Edexcel GCE Psychology Unit 1: Cognitive and Social

Psychology
dsfdsfsdfdddddf
What to know before starting
Ethics
Tips for answering questions
How this guide works
Cognitive psychology layout:
Definitions
Methodology:
Lab studies
Field Studies
Natural Studies
2 Theories of Memory:
Multi-Store Model of Memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968)
Levels of Processing Theory (Craik and Lockhart 1972)
2 Theories of Forgetting:
Cue Dependant Theory of Forgetting (Tulving 1975)
Repression (Freud 1894)
2 Studies in Detail:
Godden and Baddeley (1975)
Craik and Lockhart (1975)
Key Issue:
Unreliability of Eye Witness Testimony.
Prescribed Practical:
Replication of Craik and Tulving.

What to Know Before Even Starting

Demand characteristics: This is where people change their behaviour to what they think someone wants to see. For example,
if a 40 year old male, in a white lab coat who looks to be a figure of authority asks you to shock someone who you can't see
then you're likely to do it because that's what you think the man wants to see. In other circumstances you would probably
act differently.
Independent Variable (IV): This is what you change during an experiment. For example, if you're measuring aspirin's effect on
blood pressure (I'll use this example a lot) then the thing you would change is the dosage of aspirin.
Dependant Variable (DV): This is what you measure during an experiment. Using the aspirin example again, you would
measure the change in blood pressure.
Extraneous Variable (EV): These are variables which could affect the IV and therefore should be controlled. For example, in
the aspirin example, if some ps have a high salt diet (which raises blood pressure) then this would affect the IV and therefore
the results would not be valid.
Validity: This refers to whether you're measuring what you want to measure. This may take a while to make sense but; if you
give someone aspirin, all other EVs are controlled and you see that aspirin lowers blood pressure then you would say these
results are valid be you're measuring that aspirin lowers blood pressure. However, if you don't control the salt in a ps' diet
then your results are invalid because you don't know whether aspirin lowers blood pressure or not.
Participant (ps): This is someone who is used in an experiment. Ps can be obtained in one of four ways:
Volunteer (self selecting) sample: Where the ps volunteer to partake in an experiment
Stratified sample: Where you get people from all section of society
Random sample: Where everyone in the population has an equal chance of being selected for the

experiment.

Opportunity sample: Where you use the people available at the time.
Reliability: Whether, when you repeat something you get the same results. If you do the aspirin experiment say on January
1st 2013 and then February 1st 2013, March 1st 2013 ... to December 1st 2013 and you get the same results each time then
you can say the results are reliable. Gaining multiple results and a mean is a more reliable measurement and gaining multiple
results also allows you to identify anomalous data.
Repeated measures design: This is where each participant does each condition in an experiment. For example, if you want to
see what is quicker for inputting text, a mobile or a keyboard, in a repeated measures experiment, participants would type in
a sentence on both the mobile and the keyboard
Independent measures design: This is where each ps does one condition in an experiment. Using the inputting text example,
half the ps would use a keyboard only and half would use the mobile only.
Matched pairs design: This is where a ps is matched to someone on age, gender, intelligence etc (and therefore monozygotic
(identical) twins are ideal) and one in the pair does one condition and the other does the opposite condition. So, one person
would type in using the keyboard and the other the mobile.
All studies follow the same steps: Aim, procedure, results and conclusion in that order, every time. Learn it.
Ethical guidelines. The British Psychological Society (BPS) have implemented guidelines which all studies should follow. The
breach of any of these guidelines makes that study unethical. However, some studies were done before the guidelines were
in place.
Operationalise: This is where you make something measurable in an experiment. For example, Craik and Tulving made
semantic, phonetic and structural processing measurable (operationalised it) by asking a follow up question which got ps to
process the words in one of three ways. When talking about studies (mainly) and (to some extent) evaluation points, say
how the IV was operationalised: Not only does it make you look like a better candidate, but it can also net you extra marks.

