Cognitive Psychology

2.1 Models of Memory

2.1.1 The multi-store model of memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin,

1968), including information processing, encoding, storage,
retrieval, capacity and duration.

Multi Store Model of Memory

The Multi Store Model of Memory
Book pages: 89 to 108

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) proposed a two-process model of memory, which

showed how information flowed through the two stores of short-term (STM) and long-
term memory (LTM). They added sensory memory before STM and so it’s called the
multi-store model (MSM)

The stores are the structures of the model, and there are some control processes:
attention, coding and rehearsal. Information moves through the stores through these
processes. It’s like a computer, with input -> processing -> output.

STM decays rapidly unless information is rehearsed. It can hold 5 to 9 items (like
digits or words) at any time. Chunking information can increase the capacity.
Like why 1243-2342 is easier to remember than 12432342.
The hyphens chunk it into pieces. The information stays for 15 to 30 seconds unless
rehearsed.
It suggests we get information through our five senses from the environment, which
then stays in the sensory register (which has a large capacity) for 2 seconds. Coding
and rehearsal will bring the information to the STM, more rehearsal will bring it to
LTM.

STM mostly works by acoustic encoding and the LTM uses all types of encoding but
prefers semantic.

Critical Evaluation
Strengths

- It gives us a good understanding of the structure and process of the STM.

Researchers can do experiments to improve on this model and make it more
valid and they can prove what the stores actually do. Therefore, the model is
influential as it has generated a lot of research into memory.

- Many studies provide evidence to support the distinction between STM and
LTM (in terms of encoding, duration and capacity). The model can account for
primacy & recency effects.

- The case of HM also supports the MSM as he was unable to encode new long-
term memories after surgery during which his hippocampus was removed but
his STM was unaffected.

He has remembered little of personal (death of mother and father) or public

events (Watergate, Vietnam War) that have occurred over the last 45 years.
However his short-term memory remains intact.This supports the view that the
LTM and the STM are two separate stores.

Weaknesses

- The model is oversimplified, in particular when it suggests that both short-term

and long-term memory each operate in a single, uniform fashion. We now
know this is not the case.

It has now become apparent that both short-term and long-term memory are
more complicated than previously thought. For example, the Working Model
of Memory proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) showed that short term
memory is more than just one simple unitary store and comprises different
components (e.g. central executive, Visuospatial etc.).

- In the case of long-term memory, it is unlikely that different kinds of

knowledge, such as remembering how to play a computer game, the rules of
subtraction and remembering what we did yesterday are all stored within a
single, long-term memory store.
 Indeed different types of long-term memory have been identified, namely
episodic (memories of events), procedural (knowledge of how to do things) and
semantic (general knowledge).

- Rehearsal is considered a too simple explanation to account for the transfer of

information from STM to LTM. For instance, the model ignores factors such as
motivation, effect and strategy (e.g. mnemonics) which underpin learning.

Also, rehearsal is not essential to transfer information into LTM. For example,
why are we able to recall information which we did not rehearse (e.g.
swimming) yet unable to recall information which we have rehearsed (e.g.
reading your notes while revising).

Therefore, the role of rehearsal as a means of transferring from STM to LTM is

much less important than Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) claimed in their model.

- The models main emphasis was on structure and tends to neglect the process
elements of memory (e.g. it only focuses on attention and maintenance
rehearsal). For example, elaboration rehearsal leads to recall of information
than just maintenance rehearsal.

Elaborative rehearsal involves a more meaningful analysis (e.g. images,

thinking, associations etc.) of information and leads to better recall. For
example, giving words a meaning or linking them with previous knowledge.
These limitations are dealt with by the levels of processing model (Craik, &
Lockhart, 1972).

- Note: although rehearsal was initially described by Atkinson and Shiffrin as

maintenance rehearsal (repetition of information), Shiffrin later suggested that
rehearsal could be elaborative (Raaijmakers, & Shiffrin, 2003).

- The multi store model has been criticised for being a passive/one way/linear
model.

Questions and markscheme points:

6 In your studies of cognitive psychology, you will have learned about the multi-
store model of memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968).

(a) Describe what is meant by ‘information processing’ in relation to the multi-store

model of memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968). (2 marks)

(b) Explain one weakness of the multi-store model of memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin,
1968) as an explanation of memory. (2 marks)
2.1.2 The working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974)
including the phonological loop, central executive, visual- spatial
sketchpad, episodic buffer.

Working Memory Model

The working memory model has three components:

● Central Executive - controls attention and coordinates the two slave-systems

● Phonological Loop - Information is rehearsed and stored in audio. It has two

subsystems, an inner voice and an inner ear.

● Visuospatial Sketchpad - Inner eye, holds visual and spatial information from
LTM
Central Executive
Most important part of working memory, controls attention and coordinates the
actions of the other components. It can briefly store information, but has a limited
capacity. Can store information in any form.

Phonological Loop
The phonological loop has two parts, the articulatory control system and the
phonological store:

- Articulatory control system (the inner voice). The articulatory control

system rehearses information verbally and has a time-based capacity of about
two seconds. This is what you use when you rehearse information in your
head.

