All of Year 12 Psych Studies
Cognitive
Baddeley’s third experiment – Classic
Aim:
to find out if the LTM encodes acoustically or semantically. Done by giving pts word lists
similar in sound (acoustic) or meaning (semantic)
IV:
1. Acoustically similar/dissimilar word list. 2. Semantically similar/dissimilar word list. 3.
Performance before 15min ‘forgetting delay’ and performance after
DV:
score of recall test of 10 words; must be in the correct order
Sample:
M + F from Baddeley’s uni subject panel
72 pts – 15 acoustically similar / 20 control / 16 semantically similar / 21 control
Procedure:
Pts split into 4 groups – based on IV 1+2
Each shown slideshow – 10x words (3seconds each)
‘Interference test’ – hearing and writing down 6 sequences of 8 numbers
Then recall the words from slideshow in order
4 trials – pts get better as the words stay the same
Words displayed around the room – PTS SHOULD ONLY CONCENTRATE ON ORDER
After 4th trial – 15min break + unrelated interference task (copying digits)
Then asked to recall words again (unexpected 5th trial)
Results:
,Acoustically similar = confusing at first but then overtake control group --- however – not
significant
Suggests LTM = not confused by acoustic similarities – 5th trial scores = similar to 4th trial – no
forgetting taken place
Semantically similar = constantly confusing – never catches control group. Performs worse
than AS overall
Conclusion: LTM encodes semantically, at least primarily – why it gets confused w/ semantic
similarities
‘Slow start’ in AS – interference task doesn’t block STM 100% - some words still on rehearsal
loop
Evaluation:
(G) Baddeley has a large sample of 72. Any anomalies (people will unusually good or bad
memories) will be “averaged out” in a sample this size. This suggests you can generalise from
this sample. (STRENGTH)
(G) However, there were so many conditions in this study that each group only had 15-20
people in it. That’s not a lot. Only 15 people did the Acoustically Similar condition. An
anomaly could make a difference to scores with numbers that small. (WEAKNESS)
(G) The sample was made up of British volunteers. It might be that there is something
unusual about the memories of British or the memorable qualities of British words. However
this is unlikely. LTM works the same for people from all countries, speaking all languages, so
this sample is probably representative. (STRENGTH)
(R) has standardised procedures that you could replicate yourself. You wouldn’t need special
equipment and you could use exactly the same words that Baddeley used. (STRENGTH)
(R) Baddeley improved the reliability of his own study by getting rid of the read-aloud word
lists (some participants had hearing difficulties) and replacing them with slides. Everyone
saw the same word for the same amount of time (3 seconds). (STRENGTH)
(A) Cognitive Psychologists, who have built on Baddeley’s research and investigated LTM in
greater depth. Baddeley’s use of interference tasks to control STM has been particularly
influential. Baddeley & Hitch built on this research and developed a brand-new memory
model – Working Memory. (STRENGTH)
(A) Another application is for your own revision. If LTM encodes semantically, it makes sense
to revise using mind maps that use semantic links. However, reading passages out loud over
and over (rote learning) is acoustic coding, but LTM doesn’t seem to work this way, so it
won't be as effective. (STRENGTH)
(V) Baddeley took trouble to improve the internal validity of his experiment. He
used controls to do this. Rather than getting participants to recall words, he asked them to
recall word order (with the words themselves on display the whole time). This reduced the
risk that some words would be hard to recall because they were unfamiliar or others easy to
recall because they had associations for the participants. (STRENGTH)
(V) However, the ecological validity of this study is not good. Recalling lists of words is
quite artificial but you sometimes have to do it (a shopping list, for example). Recalling
the order of words is completely artificial and doesn’t resemble anything you would use
memory to do in the real world. (WEAKNESS)
(V) Baddeley did improve this. For example, he made the 5th “forgetting”
, trial a surprise that the participants weren’t expecting. This is similar to real life, where you
are not usually expecting it when you are asked to recall important information. (STRENGTH)
(E) There are no significant ethical issues with this study (STRENGTH)
Sebastian & Hernandez-Gil (2012) – Contemporary
Aims:
Investigate the development of the phonological loop in children between 5 and 17 by
evaluating verbal digit span – see if capacity in terms of digit span increase w/age
Compare results with a study done in 2010 that studies the P. Loop in adults, older adults,
frontotemporal dementia (fvFTD) and Alzheimer’s patients (AD) to observe developmental
changes and deterioration in dementias
Method:
570 volunteers from public + private Preschools, primaries and secondaries from Madrid
0 participants had any hearing difficulties etc
Pts asked to listen to a sequence of 3 digits and recall them in the same order
Extra digit added every time to increase length of sequence
Digit span = maximum length at which pts could recall at least 2/3 series w/no errors
Each pts took part individually
Results:
data analysed by school year (13 in Spain)
analysed also by developmental period; ----17
Course (age) Mean digit span Mean digit span
(developmental period)
5 3.76 3.76
6 4.16 4.34
7 4.26
8 4.63
9 5.00 5.13
10 5.13
11 5.28
12 5.30 5.46
13 5.89
14 5.51
15 5.82 5.83
16 5.75
17 5.91
digit span increases significantly w/age
5y/o = low digit span differing significantly from all other age groups
Increase in one digit (4-5) started at 9y/o and rose until 11y/o
15 and 17y/o = similar digit span
Cognitive
Baddeley’s third experiment – Classic
Aim:
to find out if the LTM encodes acoustically or semantically. Done by giving pts word lists
similar in sound (acoustic) or meaning (semantic)
IV:
