction task where they had to count
backwards from a specified number in 3s or 4s. This distraction task varied in intervals
(3, 6, 9, 12, 15, or 18 seconds)
Results:
The longer the delay, the less trigrams were recalled
80% of trigrams were recalled after a 3 second delay
Less than 10% were recalled after an 18 second delay
Conclusions:
Showed that the longer it takes to recall, less was retained
The distraction task served to prevent rehearsal in order to stop encoding
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)
A: tested the hypothesis that short term memory and long term memory are two
separate stores in a free recall experiment
P: 240 army enlisted men presented with a list of 15 words to memorize
2 main variables
-presentation rate
-repetition of items on list
Experiment 1
-Tried to change shape of serial position curve by affecting the efficiency of LTM-
Should increase primacy effect
5 main experimental treatments by 2 variables
-spacing- single (3 sec), double (6 sec), and triple (9 sec)
-number of presentation (repetition of items)
Results:
More spacing increased primacy effect
-longer spacing--> increases memory
-Allows more time for rehearsal
Experiment 2
-Tried to change recency effect
Variables
-Free recall
-Delayed recall with distraction task
, Results: The longer the recall was delayed, the worse recency effect was
F: P's recalled primacy and recency of list better,- serial reproduction curve
C: primacy words stored differently to recency words, so separate memory stores
E: well controlled, all male participants of 1 profession, lacks ecological validity- not
everyday memorization
SO: provides evidence for the MSM, both for IFR and DFR: primacy effect shows LTS
and recency effect shows STS
Craik and Tulving (1975)
Aim: to investigate how deep and shallow processing affects memory
20 college students present with a list of 60 words, one at a time, then asked one of
three questions that required different depths of processing
shallow/structural - word in all caps or lowercase?
auditory/phonemic - does it rhyme with weight?
semantic - does it fit into the sentence?
then given a list of 180 words and asked to identify which they had been shown
Shallow - 18%
Auditory - 72%
Semantic - 96%
Shows higher recall for semantic processing
Supports levels of processing model of memory
Landry and Bartling (2011)
Aim: to investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of phonologically
dissimilar letters in serial recall
Hypothesis: accuracy of serial recall would be higher in the control group
34 undergraduate psych students
Experimental group- saw list of letters while saying "1" & "2" (articulatory suppression
task) until recall
Control group had no task and just saw the letters for five seconds and waited five
seconds before filling out answer sheet
10 list with series of 7 random letters, answer sheet with 7 blanks (practice test shown
to participants prior to experiment)
Results:
Scores of experimental group were much lower than the control group
Mean % of accurate recall
-Control: 76%
-Experimental: 45%
Standard deviation were nearly identical
Data was statistically significant
Supports prediction of working memory model
with complete solution
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
Lab experiment
24 participants
Had to recall trigrams (meaningless 3-consonant combo)
To prevent recall, participants were given a distraction task where they had to count
backwards from a specified number in 3s or 4s. This distraction task varied in intervals
(3, 6, 9, 12, 15, or 18 seconds)
Results:
The longer the delay, the less trigrams were recalled
80% of trigrams were recalled after a 3 second delay
Less than 10% were recalled after an 18 second delay
Conclusions:
Showed that the longer it takes to recall, less was retained
The distraction task served to prevent rehearsal in order to stop encoding
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)
A: tested the hypothesis that short term memory and long term memory are two
separate stores in a free recall experiment
P: 240 army enlisted men presented with a list of 15 words to memorize
2 main variables
-presentation rate
-repetition of items on list
Experiment 1
-Tried to change shape of serial position curve by affecting the efficiency of LTM-
Should increase primacy effect
5 main experimental treatments by 2 variables
-spacing- single (3 sec), double (6 sec), and triple (9 sec)
-number of presentation (repetition of items)
Results:
More spacing increased primacy effect
-longer spacing--> increases memory
-Allows more time for rehearsal
Experiment 2
-Tried to change recency effect
Variables
-Free recall
-Delayed recall with distraction task
, Results: The longer the recall was delayed, the worse recency effect was
F: P's recalled primacy and recency of list better,- serial reproduction curve
C: primacy words stored differently to recency words, so separate memory stores
E: well controlled, all male participants of 1 profession, lacks ecological validity- not
everyday memorization
SO: provides evidence for the MSM, both for IFR and DFR: primacy effect shows LTS
and recency effect shows STS
Craik and Tulving (1975)
Aim: to investigate how deep and shallow processing affects memory
20 college students present with a list of 60 words, one at a time, then asked one of
three questions that required different depths of processing
shallow/structural - word in all caps or lowercase?
auditory/phonemic - does it rhyme with weight?
semantic - does it fit into the sentence?
then given a list of 180 words and asked to identify which they had been shown
Shallow - 18%
Auditory - 72%
Semantic - 96%
Shows higher recall for semantic processing
Supports levels of processing model of memory
Landry and Bartling (2011)
Aim: to investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of phonologically
dissimilar letters in serial recall
Hypothesis: accuracy of serial recall would be higher in the control group
34 undergraduate psych students
Experimental group- saw list of letters while saying "1" & "2" (articulatory suppression
task) until recall
Control group had no task and just saw the letters for five seconds and waited five
seconds before filling out answer sheet
10 list with series of 7 random letters, answer sheet with 7 blanks (practice test shown
to participants prior to experiment)
Results:
Scores of experimental group were much lower than the control group
Mean % of accurate recall
-Control: 76%
-Experimental: 45%
Standard deviation were nearly identical
Data was statistically significant
Supports prediction of working memory model