- Phonological store (the inner ear). The phonological store uses a sound-
based code to store information, but this information decays after about two
seconds, unless it is rehearsed by the articulatory control system. The
phonological store receives its input either directly from the ears or from
long-term memory. If you imagine your favourite piece of music, you are using your
phonological store.

Visuospatial sketchpad
The visuospatial sketchpad stores and manipulates visual information. Input is from
the eyes or long-term memory. If you imagine an object and then picture it rotating you
are using your visuospatial sketchpad.

Episodic Buffer
The episodic buffer is a fairly recent addition to the working memory model (Baddeley,
2000). Its purpose is to bind together all the information from the other components of
working memory with information about time and order. This prepares memories for
storage in episodic long-term memory.

Evaluation:

Research support for the WMM:

Dual-task studies

● Dual-task studies
● Baddeley and Hitch (1976) and Robbins et al. (1996): two tasks are possible at the
same time if they use different slave systems e.g. the PL and the VSS: attempting
two tasks using one slave system overloads that system
● The case study of brain-damaged patient KF (Shallice & Warrington, 1970)

Strengths:
● It extends on the work of the MSM and explains the complexity of STM with the
tasks it can perform
● Research on dual tasks (Baddeley 1973) supports the idea of separate
components and how they can be overloaded

Weaknesses:
● The WMM is vague on the link between STM and LTM
● It is difficult to measure the CE which means that not much is actually known
about it (although this may well change as more research is conducted on it)

Questions and markscheme points:

9 To what extent can the working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974) be
considered a credible explanation of memory? (12 marks)
(Barlett, 1932) Reconstructive memory
Bartlett suggested that memory is an imaginative reconstruction of past events and it is
influenced by how we encode, store and retrieve information. Memory is changed when
we recall it and how well the event was processed affects coding and retrieving. Our
attitudes and responses to events change our memory of those events.

2.1.3 Reconstructive memory (Bartlett, 1932), including schema

theory.
Reconstructive Memory

Bartlett (1932) theorised that memory is always an imaginative reconstruction of past

events. Our personal experiences and the way we process the events shape the way we
encode and retrieve them from memory. When retrieving memories from LTM, we tend
to change them.

Bartlett argued that we do not remember all that we perceive. We therefore draw on our
schema when we recall an event to fill in the gaps. This means that recall is an active
reconstruction of an event strongly influenced by previously stored knowledge,
expectations and beliefs.

Reconstructive memory: Reconstructive memory is a memory recall theory that

suggests that cognitive processes such as perception, schemas and beliefs influence how
we remember information stored in the memory systems

See 2.3.1 Classic Study: Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts.

Schema Theory

Schema Theory Example

Schema: Schemas are a mental structure that help us interpret information and
represent an individual’s knowledge and experiences about the world.

Schemas are like pre-existing frameworks for thinking. They are mental units of stored
knowledge or a mental representation of information about a specific event or object.

Every schema has fixed information and variable information.

Example: a schema for going to a restaurant would contain knowledge of

fixed events:

- such as being waited on

- choosing from a menu
- eating and paying for the meal

and variable events:

- what was on the menu

- how much the meal cost
Schemas are used in recognising and interpreting unfamiliar objects and events.
When Bartlett showed participants ink blots, they thought hard trying to assign
meaning to these meaningless blots. Effort after meaning (the effort we put into trying
to find the correct schema that offers some meaning to an object).

Questions and markscheme points:

5 Bartlett’s (1932) theory of reconstructive memory includes schemas.

(a) Describe what is meant by the term ‘schema’.

(b) Explain one strength and one weakness of Bartlett’s (1932) theory of reconstructive
memory.
8 Diego and Theresa witnessed a robbery at a local supermarket. They were both
asked to give witness statements to the police about what they saw.
Diego told the police he saw two older men with guns wearing black clothing running
out of the supermarket with a bag. He said the men got into a dark blue car that was
waiting outside.

Theresa told the police she saw two young men with knives wearing jeans and dark
hooded jackets shouting at the cashier. They ran out of the supermarket with a bag of
money.

Discuss, using reconstructive memory (Bartlett, 1932), including schema theory, why
Diego and Theresa gave different witness statements to the police. You must make
reference to the context in your answer. (8 marks)
2.2 Methods Experiments and experimental design
2.2.1 Designing and conducting experiments, including field and
laboratory experiments.

Psychologists are investigative scientists, so they base all theories on evidence they have
gathered from experiments.

Naturalistic, Lab, Field, and Quasi Experiments

Research Methods: The Experiment - Hypotheses, Variables and Design

The Experimental Method

Experiments are investigations where a variable is manipulated or altered and its effect
can be measured, while maintaining control over other variables that might interfere
with this situation.
Experiments 'set up' a situation where participants are required to perform a task and
the performance of this task is measured.The extent to which this task reflects real life
or is conducted in a realistic situation depends on the type of experiment being
conducted.