Ethics
Each study has to abide by several BPS guidelines in order to be ethical. In some cases these guidelines can be
broken if the
results
gained
outweigh
the disadvantages, typically minor deceit. The guidelines include:
Revision
Guide
by WGH
(wez.bep@hotmail.co.uk)
Deception
Ps should not be deceived to the true aim, or any aspect, of the study, unless the study wouldn't work without
deception (for example, this may cause demand characteristics.) If ps are deceived then they must be properly
debriefed afterwards.
Right to Withdraw
Ps should be told that they are allowed to withdraw from the study at anytime and are allowed to remove their
results from being used.
Debrief
After the study has been completed the ps should be told the true aim of the study and have as many questions
about the study that they want to know answered. The debrief ensures ps leave in the same state in which they
started the experiment in.
Informed Consent
The researchers should get permission from ps that they want to partake in the study before the study starts in
either verbal or written form. If children or those with disabilities are used then their parents / carers need to
give informed consent for them.

Tips for Answering Questions

This will come in handy for all your A levels, but is more tailored for Edexcel psychology.
Look how many marks the question is worth - Remember you're under time constraints so for a 2 mark question
do not write a whole page - You're wasting time, which means you're wasting marks. This works the opposite was
round, too: For the 12 mark questions, don't give yourself 5 minutes to answer this behemoth question. Here you'll
have 6 descriptive (AO1) and 6 evaluation (A02) marks as well as how well the answer is written being assessed.
This question along is worth 20% of the marks and therefore could be the difference between an A and a D.
Think about what you're writing. If you have a question for 2 marks to give one strength then choose a good one. It
has to be worth 2 marks and you can only write one, so make sure it's a good one and you can clearly see it's worth
2 marks. For example, 'Give one strength of the levels of processing theory or memory (2)'
Craik and Tulving found one type of processing resulted in more words being recalled than the other 2 types. This
would net you 0 marks. This answer tells you nothing mark worthy.
Craik and Tulving found that more semantically processed words were recalled than phonetic or structurally
processed ones. This would get you 1 mark. It supports level of processing, but it can be elaborated upon more.
Craik and Tulving (1975) found that 65%, 36% and 17% of semantically, phonetically and structurally processed
words were recalled respectively showing that semantic processing yields the best recall. This would be worth 2
marks. It clearly demonstrates that you know what you're talking about by describing specifics of the study.
Fully explain points. Using the example above, do not half explain points (as in the 1 marker above) as losing all
these 1 marks adds up and will severely inhibit your grade.
If you're asked to describe a study for 6 marks then do not do; aim - 1 mark, procedure - 7 marks, results - 1 mark
and conclusion - 1 mark. Those type of question will not be marked as 6 marks for everything available. More
likely they'll be marked as 2 marks for each, aim, procedure, results and conclusion or perhaps 3 marks for aim and
procedure and 3 for results and conclusions.
Evaluation is as important as description. Writing 1.5 sides for description and 0.5 sides for evaluation is not good
enough. They need to be equal.
Do not talk about anything unnecessary. For example, in Godden and Baddeley it doesn't matter that the ps
brought their own scuba diving gear, it's irrelevant and you will not gain any marks for it. Instead you would say
that 18 ps took part in a field experiment using a repeated measures design as this is relevant information that will
get you a mark.
Read the multiple choice questions carefully. Most of them are simple and straightforward and easy marks,
however some are there to catch you out. Eliminate the answers is cannot be first and then, if you're still unsure,
take an educated guess. Multiple choice questions will generally test methodology and design knowledge as well
as definitions. They shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes, but don't rush them.
Most importantly have good exam technique. There is nothing I, or anyone else, can tell you in order for you to get
good exam technique, it is something which comes with time. It is a combination of all of the above and learning
what the exam board want off you. Good exam technique and content knowledge have a symbiotic relationship if
you're going for a good grade and the best way to improve yours is to continually answer past exam questions.
There are clearly some parts of the unit that are more important than others. For example, Craik and Tulving's
experiment comes up multiple times, whereas Loftus and Palmer only once. If you're running out of time to revise
then focus on parts which comes up multiple times.

How This Guide Works

This guide will have two parts to each section; one will explain the section in depth and the second will act as a
'revision guide' (under the title of 'Notes') covering the main parts for each topic. The in depth explanation will come
first. Some parts (such as the definitions) cannot be condensed down further and therefore will only have one section
for this part, this includes the studies in detail - they will not be condensed down because you have to know them in
detail.
Text written in this colour indicates elaboration, which explains the aforementioned point in more detail.

