2.1 Coding, Capacity and Duration

Coding
1. Baddeley (1966)
  1. Gave lists of words to 4 groups of participants which were 1. acoustically similar 2. acoustically dissimilar 3. semantically similar 4. semantically dissimilar
  2. STM - acoustically coded
  3. LTM - semantically coded
  4. Evaluation
    1. Strength: Identified a clear difference between the LTM and STM. Led to the multi-store model.
    2. Weakness: Used artificial stimuli rather than meaningful material. Word list had no personal meaning to the participants.
Capacity
1. Jacobs (1887) Digit span
  1. STM- Found that the mean span of digits stored was 9.3 and mean span for letter was 7.3
2. Miller (1956) Span of memory
  1. STM can only 7+/- 2 items
3. Evaluation
  1. Strengths:
    1. Jacobs study can be replicated. His findings have been confirmed by other researchers, meaning it is a valid test of digit span.
  2. Weaknesses:
    1. Miller's research may have overestimated stm capacity. Cowan reviewed other research and found that STM is only 4+/- 1 chunk.
Duration
1. STM
  1. 0-18 seconds
  2. Peterson and Peterson (1959) tested 24 students, each student was given a consonant syllable and a 3 digit number.
2. LTM
  1. Unlimited
  2. Bahrick et al (1975) showed American participants between 17-74 their highschool yearbook. Tested in two ways, photo recognition and recalling names. Those tested within 15 years of graduation were about 90% accurate, after 48 years recall dropped to 70%.
3. Evaluation
  1. Strengths:
    1. High external validity. Bahrick's study includes meaningful memories so there is a real estimate to the duration of LTM.
  2. Weaknesses:
    1. Meaningless stimuli in STM study. Peterson and Peterson study used consonants which do not reflect everyday memory.

Nächster

2.1 Coding, Capacity and Duration

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Alicja Klak vor fast 2 Jahre