There are two types of experiments that cognitive psychologists use: the laboratory
experiments and field experiments.

Laboratory experiments: an experiment conducted in a controlled environment

where an IV is manipulated and its effect on the DV measured

Strengths:

- Eliminates the potential for extraneous variables affecting behaviour

- Ensures a human characteristic can be studied in an objective way

- An artificial context provides the researcher with the level of control over
relevant variables necessary to achieve a more scientific approach and ensure
causality.

Weaknesses:

- Lacks ecological validity as it is not the natural environment for humans to act
(lacks mundane realism)
- may not apply to a real-life situation.

- May create demand characteristics and expectancy effects as they are aware of
their participation

- Presence of experimenter may influence behaviour or performance leading to

experimenter effects

Field experiments: a piece of research that takes place in the setting where the
behaviour being studied would naturally occur (natural environment). An IV is
manipulated and the DV is measured.

Strengths:
- If participants are unaware of their participation in the experiment they will not
show demand characteristics.

- Greater ecological validity as participant behaviour will be more natural and the
environment in which they are tested is more realistic

Weaknesses:
- not conducted in a controlled environment, there is a greater chance of
extraneous variables having an effect on the dependent variable.

- There may also be ethical problems if a participant is unaware that they are
taking part, as they have not given consent and do not have a right to withdraw
 from the experiment

In such cases, the experimenter may choose to debrief them after the experiment
and offer them the right to withdraw their data from the study.

Sample questions and mark scheme points

For this question, see practical investigation

8 In cognitive psychology, researchers may use a laboratory experimental method

to investigate memory. In your own studies of cognitive psychology, you will have
designed and conducted a practical investigation using the laboratory experimental
method.
Discuss how laboratory experiments are designed and conducted.
You must refer to your cognitive practical investigation in your answer. (8 marks)
2.2.2 Independent and dependent variables.

In psychology, we often use the experimental method to test out theories and ideas. In
an experiment, we must change a single variable (the independent variable) while
keeping all others the same. We will then measure the effect of this variable on what we
are measuring (the dependent variable).

Independent variable: the variable being changed (cause)

Dependent variable: the variable being observed (effect)

2.2.3 Experimental and null hypotheses.

A hypothesis states what you believe will happen. It is a precise and testable statement
of the relationship or difference between two variables. This can be directional (one-
tailed) or non-directional (two-tailed).

Alternative/Experimental Hypothesis: a statement that lays out what a

researcher predicts will be found. This is also known as an experimental hypothesis
when the research methodology adopted is experimental

Null Hypothesis: predicts no difference/relationship will be found or that any

difference/relationship is due to chance factors.

Examples:
- There will be no difference in the length of time cats spend purring when fed
tinned or dry food. Any difference found will be due to chance factors.

- There will be no effect of praise on the time children spend washing dishes.
Any difference found will be due to chance factors.

2.2.4 Directional (one-tailed) and non-directional (two-tailed) tests

and hypotheses.

Directional Hypothesis: a directional hypothesis predicts the direction of

difference or relationship that the result is likely to take.

Non-directional Hypothesis: a non- directional hypothesis predicts that a

difference or relationship will be found, but not the direction that the difference or
relationship will take.
Examples:
Directional hypothesis:
- Cats will purr for longer when they are fed tinned food compared to dry food.
- Children will spend longer washing dishes the more praise they receive.

Non-directional hypothesis:
- There will be a difference in the length of time a cat purrs when given tinned
and dry food.
- Praise will affect the time children spend washing dishes

2.2.5 Experimental and research designs: repeated measures,

independent groups and matched pairs, the issues with each and
possible controls.
Experimental design refers to how participants are allocated to the different conditions
in an experiment.

The designs you need to know are:

Repeated measures:
All participants take part in all conditions of the experiment.
Example: You test 10 participants on two different IQ tests and compare the results.

Strengths:
- Resolves individual differences because the same participants are used
in all conditions.
- More economical as less participants required

Weaknesses:
 - Demand characteristics chances greatly increased as they can guess the
aim more easily
- Order effects may be a problem. The presentation order of the material
may make participants more used to the test so they perform better
(practice). Or they might get tired of the same thing and perform worse
(fatigue)

A single blind technique: randomisation and counterbalancing and

help reduce order effects. Randomly selecting participants to do A first and
then B, or B first and then A. Also, having a time gap can reduce fatigue.

Independent groups:
Participants are divided into groups, experimental and control.
Example: You compare 20 boys with 20 girls on a reading test

Strengths:
- Less likely to guess the aim as they only take part in one condition and don’t
know about the others. Less chance of demand characteristics or or expectancy
effects.
Weaknesses:
- Need to recruit twice as many participants
- There may be individual differences so generalisability would be affected.

Random allocation can reduce this.

Matched pairs:
Different participants are assigned to each condition of the experiment (similar to
independent groups) but they are matched on characteristics important to the
study.

Example: Pairs of participants might be matched for age, gender, intelligence or

personality test scores.