Cognitive Definitions:

Encoding: The process of placing an experience into a form that can be used and stored by the memory
system. (Memory cannot necessarily store information as you take it in. For example, if you read a sentence
your memory cannot store it as a smell (according to multi store model of memory), it must first be
converted to another 'form' e.g. what that sentence means.
Forgetting: The inability to retrieve stored information
Information Processing: A model used to understand the flow of information of information through the
cognitive system, from input, to processing, to output. (This may be the computer analogy which say, like a
computer, memory takes in the information (input), processes it and then outputs the consequence of that
processing.)
Memory: A cognitive function used to retain information and recall it when needed
Retrieval: the process of recalling a stored memory
Storage: Keeping information for later retrieval.

Generic Evaluation Points

There are generic evaluation points which you can apply to a lot of studies and it involves criticising the methodology
used. So it is important that you learn the strengths and weaknesses of each type of methodology. However, where
you can make sure you apply these to the study you're using them on. Those going for higher grades should try to use
these evaluation points in addition to the other evaluation points. I have tried not to use these generic evaluation
points as evaluation points as best I can.
For example, a generic evaluation point for a lab study would be that the environment was well controlled and a
standardised procedure and instructions were used and therefore the experiment can be exactly replicable to test the
results for reliability.
Conversely, extraneous variables were not controlled and therefore the experiment cannot be exactly replicable to test
the results for reliability. This can be used for field and natural experiments.
Extraneous variables were controlled and a standardised procedure and instructions were used and therefore the
results are valid as you are only measuring the IV's effect on the DV.
A lab experiment was used and this is an artificial environment and therefore the results lack ecological validity.
The task ps were set to do was artificial and people would never be asked to do this type of task in the real world
therefore, the results lack experimental validity.

Cognitive Methodology: Experiments

In cognitive psychology methodology used is experiments of which there are 3 types in total: Lab, field and natural. Each
have similarities and differences and some are more common than others. In each approach you will learn about a
different type of methodology.

Laboratory Experiment
A laboratory (or lab) experiment (method) is possibly the most common type of experiment and there are
reasons why, as will be covered later. A lab experiment occurs in a carefully controlled, lab environment in
which all extraneous variables are controlled. You then carefully manipulate the IV and measure its effect on
the DV. For example, if you're looking into whether aspirin lowers blood pressure you would have, for example,
20 ps and give each a dose of aspirin greater than the previous one and then measure their blood pressure. This
then allows you to see the effect of aspirin on blood pressure.
It is important that extraneous variables are controlled as these are variables which could affect the results,
making them less reliable. For example, if, using the aspirin example, some ps have a high salt diet (something
that increases blood pressure) but other ps didn't then this would lower the validity of the results.
A lab experiment is desirable as it allows you to see cause and effect (a causal relationship) between two IVs
and eliminates any extraneous variables which could affect the validity of the results. Another good thing about
lab experiments is that they use a standardised procedure and standardised instructions. This means that the
instructions every ps get are the same and a standardised procedure means that every ps does the exact same
'thing' (procedure) in the experiment.
However, lab experiments do have limitations: They use artificial environments and this means that the
behaviour from participants is also likely to be artificial. We call this lacking ecological validity. Lab experiments
also get ps to perform unreal tasks which would never be done in the real world. For example, getting someone
to smoke marijuana, learn a list of words and then get them to recall them is an unreal task and we call this
lacking experimental validity. This is a disadvantage as it is important to measure real behaviour during an
experiment otherwise the results may not necessarily apply to the real world. Also, because ps will have likely
had to volunteer, they are highly likely to know they're part of an experiment and therefore are likely to display
demand characteristics. There may also be experimenter effects, which is the experimenter present influences
the responses (or actions) of a ps. For example, having a big male present may result less provocative
responses, whereas having a small, old woman would perhaps result in more honest responses.

Notes
A lab experiment is an experiment where an IV is carefully manipulated to see its effect on the DV. They often
use standardised instructions / procedure.
+ Allows you to determine a cause and effect relationship because all other extraneous variables have been
controlled - the results are valid
+ Standardised procedure / instructions are used and because all other extraneous variables are controlled the
experiment is exactly replicable to test the results for reliability.
- Lacks both ecological and experimental validity due to the artificial nature of the environment and task.
- Ps likely to show demand characteristics

Field Experiment
A field experiment (method) also a relatively common type of experiment used and like a lab experiment,
involves carefully manipulating an IV to see its effect on the DV, but this occurs in a natural environment.
There are many advantages to using a field experiment. The main one is ecological validity: Because the
experiment is taking place in a natural environment the results have ecological validity and often, the task given
to ps is a more 'real' task that is likely to occur in everyday life. Participants may not necessarily know that they
are part of an experiment and this means that they will not (unless they know they're part of an experiment)
display demand characteristics which could lower the validity of the results.
However, field experiments do have limitations. The main one being that because the experiment is
taking place in a natural environment that all extraneous variables cannot be controlled. This means that you
cannot (necessarily) determine a cause and effect relationship between the IV and its effect on the DV. Due to a
lack of control over extraneous variables it is almost impossible the replicate the experiment exactly to test the
results for reliability. If ps are unaware that they are part of an experiment then this infringes on BPS (ethical)
guidelines. There may also be experimenter effects.