1. Acoustically similar/dissimilar word list. 2. Semantically similar/dissimilar word list. 3.
Performance before 15min ‘forgetting delay’ and performance after
DV:
score of recall test of 10 words; must be in the correct order
Sample:
M + F from Baddeley’s uni subject panel
72 pts – 15 acoustically similar / 20 control / 16 semantically similar / 21 control
Procedure:
Pts split into 4 groups – based on IV 1+2
Each shown slideshow – 10x words (3seconds each)
‘Interference test’ – hearing and writing down 6 sequences of 8 numbers
Then recall the words from slideshow in order
4 trials – pts get better as the words stay the same
Words displayed around the room – PTS SHOULD ONLY CONCENTRATE ON ORDER
After 4th trial – 15min break + unrelated interference task (copying digits)
Then asked to recall words again (unexpected 5th trial)
Results:
,Acoustically similar = confusing at first but then overtake control group --- however – not
significant
Suggests LTM = not confused by acoustic similarities – 5th trial scores = similar to 4th trial – no
forgetting taken place
Semantically similar = constantly confusing – never catches control group. Performs worse
than AS overall
Conclusion: LTM encodes semantically, at least primarily – why it gets confused w/ semantic
similarities
‘Slow start’ in AS – interference task doesn’t block STM 100% - some words still on rehearsal
loop
Evaluation:
(G) Baddeley has a large sample of 72. Any anomalies (people will unusually good or bad
memories) will be “averaged out” in a sample this size. This suggests you can generalise from
this sample. (STRENGTH)
(G) However, there were so many conditions in this study that each group only had 15-20
people in it. That’s not a lot. Only 15 people did the Acoustically Similar condition. An
anomaly could make a difference to scores with numbers that small. (WEAKNESS)
(G) The sample was made up of British volunteers. It might be that there is something
unusual about the memories of British or the memorable qualities of British words. However
this is unlikely. LTM works the same for people from all countries, speaking all languages, so
this sample is probably representative. (STRENGTH)
(R) has standardised procedures that you could replicate yourself. You wouldn’t need special
equipment and you could use exactly the same words that Baddeley used. (STRENGTH)
(R) Baddeley improved the reliability of his own study by getting rid of the read-aloud word
lists (some participants had hearing difficulties) and replacing them with slides. Everyone
saw the same word for the same amount of time (3 seconds). (STRENGTH)
(A) Cognitive Psychologists, who have built on Baddeley’s research and investigated LTM in
greater depth. Baddeley’s use of interference tasks to control STM has been particularly
influential. Baddeley & Hitch built on this research and developed a brand-new memory
model – Working Memory. (STRENGTH)
(A) Another application is for your own revision. If LTM encodes semantically, it makes sense
to revise using mind maps that use semantic links. However, reading passages out loud over
and over (rote learning) is acoustic coding, but LTM doesn’t seem to work this way, so it
won't be as effective. (STRENGTH)
(V) Baddeley took trouble to improve the internal validity of his experiment. He
used controls to do this. Rather than getting participants to recall words, he asked them to
recall word order (with the words themselves on display the whole time). This reduced the
risk that some words would be hard to recall because they were unfamiliar or others easy to
recall because they had associations for the participants. (STRENGTH)
(V) However, the ecological validity of this study is not good. Recalling lists of words is
quite artificial but you sometimes have to do it (a shopping list, for example). Recalling
the order of words is completely artificial and doesn’t resemble anything you would use
memory to do in the real world. (WEAKNESS)
(V) Baddeley did improve this. For example, he made the 5th “forgetting”
, trial a surprise that the participants weren’t expecting. This is similar to real life, where you
are not usually expecting it when you are asked to recall important information. (STRENGTH)
(E) There are no significant ethical issues with this study (STRENGTH)
Sebastian & Hernandez-Gil (2012) – Contemporary
Aims:
Investigate the development of the phonological loop in children between 5 and 17 by
evaluating verbal digit span – see if capacity in terms of digit span increase w/age
Compare results with a study done in 2010 that studies the P. Loop in adults, older adults,
frontotemporal dementia (fvFTD) and Alzheimer’s patients (AD) to observe developmental
changes and deterioration in dementias
Method:
570 volunteers from public + private Preschools, primaries and secondaries from Madrid
0 participants had any hearing difficulties etc
Pts asked to listen to a sequence of 3 digits and recall them in the same order
Extra digit added every time to increase length of sequence
Digit span = maximum length at which pts could recall at least 2/3 series w/no errors
Each pts took part individually
Results:
data analysed by school year (13 in Spain)
analysed also by developmental period; ----17
Course (age) Mean digit span Mean digit span
(developmental period)
5 3.76 3.76
6 4.16 4.34
7 4.26
8 4.63
9 5.00 5.13
10 5.13
11 5.28
12 5.30 5.46
13 5.89
14 5.51
15 5.82 5.83
16 5.75
17 5.91
digit span increases significantly w/age
5y/o = low digit span differing significantly from all other age groups
Increase in one digit (4-5) started at 9y/o and rose until 11y/o
15 and 17y/o = similar digit span