Strengths:
- Increases reliability when comparing conditions and lessens the effect of
chance factors

Weaknesses:
- Time-consuming and difficult to find good matches for participants. A
matched pairs design can’t be truly matched on all possible variables.
2.2.6 Operationalisation of variables, extraneous variables and
confounding variables.
Operationalisation: defining the variables specifically so that they are directly
tested.

This is to make your variables fully understandable. They must include exactly what is
being defined and measured. This means deciding exactly how you are going to
manipulate the IV and exactly how the DV will be recorded.

This is done so the research is objective and can be replicated.

There are some variables the experimenter cannot control and these fall into two types:

1. An extraneous variable is anything apart from the IV that could affect the
DV. These can come from the situation or the participant (see below) and are
meant to be controlled as far as possible.

2. A confounding variable is when the extraneous variable actually does affect

the DV because controls were not strict enough, i.e. when results are analysed it
is clear that noise did affect one of the participants or that, during an interview
after the experiment, a participant did respond to having previous experience of
memory tests/a higher IQ, etc., which influenced results.

2.2.7 The use of control groups, counterbalancing, randomisation and

order effects.

Control Groups:
Probably the most common way to design an experiment in psychology is to divide the
participants into two groups, the experimental group and the control group, and then
introduce a change to the experimental group and not the control group. The control
group acts as a comparison and is not exposed to the independent variable whereas the
experimental group is.

The researcher must decide how they will allocate their sample. For example, if there
are ten participants, will all ten take part in both conditions or will the participants be
split in half and take part in only one condition each?

Counterbalancing: is a method of controlling ‘order effects’ by having some

participants do one task first and the rest the other task first. In a repeated measures
design, the same participants will do two or more tasks.

Randomisation: another way to control bias as much as possible. It is designed to

‘control’ (reduce or eliminate if possible) bias by all means. The fundamental goal of
randomisation is to make sure each participant has an equal chance of being placed in
the experimental or control group/condition.
2.2.8 Situational and participant variables.

Situational variables: can be found either in the environment (situation) in which

you are conducting your experiment, e.g. if you were testing memory and some
participants had to cope with more noise than others, it might affect your results.

Participant variables: are characteristics and differences to do with the individuals

taking part, e.g. if you were testing driving behaviour and some of your participants
were tired that might affect your results.

2.2.9 Objectivity, reliability and validity (internal, predictive and

ecological)

Objectivity is being impartial and judgement free. Like measuring length with a ruler
is objective, whereas guessing the length is subjective.

Researchers should remain totally value free (objective) when studying. They
should try to remain totally unbiased in their investigations. They should not be
influenced by personal feelings and experiences.

Subjective methods with less control (e.g. an interview) are conducted in more natural
circumstances.

Psychological tests and other similar measures need to produce consistent results
and need to measure what they are supposed to measure. You would not think much of
an intelligence test which said you were a genius today and an imbecile tomorrow! (Not
reliable). Similarly, you would not think much of a psychology exam which only asked
questions on geography (Not valid).

Strengths:
- Objective methods like a lab experiment will produce more reliable data. They
are scientific and can be replicated.

- Subjective methods like interviews are more realistic and produce more valid
data.

Weaknesses:
- Objective methods may be narrow and unrealistic. Lacking mundane realism and
might not be generalisable therefore less valid.

- Subjective methods may be unreliable because they’re hard to replicate. The data
has to be analysed subjectively by the researcher.

Validity and Reliability

Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency of findings from research, and it is an important
criterion for being scientific. For experiments, test-retest reliability is important. The
study needs to be replicable.
Test-Retest Reliability
This is where the same group of people are given the same test twice and scores on
both tests are correlated. If the test is reliable then the scores should be similar on
both occasions. High control and replicability.

Inter-rater Reliability
This is concerned with how closely different people (raters) actually agree with each
other, e.g. if three teachers were to mark your essay and they all agreed it was a grade
A, then we have high inter-rater reliability. This form of reliability is often used in
observational studies to make sure observers agree upon what they are observing.

Validity
Validity refers to whether the study is measuring the behaviour or construct it intends
to measure. For example, a psychology test which only has questions on geography is
not valid.

There are two main categories of validity: internal and external.

Internal Validity: The extent to which the outcome of the study is the direct result of
the manipulated independent variable.

External Validity: The extent to which the findings apply to other people and
situations.

Internal Validity
The degree that we are successful in eliminating confounding variables within the
study itself is referred to as internal validity. Uncontrolled variables may cause the
effect on the dependent variable, e.g. demand characteristics.

There are two ways to test this: predictive validity and construct validity.

Predictive Validity: the extent to which results from a test or a study can
predict future behaviour.

Example: if an intelligence test can accurately predict future academic success,

then it has predictive validity.

Construct Validity: The extent to which the test measures what it claims to
measure.

Example: Recall of a previously learned list of words may not be a useful

measure of episodic memory

External Validity
External validity refers to how well research findings can be generalised beyond the
study itself, that is, to other situations or other populations. How well we can do this is
referred to as ‘study generalisability’.
Our goal is to demonstrate cause and effect relationships between the independent and
dependent variables. A study that readily allows its findings to generalise to the
population at large has high external validity.

