Classic Study Baddeley 1966 b Cognitive Psychology Lab

Classic Study: Baddeley (1966 b) Cognitive Psychology • Lab experiment • AIM: to assess whether coding in STM and LTM is mainly acoustic (sound) or semantic (meaning). • Video link: https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=7 j. LTOog 2 u. R 8 Classic Study

Experiment 3 Cognitive Psychology Visual presentation was used to prevent mishearing. Words presented visually by slide projector PROCEDURE: 75 ppts were presented with one of 4 word lists, repeated 4 times using condition Y in expt 2. interference task between learning and recall LIST A – 10 acoustically similar words (cat, mat, sat) LIST B – 10 acoustically dissimilar words (pit, day, cow) LIST C– 10 semantically similar words (big, huge, tall) LIST D – 10 semantically dissimilar words (hot, safe, foul) To test coding in STM: ppts were given a list containing the original words in the wrong order and their task was to rearrange in the correct order To test procedure for LTM: same as above but with 20 min interval before recall doing an interference task. Each word was presented with 3 sec intervals. After 4 learning trials they were given a 15 min interference task followed by a retest of the word list sequence RESULTS When interference used, recall in acoustically similar condition and control condition was similar. In LTM acoustic similarity did not affect recall. In semantic similarity recall was much better in the control compared to recall in LTM. For STM, ppts that were given LIST A performed the worst (10% recall). Recall for other lists were good (60 -80% recall) For LTM: ppts with LIST C performed the worst (55%). Recall for other lists were comparatively good (70 -85%) Classic Study

Conclusions Cognitive Psychology • STM is coded on an acoustic basis. Participants confused similar sounding words. • LTM is coded on a semantic basis. They confused similar meaning words. Classic Study

Evaluation G R A V E Cognitive Psychology The study only used 72 participants The participants were mostly students The study used a mixture of men and women The use of a projector and placing words around the room meant that participant extraneous variables (e. g. poor hearing) did not affect results The study was scientific because it was controlled in lab setting. Supports the idea of encoding differently in STM and LTM Lacks ecological validity Use of a controlled laboratory setting is not representative of real life Under normal conditions, PPs are not expected to learn monosyllabic words and in this way. This therefore lacks mundane realism. Very few ethical problems Classic Study