aim
to investigate the influence of acoustic and semantic memories on the LTM
and to investigate if the LTM encodes acoustically/ semantically
sample
72 males and females from the APRU Cambridge university, mix of students and staff- mix ages and genders, all volenteered to take place
split into 4 groups SS,SD,AS,AD
15,20,16,21
A03.sample
weakness: lacks gen, all from same unit, same knowledge of psych- more motivated potentially, live in England, volenteered- similar charchteistics, ambitious, motivated, confident similar passions.
not representative of those from different counties- ethnocentric, not representative of people with different interests/personalities
strength: although as this is a test on memory generalisability issues shouldn’t be an weakness as memory is considered to be universal so factors such as personality/ culture are unlikely to impact findings
procedure
lab, indépendant measures design
divided into groups
followed same procedure
List of 10 words- one syllable
presented via projector rate of 1 word/ 3 seconds
immediately after 6 digit tasks read out, 8 seconds write out each sequence - eliminating use of STM
recalled original word list in correct order from words displayed around room
repeated X4
15 min Break
recall words again- surprise retest
Procedure. A03
strength: standerdised increasing reliability, replicated test consistency of how encode in LTM
weakness- lacks eco and mundane realism
memorising word busts
lab
not rep of how we encode into LTM in real life decreasing cred
strength: high control extraneous variables- screened for hearing impairments
projected on wall too
indipendenr measures- minimise PPT variables more valid C+E
results
- acoustic words
began worse as encode into STM withacoustivs- acoustic similarity, but by stage 4 and retest became much high recall 80/70% - semantic words
began of much better than acoustics as STM doesn’t pay attention to meanings of words, although by the 4th stage and retstest, semantical similar words performed much worse 60% as LTM got confused by the semantic similarity suggesting this is how it encodes, leading to less recall although smentically dissimilar- 85%
gets distracted by semantic similarities, muddles words up
A03- results
strength: quant data, objective free from bias analysed statistically
application demonstrated how we encode into our LTM, semantically, revision methods- semantic linked mindmaps, distinct revision notes, colours, linking key terns to previous memories e.g. words serenity to a beach on holiday- improve perfomance in school