External validity can be measured by looking at ecological and population validity.

Ecological Validity: The extent to which the findings still explain the behaviour in
different situations.

Population Validity: The extent to which the findings can be applied to other people.

The more control psychologists exert in a study, typically the less ecological validity
and thus, the less they may be able to generalise. For example, when we take people
out of their natural environment and study them in the laboratory, we are exerting
some control over them and, as a result, possibly limiting how much we can generalise
the findings to all people in natural settings.

2.2.10 Experimenter effects, demand characteristics and control issues.

Experimenter effects are the ways that the experimenter can accidentally influence
the participant through their appearance or behaviour. The appearance of the
experimenter may produce effects (e.g. as a result of their ethnic group, age, gender or
physical attractiveness).

Participants may behave differently if the experimenter is a large burly man as opposed
to a small softly spoken woman. Similarly, the experimenter might unknowingly
communicate their expectations to the participants. This could happen through changes
in tone of voice.

Demand characteristics can change the outcome of an experiment because

participants will often alter their behaviour to conform to the experimenter’s
expectations. They might read things into the situation and start changing their
behaviour responding to the perceived demands of the study. They might feel that they
are helping the experimenter or they may not like the experimenter.

2.2.11 List A from Topic A.

See Social Psychology

- 1.2.6 (List A) Analysis of quantitative data: calculating measures of central

tendency (mean, median, mode), data tables (frequency tables and summary
tables), graphical presentation (bar chart, histogram), measures of dispersion
(range and standard deviation), percentages, ratios, fractions.
- 1.2.7 Normal and skewed distribution.
- 1.2.8 Analysis of qualitative data using thematic analysis.

2.2.12 (List B) Decision making and interpretation of inferential statistics:

While analysing results, we need to see if they were due to the IV being changed or
due to chance. If there was a real effect we accept the alternative/experimental
hypothesis. If the effect was due to chance we accept the null hypothesis.
This tells us whether or not it is safe to infer that the results from a particular sample of
people are valid for the entire population from which the sample was drawn. We do not
simply want to report the scores (by using descriptive statistics) but use the data to test
our original prediction to decide whether the independent variable is having the effect
we supposed.

Inferential statistics run on probability, how likely it is for our alternative hypothesis to be
true. Rather than the difference between two conditions.

So, our aim is to discover the likelihood (or probability) that our results are due to
chance factors:
- If it is very unlikely results are due to chance, we assume it was the
independent variable that caused the results and the difference between our
two groups is significant, so you accept the experimental hypothesis and
reject the null hypothesis.

- However, if it’s very likely due to chance, then results are not significant, so
you accept the null hypothesis and reject the experimental hypothesis.

Inferential Tests of Difference

Different inferential tests are used on different types of data. The test you choose will
depend on the following features:

• Are you investigating a difference or relationship between variables?

• Are you using a related or unrelated design?

• What type of data are you analysing?

Levels of Measurement

Nominal: the data can only be categorised

Most basic form of data that can be collected. You just know the categories and the totals.
Example: how many people own a pet in your class, or what types of pets they own

Ordinal: the data can be categorised and ranked

A bit more detailed. Tells us about the rank of the data

Example: Students coming in at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and so on. 1st place might have 50
marks more than 2nd, and 2nd might just have 10 marks more than 3rd

Interval/Ratio: the data can be categorised, ranked, and evenly spaced (Ratio has a
natural zero)

Same as ordinal but the ranks have even intervals between them.
Example: Temperature in Celcius, length in metres, the difference between 1st and 2nd is
the same as 2nd and 3rd

Wilcoxon signed ranks test of difference (also covering Spearman's rank

correlation coefficient (formula) and Spearman's rank (critical values
table) and Chi-squared distribution once Unit 2 has been covered)

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test is used as a test of difference between two
conditions when the data achieved is at ordinal level or above and the
experimental design being used is a repeated measures design or matched
pairs design.

Calculation Procedure:
1. Calculate the difference between the pairs of scores achieved by each
participant on the two tests. In this example, it’s done by subtracting
Column A from B

2. Ignore the plus or minus signs and rank the score differences

3. Calculate the total sum of the ranks for the positive differences and do
the same for the negative differences

4. Out of these two, the smaller one is accepted as the T value (test statistic)
Example:

Sum of ranks for positive differences:

1.5 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 40.5

Sum of ranks for negative differences:

1. 5 + 3 = 4.5

Out of these two, 4.5 is smaller so it is taken as the T value.

In order to find out whether the calculated value of the Wilcoxon test is significant, we
need to compare the calculated value of T=4.5 to a table of critical values for a Wilcoxon
Signed Ranks Test. T must be less than or equal to the critical value for that
particular level of significance and n value.
This will be given in the formula page for the exam.

In this case, T = 4.5, N = 10, and level of significance is 0.05

The critical value for this, according to the table, is 8

T = 4.5 < 8
Therefore the results are significant.