Notes
An experiment where an IV is carefully manipulated to see its effect on the DV in a natural environments.
+ High ecological validity.
+ If ps unaware they're in an experiment then unlikely to be demand characteristics - high validity.
- Cannot determine cause and effect relationship due to lack of control over extraneous variables.
- Difficult to replicate exactly and test the results for reliability.

Natural Experiment
A natural (or quasi) experiment (method) is an experiment where the IV is naturally occurring in a natural
environment, however, this type of experiment is rare.
For example, Charleston is a natural experiment which saw the introduction of television to St. Helena's
school and Charleston was looking to see whether the introduction of TV cause there to be more anti social
behaviour or pro social behaviour.
There are great advantages to this type of experiment, mainly being that the IV occurs naturally in a
natural environment and therefore there is high ecological and experimental validity. Using the above example,
TV was introduced naturally and therefore the anti / pro social that occurred because of it was natural. Also,
because the situation is natural the experimenter does not need to gain permission to study the effects of the
naturally introduced IV and because ps do not know they're being observed they won't display demand
characteristics. This also means that there are no experimenter effects.
However, there are also disadvantages: The main one being that it is pretty much impossible to replicate
exactly: For example, one TV has naturally been introduced to an area it is unlikely that TV will ever be naturally
introduced to that area again. Also, there is a lack of control over extraneous variables to some extent, lowering
the validity of the results.

Notes
An experiment where the IV changes naturally in a natural environment.
+ Ecological and experimental validity.
+ No demand characteristics.
- Impossible to replicate.
- No control over extraneous variables.

Model of Memory: Multi-Store Model of Memory

The multi store model of memory (from now on abbreviated to MSM) is probably the easiest thing you can be
asked a large question on.
Proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968 the MSM is a structural model of memory comprising on 3
stores: The sensory memory / register (SM), the short term memory (STM) and the long term memory (LTM). For
each store you have to talk about; capacity, encoding (how it's stored) and length of storage.
SM holds information for between 1/4 - 2 (as supported by Sperling's 1960 study) and it is stored in the
form it enters SM i.e. if it's a smell, it is stored as a smell. The information is stored long enough for us to decide
whether it's worth paying attention to or not. If the information is not worth paying attention to, then it decays
ad is no longer stored in SM. However, if it is worth paying attention to then we are attentive to it and it is
transferred to STM.
STM holds information in memory for between 18 -30 seconds (as shown by Peterson and Peterson) and
there can be 7+-9 (It must be written as 7+-9, NOT 5-9.) items of information held here at any one time (as shown
by Miller's magic number). The STM works on a first in, first out (FIFO) principal and is there is more than 7+-2
piece of information stored here then the first information into memory is the first to be 'pushed out' of memory
- it decays out of memory. Information here is encoded acoustically (by how it sounds). In order to transfer the
information from STM to LTM it must be rehearsed. If the information isn't rehearsed for in the 18-30 seconds
then it decays from STM.
LTM has an unlimited capacity and can hold information forever (as shown by Batrick etal). Information
here is stored semantically (by its meaning.)
Evaluation: Supported by anterograde amnesia patients e.g. Clive Wearing whose hippocampus was
destroyed was left with an inability to create new memories. However, memories created prior to the incident
were still retrievable from LTM e.g. how to play piano. He could also hold a conversation, meaning that his STM
was also functional.
Physiological scans also show then when someone is accessing information in their LTM a different part of
their brain is active to when they're accessing information that is stored in STM showing that physiologically
there are different memory stored.
Glazner and Cunitz 1966 found that when ps freely recalled a list of words that the first words in the list were
best recalled because they had enough time to be rehearsed and therefore be transferred into LTM (primacy
effect). The later words in the list were also well recalled because they remained in STM (recency effect).
However, the words in the middle of the list were the worst recalled as they didn't have time to be rehearsed and
therefore transferred into LTM (asymplote) therefore showing different memory stores.
Weaknesses: The MSM is a too simplistic model of memory and says that information stored in memory is only
stored semantically and therefore doesn't account for other types of memory for example, episodic or procedural
memory.
MSM is contradicted by another theory of forgetting, levels of processing, which states that memory is a
consequence of processing and the deeper you process information, the deeper you process information the
more durable memory is formed.

