Baddeley 1966b

• aim (2)

  1 - to test whether STM and LTM were different

  2 - to investigate the influence of semantic and acoustic word similarity on learning and recall in STM and LTM
• how were participants grouped

  4 groups, 20 male and females in each
• what were the four word conditions used

  1 - acoustically similar

  2 - acoustically dissimilar

  3 - semantically similar

  4 - semantically dissimilar
• what was the learning stage of the procedure (4 points)

  . 10 words presented, one every three seconds to participants

  . participants to perform a distraction task (recalling 6 digit numbers)

  . participants given the word list in a random order, asked to recall the order they received the words

  . repeated four times
• what was the retest part of the procedure

  . participants given a 15 minute distraction task then had to recall words again - they were unaware this was going to happen

  . scores from learning stage compared to retest
• what design was used

  independent groups
• what type of experiment was used

  lab experiment
• what were the results of the experiment (2)

  1 - recall of acoustically similar words worse than dissimilar words during the initial phase of learning

  2 - semantically similar words more difficult to learn than dissimilar words, they recalled significantly fewer than similar words on retest
• what did the fact that acoustically similar words were recalled worse than dissimilar words during the initial learning phase show

  the STM is encoded acoustically
• what did the fact semantically similar words were more difficult to learn than the dissimilar words show


  the LTM is encoded semantically
• conclusion of experiment (2)

  - STM is encoded largely acoustically meaning acoustically similar words were more difficult to remember

  - retest of list 3 ,semantically similar words, was impaired compared to others = encoding in LTM is largely but not exclusively semantic
• generalisability strengths


  . male and female ppts were used = findings nor gender specific

  . subsequent research on wider population obtained similar results = generalisable
• generalisability weaknesses


  . non random sampling technique used (volunteers from cambridge) = may have better memory etc = can't generalise to wider population
• reliability strengths


  . controlled and standardised = good internal reliability, replication is possible

  . findings have been replicated many times = good external reliability
• application


  . in education - if LTM encodes semantically it is good to revise using mindmaps that use semantic links

  . parrot style learning would be problematic as meaning will be remembered rather than the precise info
• validity strengths


  lab experiment = variables were highly controlled so effects of confounding variables eliminated = cause and effect relationship can be established
• validity weaknesses


  . further research needed to look at everyday memory

  . lacks ecological validity and mundane realism as setting is highly artificial = behaviour may change because of this
• ethics


  no deception or danger of harming ppts = low ethical value so experiment is ethically justified as scientific benefits outweigh any cons