Suppose the hypothesis is that there will be more words recalled from a categorised list
than a non-categorised list of words. This is a directional hypothesis, because the
direction of difference between the conditions is predicted. This means that a one-
tailed test is used. The accepted level of significance in psychology is 0.05

See the first column until it reaches the row where n=9
10 participants were used but N is the number of scores with a difference.
Ee ignore those with no difference

The critical value we need to compare the calculated value to is 8.

T=4.5 must be equal to or less than the critical value of 8 to be significant at 0.05.

Because 4.5 is less than 8, the result is significant and the alternative hypothesis can be
supported.

Probability and Levels of Significance (p≤.10 p≤.05 p≤.01)

Psychologists usually accept a significance level of 0.05 (5 percent). If the probability

of the result occurring by chance is greater than 0.05, we retain the null hypothesis.

This means that a difference between two groups will be assumed to be due to chance
unless the results could only arise by chance one time in 20 (5 percent) or less.

If your results are significant, then it means your results were only 5 per cent or less
due to chance factors and you can therefore be at least 95 percent confident that
your IV influenced your DV.
If your results were not significant, then it means your results were more than 5 per
cent due to chance factors and you can only be at least 94 percent confident that your
IV influenced your DV.

p = probability results are due to chance

p > 0.05 means probability of results due to chance is greater than 5%
p < 0.05 means probability of results due to chance is less than 5%

However, in certain circumstances, when our prediction contradicts an established

theory or in research which has really important effects like drug testing, we may set
ourselves more demanding levels of significance, like 0.01 (1 in 100) or even 0.001 (1
in 1000).

Observed and critical values, and sense checking of data

See Wilcoxon signed ranks test above

One- or Two-tailed Regarding Inferential Testing

A one-tailed test is used because the direction of difference can be predicted and a
directional hypothesis is stated. A two-tailed test is used when the direction of
difference cannot be predicted and a non-directional hypothesis is stated.

We use the Mann-Whitney U test when using an independent groups design.

Type I and type II errors.

Using different levels of significance can, however, lead to problems known as Type 1 and
Type 2 errors.

Type 1 and type 2 errors

• Type 1 error
• Rejecting the null hypothesis when in fact the results could have been due to
chance
• Usually caused by a significance level that is too lenient, such as 10 per cent (0.1)
• You were not cautious enough and too optimistic.

• Type 2 error
• Accepting the null hypotheses, when in fact the results could have been
significant
• Usually caused by a significance level that is too strict, e.g. 1 percent (0.01)
• You were over cautious and too pessimistic.

You cannot prove results in any of the social sciences. The maximum you can do is
conduct statistical tests and say how likely it is that the results of your experiment were
due to the direct manipulation of the IV and not by chance.
2.2.13 Case studies of brain-damaged patients related to research into
memory, including the case of Henry Molaison (HM).

These studies are critical in cognitive psychology as we can investigate what happens in
their absence, for example, memory.

This involves a detailed observation of what happens to a person or a group. They have
unusual or valuable examples of behaviour that give important insights. The research
is usually descriptive and the focus is narrow.

It allows us to study things that would not naturally occur otherwise. For example, the
effects of brain damage on behaviour

Henry Molaison (H.M)

An invaluable case study was that of Henry Molaison who suffered brain injury as a
result of a surgical procedure to relieve him from seizures caused by epilepsy.

When he was 27, his hippocampus was removed on both sides of his brain. He was left
with severe anterograde amnesia. He had near normal memory for anything which
he had learned prior to the surgery, but he had severe memory deficits for events which
occurred after the surgery. For example, within the first few hours after the operation
he was unable to recognise the medical staff and could not find his bedroom.

His STM was generally normal; for instance, he could retain verbal information for
about 15 seconds without rehearsal and for much longer with rehearsal. However, he
could not transfer information into LTM or, if he could, he could not retrieve it. He
seemed entirely incapable of remembering any new fact or event.

He had almost no knowledge of current affairs because he forgot all the news almost as
soon as he had read about it. He had no idea what time of day it was unless he had just
looked at the clock. He could not remember that his father had died or that his family
had moved house and he would reread the same magazine without realising he had
already read it.

Although he could recognise friends, tell you their names and relate stories about
them, he could do so only if he knew them before the surgery. People he met after the
operation remained, in effect, total strangers to him and he had to ‘get to know them’
fresh each time they came into his house. Brenda Milner had known him for 25 years –
yet she was a stranger to him each time they met.

However, he was able to learn and remember perceptual and motor skills; although he
had to be reminded each day just what skills he knew how to do.

But ‘new events, faces, phone numbers, places, now settle in his mind for just a few
seconds or minutes before they slip, like water through a sieve, and are lost from his
consciousness’ (Blakemore, 1988).