Notes
A structural model of memory with 3 separate stores; sensory memory (SM), short term memory (STM) and long
term memory (LTM).
SM encodes information in the way it enters memory for 1/4 - 2 seconds - long enough to decide whether it's
worth paying attention to. If it is, the information's transferred to STM.
In STM information's stored for 18-30 seconds acoustically and 7+-2 items can be stored here. Information needs
to be rehearsed in order to be transferred to LTM.
Infinite amount of data can be stored in LTM for unlimited duration. Information's stored semantically.
+ Clive Wearing, whose hippocampus was destroyed couldn't create new memories, but could remember things
previously stored in LTM and hold a conversation showing different memory stores.
+ Physiological scans show different parts of the brain active when information in LTM is accessed to when
information in STM is accessed.
+Glazner and Cunitz found that when ps freely recalled words at the beginning and end of the list were recalled
well as they were in both LTM and STM respectively, showing different memory stores.
- Contradicted by levels of processing which says memory is a consequence of processing and the deeper
processing occurs the more durable memory is formed.
- MSM is too simplistic. It says information is stored only semantically and doesn't account for episodic or
procedural memories.

Model of Memory: Levels of Processing

Proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972) levels of processing (lop) states that memory is a consequence of processing and the
deeper we process information the more durable memory is formed. Craik and Lockhart said that lop explains why
information can be stored for a long time without rehearsal.
There are 2 types of rehearsal: Maintenance rehearsal - Where information is shallowly processed (structural or
phonetic) and therefore it is only retained for a short period.
Elaborative rehearsal - Where information is deeply processed (semantically) and therefore it is retained for a longer period.
There are three types of processing. Semantic processing is the deepest form of processing and involves considering the
meaning of the information and results in the most durable memory.
Structural processing is the shallowest form of processing and involved considering what the information looks like and this
produces the least durable memory.
Phonetic processing is less shallow than structural processing and involves considering what the information sounds like and
results in a moderately durable memory.
Evaluation: Strengths: Craik and Tulving (1975) found that 65%, 36% and 17% of semantically, phonetically and structurally
words were freely recalled showing that semantic processing results in the best recall.
This model can help students make good revision notes: It tells them to revise semantically i.e. by creating their own
resources or answering questions, both are ways of semantically processing the information.
Weaknesses: Morris etal 1977 found that there was the highest recall of phonetically processed words which goes against
lop which states semantic processing should yield the best recall because information is processed semantically.
Craik and Lockhart failed to clearly define what was meant by 'deep' processing: It could refer to time spent processing, or
emotion associated with the information.
Contradicted by multi store model which is a structural model of memory and says how information is stored in LTM via
rehearsal.

Notes
The deeper you process information, the more durable memory is formed. Lop explains why information can be stored
without rehearsal.
Maintenance rehearsal stored information for short periods of time, elaborative rehearsal for long periods.
Semantic processing: Deepest form of processing, involves considering meaning of information.
Structural processing: Shallowest processing, involves considering what information looks like.
Phonetic processing: Less shallow than structural, involved considering what information sounds like.
+ Craik and Tulving found more semantically processed words were recalled out of the 3 types.
+ Helps students revise by telling them to do so semantically
- Morris found more phonetically processed words were recalled then semantically processed ones.
- Craik and Lockhart failed to accurately define what 'deep' processing was.
- MSM says information is stored in LTM by rehearsal.

