Cognitive psychology

• nature and associations between memories in episodic memory 


  -mental diary

  -receives and stored info about experience or events that occur at a time in our life, memories are linked to time and context

  -a type of explicit memory which can be inspected and recalled consciously

  -encoded and stored with personal information
• Nature and associations between memories in semantic memory 


  -mental encyclopaedia

  -memories are associated with other facts that link concepts together without autobiographical association

  -type of explicit memory which can be inspected and recalled consciously
• Flashbulb memories

  Episodic memories which can give accurate and detailed recollections of a memory
• Time and spatial referencing in episodic memory 


  -dependent on time and spatial referencing

  -memories are stored with the place and time they occurred
• Time and spatial referencing for semantic memory 


  -not usually stored with time or spatial referencing

  -semantic memories can be input in a fragmented way

  -we can then piece factual information together that has been learned at different point in time
• Independence of episodic memory

  -operate with semantic memory as need to be able to draw on previous knowledge to remember them
• Independence of semantic memory

  -operates independently
• Supporting studies for Tulvings theory (tulving 1989)

  -performed brain scans on six volunteers

  -found when ppts used their episodic memory the prefrontal lobes in the Brian were active

  
  

  SUPPORTS TULVINGS EXPLANATION AS SUGGESTS THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STORES AS THEY USE TWO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BRAIN
• Application of TULVINGS theory 


  -episodic memories are encoded with time and spatial reference, the police may re-enact a crime scene

  -aids retrieval of an incident
• Spuuorting studies of TULVINGS theory ( HM and Clive Wearing)


  -both had brain damage which severely affected their episodic memory

  -semantic and procedural memories were relatively intact

  SUPPORTS LTM AS IT SHOWS SEPARATE SYSTEMS AS ONE PART STILL WORKS
• Opposing studies of TULVINGS theory (squire and sole 1998)


  • suggested that the medical temporal lobe is used for both semantic and episodic memories

  SUGGESTS THEY ARE NOT SEPERATE STORES JF THEY ARE IN THE SAME PART OF THE BRAIN
• General opposing studies of TULVINGS theory (tulving 1972)


  • suggests that episodic memory relies on semantic memory

  GOES AGAINST THEORY OF SEPERATE STORES
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - AIMS


  • investigate whether long term memory was like short term memory
  • Investigate whether acoustically similar words in LTM lead to more memory impairment than semantically similar words in LTM
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - GENERAL PROCEDURE

  • used 4 different lists
  • ppts were young servicemen and were tested in 4 groups
  • start of study they had a hearing test
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - how many ppts failed the hearing test?

  3
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - what were the 4 lists

  List A = acoustically similar

  List B = acoustically dissimilar

  List C = semantically similar

  List D = semantically dissimilar
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - how many ppts were in each group?

  A = 18

  B = 17

  C = 20

  D = 20
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - PROCEDURE PART ONE


  • words were presented using tape recorder at 3 second intervals
  • ppts had 40 seconds to write down as many words in the correct order ( the words were in front of the )
  • the experiment was not measuring the numbers of words recalled just the correct order
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - PROCEDURE PART TWO

  • ppts spent 20 mins doing an intervening task to prevent further use of STM
  • 8 numbers were presented at one second intervals and ppts had 8 seconds to write the numbers down in order
  • Baddley wanted to compare ppts LTM test scores to STM scores
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - RESULTS ACOUSTICALLY SIMILARITY

  • acoustically dissimilar list was better recalled than the acoustically similar list
  • by trail 4 there was less difference between the two groups but more forgetting in the acoustically dissimilar condition than in the ‘acoustically similar‘
  • Baddley reported this difference in forgetting as being significant
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - RESULTS SEMANTIC SIMILAR 


  • with semantic similarity there was no significant differences between List C and List D
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - CONCLUSION

  • showed it was acoustic similarity that led to less recall of the order
  • recall was worse in the acoustically similar condition than the semantically similar condition
  • the acoustically similar list showed almost no forgetting
• Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - why are these results produce?


  • STM encoding is mostly acoustic so it is better for info to be similar in sound to be remembered better
  • the list with semantically similar words was better recalled because they were not similar in sounds and not confusing for the ppts
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - generalisability (sample size)

  • Small sample size of 75ppts
  • Not generalisable as not representative of target population
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - generalisability (gender)

  • were young service men so androcentric
  • not representative of target population
  • results about semantically similar words in LTM are not generalised
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - generalisability (culture)

  • all from Cambridge so study is ethnocentric
  • not generalisable to everyone as results aren’t representative of target population
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - reliability ( procedure)

  • standardised procedure as all ppts heard words for 3 second intervals
  • Increases reliability as researchers can replicate the study
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - reliability

  • ppts all had a hearing test which is a control
  • increases reliability as it means the results on the effect of semantic similarity of LTM won’t be affected
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - reliability (data)


  • data was the number of words put in the correct order so objective
  • Increases reliability as other researchers could use the same results about number of words put in order and get the same results as there is no interpretation
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - 


  • can be applied to revision
  • Should not revise two semantically similar topics
  • Study found that fewer semantically similar words were learnt over the first 4 trials
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - validity (ecological validity)


  • ppts knew they were in a study at a lab at Cambridge University
  • Validity decreased because it increases demand characteristic
  • Ppts may act differently to how they would naturally behave
  • Affects the results on the effect of semantic similar words on the LTM
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - validity


  • setting was unrealistic as ppts were in lab at Cambridge
  • Study lacks ecological validity
  • Ppts may act differently to how they would naturally behave
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - validity (task)


  • lacks task validity because it is unrealistic task
  • don‘t normally put words in order
  • Decreases validity
  • May act differently to how they would normally act
  • Affects results
• Evaluation of Baddley 1966 experiment 1 - ethics


  • ppts were deceived as not told about recall test after intervention task
  • Reduces ethics as breaks the principle of respect as they couldn’t fully give informed consent
• Evaluation of Steyvers and Hemmers - generalisability 


  • ethnocentric as 22 ppts were recruited from ppt pool at Uni of California
  • Study lack’s generalisability as not representative of all cultures
  • Not accurately represent the interaction between episodic and semantic memory in naturalistic environments
• Evaluation of Steyvers and Hemmers - generalisability


  • sample size of 22 ppts during initial testing which is a small sample size as target pop is everyone
  • sample size is not representative of the target population
  • the results lack’s generalisability
• Evaluation of Steyvers and Hemmers - reliability 


  • standardised procedure as all ppts saw 5 images so study can be easily replicated
  • shows study is reliable because it makes the results more accurate
• Steyvers and Hemmers - what were the 5 images they saw? 


  • office
  • kitchen
  • hotel
  • urban
  • dining
• Evaluation of Steyvers and Hemmers - reliability (control)


  • study is controlled as all ppts were chosen from same experimental pool so can be easily replicated
  • Study is reliable as the results of the episodic and semantic memory are accurate
• Evaluation of Steyvers and Hemmers - reliability (data

  )

  • data is objectI’ve as it can be interpreted by other psychologists as data is quantitative
  • Study is more reliable as the analysis of results are consistent