Anterograde amnesia: The loss of ability to make new memories, while

memories before the injury remain relatively intact.
Retrograde amnesia: The loss of ability to recall events prior to the injury

2.3 Studies
2.3.1 Classic Study: Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts.

Bartlett War of the Ghosts: Summary & Evaluation | StudySmarter

Aim:
Bartlett's War of the Ghost study (1932) aimed to measure the accuracy of
reconstructive memory and identify how schemas may influence them.

Bartlett's War of the Ghosts study's basis was that reconstructive memory and schemas
are essential for comprehending, assimilating and remembering information.

Procedures:
The study recruited 20 English college students. The study asked participants to read a
Native American folk tale called the 'War of the Ghosts' because it was unlikely that
participants were familiar with or had existing knowledge of the story.

The study utilised many techniques to measure the reconstructive nature of memory.
Examples of methods used include:

Repeated reproduction design: a method to test memory involves participants

repeatedly trying to recall the same memory over a given period. Participants heard the
story twice and recollected it after a 15-minute delay. Participants recalled the story on
several occasions over one year.

Serial reproduction design: One subject was first shown a story and told to recall it,
the second subject was shown the first participant's account of the story and instructed
to recall it, and so on.

The concept of the serial reproduction design is to mimic the game Chinese Whispers.

Each condition tested the same participants, so the study used a repeated-measures
design. For the analysis, Bartlett compared how the story recall changed after each
testing occasion.

Findings:
Bartlett's War of the Ghosts findings revealed that participants created new information
more frequently when there was a longer duration between when the story was last
heard, and the more times the story was told. Bartlett suggested that participants added
new details to the story as a result of intrusions that occurred during recall.

Bartlett's War of the Ghosts study revealed that participants recalled distorted
information regarding the folk-tale. The number of distortions increased in the
repeated- and serial reproduction tests, although this was less evident in the repeated
reproduction test.
In the serial reproduction test, the results revealed that the more the story was told, the
recall of the folk-tale became shorter and more obscure details were missed or
rationalised. From the study, Bartlett came up with the concept of rationalisation.

Rationalisation was apparent in almost all of the repeated reproduction and serial
reproduction tests.

Overall, three processes occurred in the study:

- Assimilation
- Rationalisation
- Shortening

Participants assimilated stories into their own cultural contexts, rationalised areas that
made less sense, and shortened it to remember better where necessary.

Overall the, Bartlett's War of the Ghosts findings revealed that:

- In both tests, there were similar patterns of errors.

- Participants tended to simplify the events and miss details to make the story
familiar to them (familiar based on existing knowledge); this often led to the
story's meaning being lost.

- The story's details were more likely to be recalled when they aligned with the
participant's interests and expectations.

- Not many of the participants accurately recalled the story.

Conclusion:
The Bartlett War of the Ghost's conclusion denotes that people are prone to make errors
during reconstructive memory processes. People can recall schemas that include
information that gives you a gist or overview of the memory; however, these tend not to
be detail-oriented.

Over time, remembered details are forgotten, and people often add new information
using their existing knowledge to make sense of schemas that lack contextual details.
Thus, according to Bartlett, memory is not what we learn but information that is
learned that makes sense to us based on our existing knowledge of the world.

Evaluation:

Strengths:
Consider the following strengths of Bartlett's War of the Ghosts study.

- The study's results support the notion that memory can be biased; this is useful
to understand how much of the accuracy of memory we can rely on to be truthful.
- Loftus and Palmer (1974) found that leading questions influenced the accuracy of
memory recall. Loftus and Palmer (1974) support Bartlett's theory that cognitive
processes mediate memory recall processes. Both studies suggest that cognitive
processes such as perception or schemas influence the accuracy of memory
recall.
 - As the study recruited a sample that was unlikely to be familiar with the folk-tale,
the participant's schemas are likely to reflect knowledge other than the story.

Weaknesses:
Consider the following weaknesses of Bartlett's War of the Ghosts study.

- The study is very outdated as it was carried out in 1932. The study's report
contains limited and missing details of how the experiment was carried out,
making it difficult to replicate the study to measure its reliability.
- Bartlett provided details of what was found in the study. However, there is no
statistical information available for the study. Therefore, the study has limited
use in this day and age.
- The study was conducted on a limited sample of 20 people, and therefore, the
study is non-representative and likely to be non-generalisable. In addition, the
study was carried out on UK college students, so the study can be considered
ethnocentric and age biassed as it does not account for cultural and age
differences.

2.3.2 Contemporary study Schmolck et al. (2002) Semantic knowledge in

patient HM and other patients with bilateral medial and lateral temporal
lobe lesions.

Schmolck et al (2002) – My A Levels

Schmolck et al (2002)
Book Pages 138-121

Aims:

Schmolck et al. wanted to compare HM to other patients with similar brain damage to
see if a precise link could be made between brain structure and semantic memory.

In particular, whether damage to the medial temporal lobe (MTL) had an effect on a
patient’s semantic memory.

Procedures:

IV – Extent of brain injury (damage to medial temporal lobe (MTL) / hippocampal

formation only OR damage to MTL/HF and temporal cortex)

DV – Scores on the cognitive tests

There were 14 patients in total:

- 6 with severe damage to the MTL were compared with

- 8 controls who were healthy volunteers with no brain damage.