Theory of Forgetting: Repression

Put forward by Freud (who you'll do a whole approach on in unit 2) in 1894, repression states that we forget information if it
is traumatic because it is pushed (repressed) into our unconscious (part of Freud's model of the mind) as a defence
mechanism in order to protect ourselves from the negative emotions associated with that memory. For example, if someone
has a car crash then they're unlikely to remember the even as it is traumatic and therefore will have been repressed into the
unconscious.
Freud suggested that repression occurs as a poor relationship with parents during childhood. He also said that these
repressed memories can manifest themselves in later life through behaviour or attitudes. For example, if your Dad is abusive
towards your Mum, then when you're older you may be aggressive towards males such as your Dad.
Evaluation - Strengths: Supported by Levinger and Clark 1961 who found that ps freely recalled more words with positive or
neutral connotations that words with negative connotation (e.g. rape) as those negative words were traumatic to the ps and
therefore were repressed and as such, lead to poorer recall.
Walker etal 1997 got ps to keep a diary of everything they did for 3 weeks and then after a 1 week break they got ps to recall
the events of the 3 weeks. They found that ps recalled more positive events than negative ones, because any negative events
that occurred were repressed.
Repression has application to real life and explains why rape victims (an extremely traumatic event) cannot recall details
about the event.
Weaknesses: Hadley and McKay 2007 found that ps freely recalled more words with negative connotations than words with
positive or neutral ones, thus contradicting repression which says words with negative connotation should yield the lowest
recall.
Repression is contradicted by Flashbulb Memories proposed by Yuille, which says that some people can remember traumatic
events. This is explained by flashbulb memories which says people have a 'photographic' memory for traumatic events e.g.
people can recall vast detail about what they were doing on September 11th.
It is unethical to traumatise ps simply for research purposes as it breaks the BPS guideline which says that ps must leave in
the same state that they enter.

Notes
Repression is a defence mechanism which pushes traumatic memories into the unconscious to protect us from the trauma
associated with that memory. Repression occurs as a result of a poor relationship with parents and repressed memories can
manifest them self in later life through behaviour or attitudes.
+ Levinger and Clark - More positive and neutral words were recalled than negative ones.
+ Walker 1997 gave ps a diary to record events over 3 weeks. After a one week break ps asked to recall events and could only
recall positive and neutral ones.
+ Explains why rape victims cannot remember the event.
- Hadley and McKay (2007) found more negative words were recalled than positive ones.
- Someone people have flashbulb memories - photographic memories about traumatic events.
- Unethical to traumatise people for the sake of research.

Theory of Forgetting: Cue Dependant Theory of Forgetting

Proposed by Tulving in 1975 the cue dependant theory of forgetting (CDTF) says that is the same cues are not present during
encoding as are present during recall then forgetting will occur. Cues are additional pieces of information that help 'guide'
us to the information that we're looking for. (Like the contents page of a book.) Cues may be necessary to access
information that's retrievable but inaccessible.
There are 2 types of cue, the first is a context cue which refers to the environment you're in during encoding or
retrievable e.g. a bathroom. Make sure you then elaborate upon this with an example. For example, if you're in the
bathroom and know you want something from the kitchen, when you enter the kitchen you cannot remember what it was
you initially wanted because different cues are present during encoding and recall.
The second type if a state cue. This refers to the physiological or psychological state that you're in during encoding
and retrieval e.g. stressed. For example, if you're told some information when you're depressed then you may be unable to
recall this information when you're happy as there are different cues at recall than were available during encoding.
Evaluation -Strengths: Supported by Godden and Baddeley who found 50% more words were recalled when encoding and
retrieval environments were the same. You can use two pieces of supporting evidence for CDTF as one supported context
cues and the other state cues.
Also supported by Eich etal who found ps who smoked marijuana during encoding and recall recalled more words than ps
who smoked marijuana during encoding or recall showing how state can affect recall.
Can be used in the cognitive interview where the police take a witness to the environment they were in during encoding
[the event] and, to some extent, put them in the same state in order to aid recall and research shows that the cognitive
interview yields 35% more information than other methods.
Weaknesses: Baddeley said that in order for cue dependant forgetting to occur that the contexts must be vastly different.
For example, encoding in an ice rink and recalling on a sun bed.
Another theory of forgetting is repression which states that forgetting occurs due to traumatic information being pushed
into the unconscious as a defence mechanism to protect us from the trauma associated with that memory.

Notes
If different cues are present at encoding than were present at recall then forgetting occurs. Cues may be
necessary to access information that's available but irretrievable. Cues are additional pieces of information that
act like a contents page.
2 types of cue; context which refers to the environment during encoding and retrieval and state which refers to
the physical or psychological state you're in during encoding and retrieval.
+ Godden and Baddeley (1975) found 50% more words recalled when encoding and recall contexts the same.
+Eich etal found more words recalled when ps smoked marijuana during encoding and recall
- Baddeley said for cue dependant forgetting to occur the contexts must be vastly different.
- Repression is another theory of forgetting which says information is pushed into the unconscious as a defence
mechanism.

