Y1: Psychology: Cognitive Practical
This deck covers key concepts and findings from a cognitive psychology practical focused on memory recall and rehearsal. It includes hypotheses, methods, results, and evaluations of the study.
Describe the background of this practical with research that supports and refutes the aim.
The rationale for this research is to investigate the role of rehearsal in the STM and its aid in forming LTM
Peterson and Peterson (1959) told ppts to remember nonsense trigrams (e.g. BNV) and found that after 3 seconds 80% of trigrams were recalled but after 18 seconds less than 10% were recalled, which shows rehearsal aids memory however it can decay after an extended period
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) found that ppts recalled more words from the start of a list and the end due to words at the start getting rehearsed more and so transferring to the LTM and words at the end staying in the STM with words in the middle being displaced.
Key Terms
Describe the background of this practical with research that supports and refutes the aim.
The rationale for this research is to investigate the role of rehearsal in the STM and its aid in forming LTM
Peterson and P...
Related Flashcard Decks
Study Tips
- Press F to enter focus mode for distraction-free studying
- Review cards regularly to improve retention
- Try to recall the answer before flipping the card
- Share this deck with friends to study together
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
Describe the background of this practical with research that supports and refutes the aim. |
|
What was the aim of our practical? | • To investigate whether the prevention of rehearsal affects recall • More specifically, to investigate whether more words are recalled from a word list when rehearsal is allowed compared to when it is prevented |
What are the variables of our practical? | IV = Rehearsal vs no rehearsal ; DV = Number of words recalled; Controls = The same word list, same order, same amount of time each word was displayed for |
State the fully operationalised alternative hypothesis. | There will be a significantly higher number of words recalled when there is a 60 second pause for rehearsal compared to when rehearsal is prevented with an interference task of counting backwards in 3s for 60 seconds. |
State the fully operationalised null hypothesis. | There will be no significant difference between the number of words recalled after a 60 second pause for rehearsal compared to when rehearsal is prevented with an interference task of counting backwards in 3s for 60 seconds. Any difference will be due to chance. |
What sample did we use in our practical? | • 20 ppts • King Edward VI College in Stourbridge • Take Psychology A level |
What sampling method did we use in our practical? | Opportunity |
What was the method used in our practical? | Lab |
Briefly describe the procedure of our practical. |
|
What were the results of our practical? | • With rehearsal a mean of 8 words recalled correctly • Without rehearsal a mean of 7 words were recalled correctly • The mode for both conditions was 7 • We therefore accepted our null hypothesis with any differences being due to chance |
How did we analyse our results and what was the outcome of this? | • Using a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test • Our results were found to be not significant • Used a level of 95% confidence that our results were not due to chance • The critical value on the table read 35, anything below was considered critical • Our T value was 56.5 which was higher and so not significant • We therefore accepted our null hypothesis with any differences being due to chance |
What can we conclude from our results? | We found no significant difference in the number of words recalled after 60 secs of rehearsal compared to no rehearsal due to an interference task of counting backwards in 3s for 60 secs. This shows that rehearsal does not aid our short term memory. |
How do our findings compare with background research? | • Our research found that a mode of 7 words were recalled in both conditions which rejects Peterson and Peterson’s (1959) research that 80% of trigrams were recalled after 3 secs • Out of the average 7 words recalled, the majority were words at the start and end of the list which supports Glanzer and Cunitz’s (1966) research |
Evaluate the generalisablity using a high and low point. | P - High E - Memory is considered to be universal E - Therefore results from this experiment can be applied to everyone with normal memory functioning P - Low E - Only used a small sample of 20 ppts who study Psychology A level E - Results cannot be generalised to a wider population of people who don’t take Psychology |
Evaluate reliability using 2 high points. | P - High E - Used a standardised procedure of each word appearing for 3 secs each out of a list of 15 E - Easy to replicate and so test for consistency P - High E - Quantitative data was obtained from the number of words accurately recalled from each list of 15 E - Therefore research is scientific and free from bias making it more credible |
Are there any applications? | P - Yes E - Demonstrates that rehearsal is not the best way of transferring information to the LTM E - Students may not need rehearsal to improve memory and instead can use other methods |
Evaluate validity using 2 low points. | P - Low task E - Used 2 lists of 15 words that appeared for 3 secs each to assess memory recall E - This therefore lacks mundane realism as this is not how memory works in real life due to people not reciting lists of words often P - Low ecological E - It was carried out in a controlled, artificial environment of having lists of 15 words projected on a screen for 3 seconds each E - The environment was therefore unnatural to ppts which may not reflect how their memory would have performed in situations familiar to them |
Evaluate an ethical advantage during our practical. | P - Ethical E - Ppts received a briefing at the start and end which explained the aim of the experiment and what it entailed E - Therefore ppts gave informed consent and had the right to withdraw at the start and end |
Give 3 examples of how we can improve our practical for future research? | 1) A more diverse sample 2) Improve memory task by changing it to reading a passage and answering questions about it 3) Improving ecological validity by carrying it out in a more natural environment |