MEMORY ESSAY PLANS
,Outline and evaluate research related to the features of short and long term memory.
AO1:
Research into coding:
- Baddley (1966a, 1966b) gave pps acoustically similar and dissimilar and semantically similar and
dissimilar words. Found that when recalling from STM pps did worse with acoustically similar
words and when recalling from LTM they did worse with semantically similar words
Research on capacity:
- Jacobs (1887): found that mean span for digits across all pps when reading out digits and having
pps recall them in correct order was 9.3 items and mean span for letters was 7.3
Research on duration (STM then LTM)
- Peterson (1959): tested 24 students in 8 trials, gave them a consonant syllable and 3 digit
number and counted backwards from this number until told to stop to prevent mental rehearsal of
the consonant syllable.
- Told pps to stop after 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 seconds
- After 3 seconds = average recall 80%, after 18s = AR 3%
- Bahrick et al (1975): studied 392 American pps between age 17-74
- Recall tested in 2 ways: photo recognition test from 50 photos and free recall where pps recalled
all names of graduating class. In the PR test: recall 90% accurate after 15 years, 70% after 48
years. In the FR 60% after 15 years and 30% after 48 years
AO3 (CODING):
Separate memory stores:
- Baddeley’s research identified a clear difference
- There are some exceptions to the research but the idea that STM uses mostly acoustic coding
and LTM is mostly semantic has stood test of time
- This is important bc it increased memory understanding and this led to development of the multi
store model
Artificial stimuli:
- Didn’t use any meaningful material so might not tell us much about coding in real lids
- When processing more meaningful information people may even use semantic coding for STM
tasks
- Shows that the study might have a more limited application
AO3 (CAPACITY):
Jacobs’ study has been replicated
- This study s a very old one so it probably lacked adequate controls, but since then the study has
been confirmed by other better controlled studies, suggesting that J’s study is a valid test of digit
span in STM
, Miller may have overestimated STM capacity:
- Cowan (2001): reviewed other research and concluded that STM capacity is only about 4 (plus or
minus 1) chunks
- This suggests that lower end of M’s estimate (5 items) is more appropriate than 7 items
AO3 (DURATION):
Meaningless stimuli in STM study
- Stimulus was artificial
- BUT not completely irrelevant because sometimes we do remember ‘meaningless’ streams of
information like phone numbers
- But still, recalling these syllables doesn’t reflect most everyday memory tasks, so therefore it
lacked external validity
High external validity:
- This is because Bahrick investigated meaningful memories like people’s names and faces
- When LTM studies were conducted with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates
were lower
- This suggests that B’s finings reflect a more real estimate on LTM duration
,Outline and evaluate research related to the features of short and long term memory.
AO1:
Research into coding:
- Baddley (1966a, 1966b) gave pps acoustically similar and dissimilar and semantically similar and
dissimilar words. Found that when recalling from STM pps did worse with acoustically similar
words and when recalling from LTM they did worse with semantically similar words
Research on capacity:
- Jacobs (1887): found that mean span for digits across all pps when reading out digits and having
pps recall them in correct order was 9.3 items and mean span for letters was 7.3
Research on duration (STM then LTM)
- Peterson (1959): tested 24 students in 8 trials, gave them a consonant syllable and 3 digit
number and counted backwards from this number until told to stop to prevent mental rehearsal of
the consonant syllable.
- Told pps to stop after 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 seconds
- After 3 seconds = average recall 80%, after 18s = AR 3%
- Bahrick et al (1975): studied 392 American pps between age 17-74
- Recall tested in 2 ways: photo recognition test from 50 photos and free recall where pps recalled
all names of graduating class. In the PR test: recall 90% accurate after 15 years, 70% after 48
years. In the FR 60% after 15 years and 30% after 48 years
AO3 (CODING):
Separate memory stores:
- Baddeley’s research identified a clear difference
- There are some exceptions to the research but the idea that STM uses mostly acoustic coding
and LTM is mostly semantic has stood test of time
- This is important bc it increased memory understanding and this led to development of the multi
store model
Artificial stimuli:
- Didn’t use any meaningful material so might not tell us much about coding in real lids
- When processing more meaningful information people may even use semantic coding for STM
tasks
- Shows that the study might have a more limited application
AO3 (CAPACITY):
Jacobs’ study has been replicated
- This study s a very old one so it probably lacked adequate controls, but since then the study has
been confirmed by other better controlled studies, suggesting that J’s study is a valid test of digit
span in STM
, Miller may have overestimated STM capacity:
- Cowan (2001): reviewed other research and concluded that STM capacity is only about 4 (plus or
minus 1) chunks
- This suggests that lower end of M’s estimate (5 items) is more appropriate than 7 items
AO3 (DURATION):
Meaningless stimuli in STM study
- Stimulus was artificial
- BUT not completely irrelevant because sometimes we do remember ‘meaningless’ streams of
information like phone numbers
- But still, recalling these syllables doesn’t reflect most everyday memory tasks, so therefore it
lacked external validity
High external validity:
- This is because Bahrick investigated meaningful memories like people’s names and faces
- When LTM studies were conducted with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates
were lower
- This suggests that B’s finings reflect a more real estimate on LTM duration