Study in Detail: Godden and Baddeley (1975)

Aim - To see whether an open-water environment could act as a natural context cue to aid recall.
Procedure: 18 ps (5 female, 13 male) who were members of a Scottish university took part in a field experiment using a
repeated measures design. The ps had to learn a list of 38 unrelated 2-3 syllable words in one of four environment and over
the course of four days each participant did all four conditions. The study took part off the coast of Scotland.
Condition 1: Learning and recalling the words on land
Condition 2: Learning and recalling the words underwater
Condition 3: Learning the words on land and recalling them underwater
Condition 4: Learning the words under water and recalling them on land.
Participants learning or recalling the words underwater were 15ft underwater and were wearing full diving gear. The words
were presented in 3 word blocks with 4 second intervals between blocks. Ps learning or recalling the words on land did so in
full diving gear without the diving helmet. When the 38 words had all been read out, there was a 3 minute interval before
the ps recalled the words. If the ps changed environments e.g. encoded underwater but recalled on land then in that 3
minutes they changed environment.
Results: 50% more words were recalled when encoding and recall environments were the same. The mean number of words
recalled in each condition:
Condition 1: 13.5

Condition 2: 11.4

Condition 3: 8.6

Condition 4: 8.4

You must learn these numerical results.

Conclusion: A natural, open-water environment does act as a natural context cue to aid recall.
Evaluation - Strengths: A realistic, open-water environment was used and therefore the results have high ecological validity.
The results are supported by Abernathy 1940 who found that children who learned and recalled words in the same
environment recalled more words than children who encoded words in one environment and recalled them in another.
Application to real life: The police use the cognitive interview where the take the eye witness back to the scene of the crime
so that there are the same context cues present during recall as were present during encoding in order to aid recall. Studies
show that the cognitive interview yields 35% more information than other methods.
Weaknesses: As a field study was used all extraneous variables (marine animals, equipment failure etc.) were not controlled
which means that it is almost impossible to replicate the results exactly and text the results for reliability.
Ps who encoded and recalled the words in the same context had the 3 minute interval to rehearse the words whereas those
changing environments would have had lots of interference and therefore the validity of the results is lowered.
The results are not generalisable to the general population as the sample used were 18 university students who were
members of its diving club in Scotland and this sample is not representative of the general population.

Study in Detail: Craik and Tulving (1975)

Aim: To test the levels of processing framework by seeing whether; structurally, phonetically or semantically processing
words affects the number of words recalled.
Procedure: 24 ps took part in a lab experiment with a repeated measures design. Ps were shown 60 words individually, by
a tachistoscope and then were given a follow up yes or no question regarding the previous word, which got them to
process the word in one of three ways:
Ensure for each processing type you give an example of the question.
Structural processing was operationalised by the question regarding the structure of the word e.g. ' Was the word in upper
case?'
Phonetic processing was operationalised by the question regarding what the word sounded like e.g. 'Did the word rhyme
with...?'
Semantic processing was operationalised by the question regarding what the word's meaning e.g. 'Does the word fit in this
sentence?'
After all 60 words been shown to each participant (20 of each processing type) there was an unexpected memory test
where ps had to identify the previously used 60 words from a list of 180 (60 original + 120 new ones).
Results: 65%, 36% and 17% of semantically, phonetically and structurally processed words were recalled respectively.
Deeper processing resulted in a higher recall than shallow processing.
There may seem to be a lot of conclusion points for Craik and Tulving, but it's worth knowing all of them
Conclusion: Semantic processing involves considering the meaning of the word (deep processing) and therefore a more
durable memory is formed than shallowly processing words.
Elaborative rehearsal is better than maintenance rehearsal at improving memory recall.
This study supports the levels of processing framework - the idea that semantic processing leads to the best recall. It could
be that deeper processing leads to better recall, therefore supporting levels of processing.
Evaluation - Strengths: The recognition task was unexpected and therefore the ps did not artificially process the words
(e.g. by rehearsal) therefore the words were only recalled due to the follow up question getting them to process the word
in one of the three ways. This means the results are valid.
Application to real life: The results tell students how to revise effectively - by creating their own resources and answering
exam questions - both of which are ways to semantically process information which therefore leads to better recall.
Weaknesses: Morris etal 1977 found that phonetically processed words yielded the best recalled which lowers the
reliability of Craik and Tulving's results as they found that semantically processed words yielded the best recall.
There are problems with accurately defining what 'deep' processing is: It could refer to the time spent processing (and
Craik and Tulving found that the deeper words were processed, the time was spent processing), the emotion attached to
the word, or something else altogether.
The results are not generalisable to the general population because only 24 ps were used and generalisability is difficult
due to things such as individual differences.