They were matched with the patients in terms of age and education. (See matched pairs
design)
 - 3 of the 6 with amnesia (including HM) had brain damage to the hippocampus
(part of the MTL) from surgery or other injuries

- 3 had brain damage from viral infections that was more widespread. These latter
three patients fell under the category of MTL+ as they suffered from large MTL and
anterolateral temporal cortex damage.

Schmolck et al. created 9 tests designed to measure semantic long-term memory

functioning. All were based on a set of 48 drawings, half of animals and half of objects and
were further subdivided into 8 groups of 6.

These were:

Animals:

- domestic land animals

- foreign land animals
- water creatures
- birds

Objects:

- electrical household items

- non-electrical household items
- vehicles
- musical instruments.

Some of the test conditions are outlined below:

Category fluency and sorting: The participants were asked to name or sort into
categories such as ‘living’ or ‘man made’ without a picture cue.

Definitions: The participants were shown a picture and asked to define it by the theme it
fitted into.

Object/non-object discrimination task: The participants were asked whether the

object was real or not.

Pointing to or naming a picture: The participants were asked to point to or name a

picture when given the name or a description of the object.

The participants were tape recorded and their responses transcribed (typed up). Each
transcript was checked for reliability and also looked at for grammar/syntax errors in the
way the participants spoke.

They were all tape recorded and checked by 14 raters, who checked each recording for
reliability, and to also look for grammatical errors because this is a sign of semantic
memory difficulties.
Results:

The controls got all the answers right when asked to point to the picture of a named
object, as did those with hippocampus damage only (HM scored 98 per cent for living
creatures and 100 per cent for objects). MTL+ patients performed worse, getting an
average of 85 per cent for living creatures and 90 per cent for non-living objects.

MTL+ patients performed badly in most of the tests including when participants:

• were shown a picture and asked to name it

• were given a verbal description of an object and had to name it

• were asked ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ questions about 24 of the items.

There was also a direct relationship between the amount of brain damage and the number
of mistakes made on the tests. The MTL+ patients made the most mistakes, followed by
HM, then the three hippocampus damage only patients. Where the hippocampus-only
patients did better than the controls, Schmolck et al. suggest it is because they were
younger.

Positive correlation between severity of brain damage and mistakes on the test.

Conclusion:
There was a clear relationship between how well the participant did and damage to the
lateral temporal cortex, particularly for HM and the three MTL+ patients.

There seems to be a clear link between damage to the lateral temporal cortex generally
and the loss of semantic LTM. This was only applicable to the three patients with MTL+
damage, but not to the three with hippocampus-only damage.

Therefore semantic and episodic memory are located in different parts of the brain.

HM was an anomaly. This could have been because of his unique brain damage, his
background as he was from a low-socioeconomic background or due to his school time
which he missed due to his seizures.

Evaluation:

Strengths:
- Schmolck identified HM as an anomaly, which is a positive.

- 9 standardised tests, with 48 standardised items. This makes it very repeatable.

- As he recorded all of the conversations, it means that it has higher reliability

because they can be checked by other people.

- Use of 14 raters means it has high inter-rater reliability.

- Informing future research about cognitive psychology, as it identified that the

hippocampus is associated with episodic memory and the temporal lobe is
 associated with semantic memory.

- Brain surgery. This is because it can indicate what damage can cause and
therefore can be used to inform whether brain surgery is needed. For example,
HM wouldn’t have had his surgery had he known it would have led to his
memory deficits.

- MRI scans showed that the temporal lobe showed activity when using semantic
memory.

- However, it could be argued that the experiment was worth it because of the
greater good as it has informed research and should help future patients with
memory loss.

Weaknesses:
- Small sample of participants, only 6 therefore any anomalous result wouldn’t be
averaged out.

- Participants are very rare and therefore if you try to generalise to the general
population, the sample doesn’t have good population validity.

- Half of the participants had an illness such as herpes simplex encephalitis and
therefore may not be generalisable to the general population.

- However, the participants are very rare and therefore it’s not as replicable.

- Ecological validity –> Lab experiment. Artificial environment and artificial tests.

- As the participants had memory loss, they couldn’t give informed consent as they
would forget the purpose of the experiment. Therefore they received presumptive
consent.

10 In your studies of cognitive psychology you will have learned about the following
contemporary study in detail:

• Schmolck et al. (2002).

Evaluate the contemporary study by Schmolck et al. (2002). (12 marks)

2.3.3 Darling et al. (2007) Behavioural evidence for separating
components within visuo-spatial working memory.

2.3.4 Sacchi et al. (2007) Changing history: doctored photographs

affect memory for past public events.
June 2021 Q.9

Unit 1- Sacchi et al (2007) doctored photographs affect memory for past public events
⭐
2.4 Practical investigation
2.4.1 One practical research exercise to gather data relevant to topics
covered in cognitive psychology. This practical research exercise
must adhere to ethical principles in both content and intention.