Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Baddeley (1966b) - Coggle Diagram
Baddeley (1966b)
Evaluation
Generalisability
-
The sample were only British volunteers, therefore not representative
-
-
-
-
Procedure
- They were split into 4 different groups and each group views a slideshow of 10 words. The acoustically similar words have a list of words that share the same sound and the control group has words that do not sound similar. The semantically similar words all have a similar meaning and the control group had words that did not mean the same.
- All of the participants in the 4 conditions then carry out an "interference test" which involves hearing and then writing down 8 numbers three times.
- There are four “trials” and (as you would expect) the participants’ get better each time they do it because the words stay the same. The words themselves are displayed on signs around the room so the participants only have to concentrate on getting the ORDER of the words right, not remembering the words themselves.
- After the 4th trial, the participants get a 15 minute break and perform an unrelated interference task. Then they are asked to recall the list again. This fifth and final trial is unexpected. The words themselves are still on display; it is the order of the words the participants have to recall.
Conclusion
Baddeley concludes that LTM encodes semantically, at least primarily. His earlier experiments suggest STM encodes acoustically.
This is why LTM gets confused when it has to retrieve the order words which are semantically similar: it gets distracted by the semantic similarities and muddles them up.
The “slow start” in the Acoustically Similar condition would be because the interference task doesn’t block STM 100% - some of the words linger on in the rehearsal loop
Aim
-
This is done by giving participants word lists that are similar in the way they sound (acoustic) or their meaning (semantic); if the participants struggle to recall the word order, it suggests LTM is confused by the similarity which means that this is how LTM tends to encode
Results
Acoustically similar words seem to be confusing at first, but participants soon “catch up” with the Control group and even overtake them, but this isn’t statistically significant. Notice how LTM is not confused by acoustic similarities – scores on the last test are similar to the 4th trial, suggesting no forgetting has taken place.
Semantically similar words do seem to be confusing and the experimental group lags behind the Control group. In fact, the experimental group never catches up with the Control group and performs worse overall than the Acoustically Similar group above. Very little forgetting takes place, but scores are lower.
IV
The different lists of words, e.g. being acoustically similar or acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar and semantically dissimilar
DV
Score of recalling 10 words, that must be recalled in the correct order
Sample
There were 72 volunteers of a mixture of men and women from the University of Cambridge (mostly students). There were 15-20 people in each condition