Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
cognitive psychology practical investigation, made up Mann Whitney U is 9…
cognitive psychology practical investigation
BACKGROUND
we're focusing on memory within cognitive psychology .
Baddeley introduced an interference task within his study
Peterson & peterson introduced the interference task of counting back in 3s
AIM
to test the impact of interference tasks when recalling words
experimental hypothesis -
there will be a higher number of words recalled from the list without an interference task than the list with the interference task
null hypothesis -
the interreference task will make no difference to the recall of words, any difference will be due to chance factors
METHOD & SAMPLE
IV
- use of interference tasks
DV
- number of words correctly recalled
opportunity sample then random sampling of data to make the experiment fair
target population - psychology students in 12G
apparatus
timed powerpoint - keeps everything consistent
pen & paper - recording ppts' words and scores
PROCEDURE
1)
instructions were given & rights were read
2)
list of 10 words appeared on the screen (timed by power point)
3)
ppts had to count backwards in 3s from 276 for 30 seconds
4)
ppts had 30s to write down words they remembered
5)
next set of instructions are shown
6)
the next list of 10 words were shown (also timed)
7)
ppts were told to wait for the next instructions, then after 30s, were asked to write down words they remembered
8)
ppts read out the number of words remembered for both sets and researchers wrote them down
RESULTS
Condition 1 - with an interference task
mean
- 7.9
median
- 8
mode
- 9
range
- 4
standard deviation
- 1.37
Condition 2 - without an interference task
mean
- 8
median
- 8
mode
- 9
range
- 4
standard deviation
- 1.25
EVALUATION
generalisability
- random sampling was used so is representative of the target population
reliability
- standardised procedure
validity
- may be social desirability as ppts had to say their scores in front of everyone else
credibility
- other studies have similar findings (Baddeley/Peterson & peterson
ethics
- ppts had the right to withdraw & had informed consent (slide)
ppts knew what to expect - instructions were on the slide
ppt responses weren't named & random sampling was used
made up Mann Whitney U is 9.5