Untitled | Mind Map

Topic A
1. Bartlett (1932)
  1. Aim
    1. Investigate how information changes with each reproduction and to find out why the information changes
  2. Procedure
    1. Serial Reproduction
      1. First participant in a series read the tale twice to themselves, at normal reading speed. Then waited 15 - 30 minutes before teliing the story to the second participant, each told the story to the next particpipant, until all 10 had heard it. This was done with several chains of participants.
    2. Repeated reproduction
      1. Each participant was tested separately - read the story to themselves twice - after 15 minutes they gave their first reproduction; then after 20 hours, 8 days, 6 months and 10 years.
    3. Didn't know the aim
  3. Findings
    1. Very few recalled accurately. Serial and repeated reproductions showed the same changes.
    2. Patterns in errors: Form, Details, Simplified, Addition
  4. Evaluation
    1. Strengths
      1. Both the repeated and serial reproduction tasks were done many times. Reliable.
      2. Other stories used in serial reproduction. This showed that the changes weren't special to the 'War of the Ghosts'
    2. Weaknesses
      1. Story from different culture, so not generalisable.
      2. Bartlett did not always test the repeated reproduction participants after the same time intervals, so the changes over time cannot be compared fairly.
  5. Conclusion
    1. Unfamilar material changes when it is recalled. It becomes shorter, simpler, and stereotyped
2. Carmicheal et al (1932)
  1. Aim
    1. Find out whether words shown with pictures would affect the way the pictures were remembered
  2. Procedure
    1. Laboratory experiment
    2. Independent measures
    3. The participants were asked to draw the pictures they had seen. These were compared to the original.
    4. 95 participants split into 3 groups
      1. Pictures shown with Word List 1 (Group 1), Word List 2 (Group 2), and a Control Group with no words.
    5. Shown 12 pictures
  3. Findings
    1. Drawings produced by people who heard list 1 were very different to list 2 - drawings looked like the words
    2. List 1: 73% of drawings resembled the word
    3. List 2: 74% of drawings resembled the word
    4. Control Group: 45% of drawings resembled either word
  4. Conclusion
    1. Memory for pictures is reconstructed - verbal context affects recall
  5. Evaluation
    1. Strengths
      1. Using a control group who did not hear any worrds at all - can be sure that people's drawings weren't always distorted in the same way.
      2. Using two different lists they showed clearly that the verbal labels affected people's drawings.
      3. Findings supported by more recent study - Lupyan (2008)
      4. Using 12 pictures, and having lots of participants gave lots of evidence. Reliable.
    2. Weaknesses
      1. In real life, things are not as ambiguous as the stimulus figures were. Not generalisable.
3. Palmer (1975)
  1. Aim
    1. Whether context affects perception
  2. Procedure
    1. Laboratory experiment
    2. 64 students
    3. Shown scenes, and provided a context through 4 conditions: appropriate, inapprapriate (similar), inappropriate (different) and no context
    4. Repeated measures
    5. Written instructions
  3. Findings
    1. Correctly identified the most objects after seeing an appropriate context
  4. Conclusion
    1. Expectations affect perception
  5. Evaluation
    1. Strengths
      1. Controlled length of time - 2 seconds - participants saw the context and objects for
      2. Written instructions so they knew exactly what to do
      3. Didn't use two sets of results because participants forgot glasses - poor vision could have affected results
    2. Weaknesses
      1. Told what they were doing, means participants could have tried harder in some conditions
      2. Lab experiment, so not generalisable

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Jasmine Allen over 9 years ago

	Copied by Ryan M over 9 years ago