ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Cognitive Psychology - Studies and Experiments

Updated on September 12, 2013

Encoding of Memory

Aim:

Baddely (1966) tested the effects of acoustic and semantic similarity on short-term and long-tern recall.

Procedure:

Baddely split participants into 4 different groups (A, B, C and D).

Group A was given the following, acoustically similar, list of words:

  • Cat, cab, can, cad, mad, max, mat, man, map.

Group B was given the following acoustically dissimilar list of words:

  • Pit, few, cow pen, sup, bar, day, hot, rig and bun.

Group C was given the following semantically similar list of words:

  • Great, large, big, huge, broad, long, tall, fat, wide and high.

Group D was given the following, semantically dissimilar, list of words:

Good, huge, hot, safe, thin, deep, strong, foul, old and late.

The different groups were all read 12 sets of 5 words picked at random from their list at a rate of one word per second.

After the words were read to them the participants were given a list with all of the words of their list on them (it's the order of recall that mattered, not remembering the actual words).

They were then asked to recall the 5 words in the correct order that they were read to them.
A score was then calculated for each participant from 1-12, depending on how many sets of words they remembered.

Findings:

Baddely found that participants had trouble recalling acoustically similar words from their Short-Term Memory (STM) but not from their Long-Term Memory (LTM).

He also found that the opposite happened with semantically similar words - participants had no problem recalling them from their STM, but found that the words got mixed up when in their LTM.

Conclusion:

Baddely's results indicate that the STM encodes information acoustically whereas the LTM encodes information semantically.

George Miller
George Miller

Capacity of Memory

Aim:

George Miller (1956) investigated the number of objects an average human can hold in the working memory.

Procedure:

Miller got the participants in his experiment to listen to a number of auditory tones that varied in pitch (and pitch only).

Each tone was played separately, and the subject was asked to identify each tone relative to the others that they had already heard, by assigning it a number.

When it reached approximately 5 or 6 tones the participants began to get the numbers and tones confused.

Miller did this study not only with tones but with things such as numbers and words.

Findings:

Miller found that participants could on average only recall between 5 and 9 things before getting confused.

Conclusion:

Miller concluded that the span of immediate memory is 7+-2.

The Muti-Store Model of Memory
The Muti-Store Model of Memory

Multi-Store Model of Memory

The Multi-Store Model of Memory (MSM), produced by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968, is an explanation of how memory processes and stores work (read this hub for more details on the MSM).

Glanzer and Culnitz conducted research to support this model.

Aim:

Glanzer and Cunitz (1996) investigated the MSM and the idea that memory consists of three unitary stores.

Procedure:

Participants were given a list of 50 words that they needed to memorize in a given amount of time and then asked them to recall the words they remembered.

Findings:

This experiment found that there was a 'recency effect' where the participants remembered the most recent words that they had read because they had not yet been displaced from their STM.

Glanzer and Culnitz also found that participants showed a 'primary effect' in their recall of words where they remembered the first words on the list because they had been rehearsed more and thus transferred into their LTM.

Conculsion:

The findings of Glanzer and Culnitz's study support the MSM support the idea that there are differences between the STM and the LTM and that they are 2 separate, unitary memory stores.

The Working Memory Model
The Working Memory Model

Working Memory Model

The Working Memory Model (WMM) is a model Baddely and Hitch proposed 1974 as an alternative to the Multi-Store Model of Memory.

The WMM represents one aspect of memory - short-term memory (STM) or immediate memory.

Aim:

Shallice and Warrington (1970) conducted a study to try to support the WMM and it's different components (read this hub for details of the WMM)

Procedure:

Shallice and Warrington conducted an experiment into a person known as 'KF'.

KF had brain damage and could process visual information without any problems but could not process acoustic information in the form of letters and numbers (however he could process semantic acoustic information).

He also had no problems with his long-term memory but his immediate short-term memory seemed to be impaired.

Findings:

This showed that his brain damage seemed to be restricted to his Phonological Loop.

Conclusion:

The findings of Shallice and Warrington's study supports the Working Memory Model.

Eyewitness Testimony

Aim:

Loftus and Palmer (1974) investigated the accuracy of memory by using leading questions to try and distort the immediate recall of someone who witnessed a car crash.

Procedure:

Loftus and Palmer showed 45 participants (students) 7 films of different car crashes.

After watching the films, the participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire which involved asking them specific questions to get them to describe the accident that they just witnessed.

One question in the questionnaire was 'About how fast were the cars going when they ... ?'.

5 different verbs were given to 5 different groups of participants to describe the crash.

One group was asked 'About how fast were the cars going when they contacted?'

The other groups were given the verbs 'hit, bumped, collided and smashed'

The mean speed estimate was then calculated for each group.

Findings:

On average participants who were given the question with the verb 'smashed' estimated that the speed was 40.8% whereas the group given the word 'contacted' estimated that the speed was about 31.8%.

Conclusion:

The results show that people's recall and memory can be distorted by the use of leading questions.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Anthropophobia profile imageAUTHOR

      Anthropophobia 

      5 years ago

      In the 'Psychology AS Complete Companion' book made for AQA.

    • profile image

      Hayley 

      5 years ago

      Where did you find the information on Miller's 1956 experiment?

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)