Key Issue: The Unreliability of Eye Witness Testimony

You may be asked to either describe or explain your key issue. There is a difference between the two. Describing
the key issue is simply saying what your key issue is (and if you haven't anywhere else, say what your key issue it the examiner doesn't know.) Explaining the issue involves using evidence, theories, concepts and ideas to say why
your key issue occurs. Bear in mind that there will still be half marks for description and half marks for evaluating,
so choose evidence which you can describe and evaluate in depth. When explaining your key issue every theory,
concept etc you use, make sure you link it back to the key issue. The point you're making is worthless otherwise.

Description of the Key Issue:

An eye witness is someone who gives their account of an event / crime to the authorities in some capacity. Loftus
and Ketchum (1991) estimate that 45% of wrongful convictions are due to eye witness testimony (EWT). Some
evidence suggests that jurors are more likely to believe EWT than DNA evidence. For example, Beth Rutherford who
falsely claimed her Dad sexually abused her.

Explaining the Key Issue:

Bartlett - Reconstructive Memory
Bartlett said that memory is not like a tape recorder, instead we have schemata - frames of reference - which help
us understand what we don't about the world. The schemata help us to understand what we don't understand
about the world, by using past experiences and expectations to fill in the blanks of what we don't understand.
Bartlett used 1932 War of the Ghosts study to back up his theory. He read ps an American-Indian story and then ps
were asked to recall it. Bartlett found that ps changed details of the story, from things they didn't understand to
things they did. For example, a canoe became a boat because the ps understood what a boat was better than they
did a canoe.
Evaluation - Strengths: Allport and Postman 1947 - showed ps a picture of a white man holding a knife to a black
man. When asked who was holding the knife they said the black man. This is because for this time period, that is
who they expected to be holding the knife.
Weakness: However, Bartlett's story didn't make sense. For example, 'and they were dead' so it is no wonder that
ps couldn't accurately recall details of the story.
Loftus and Palmer 1974
Loftus and Palmer showed ps a video of a car crash and then got ps to answer a questionnaire where all the
questions were the same apart from one which asked, 'How fast were the cars going when they...?' and then either,
'crashed', 'collided', 'bumped', 'hit' or 'contacted'. They found that when crashed was used the average speed
estimated was 41 mph, compared to 32mph when contacted was used, showing how a question is worded can
affect the response.
Weapon Focus - Pickel 1998
Showed ps a video of an incident at a barbers and in one video the man was holding a gun and in another video
holding nothing. Ps recalled less details about the man when he was holding a gun compared to when he was
holding nothing.
Strengths: Clifford and Scott 1978 found ps who watched a violent film recalled 40 less pieces of information compared to ps
who watched a non-violent film.

Yerkes-Dodson (Arousal) Curve 1908 (Sometimes called inverted U)

For any task of moderate complexity, performance increases with stress up to a peak after which performance
decreases.
Strengths: Also supported by Clifford and Scott as described above.
Cue Dependant Theory of Forgetting and Repression
See above sections.

How Does the Evidence Link to the Question?

As has been previously said, it is no good reeling off the evidence without applying it to the question so what
follows is how you would answer a question asking you to explain your key issue.
Eye witness testimony (EWT) may be unreliable as the EW may have repressed some of the information. Witnessing
a crime can be a traumatic event and therefore, when the EW is asked of details on the crime they cannot recall
them because they have been repressed to protect the EW from the trauma associated with the memory.
This is supported by Levinger and Clark who found that ps recalled more positive and neutral words than negative
words because the negative words (e.g. rape) were traumatic and therefore repressed.
However, the reliability of the above study's results is lowered by Hadley and McKay 2007 who found that more
negative words were recalled than positive or neutral ones and thus contradicting repression which says that
negative words should yield the worst recall.
A EW may also not be able to recall detail about the event because of a difference in cues. During the crime, the EW
will be in a bank, for example and is highly likely to be stressed. However, during recall, the EW is likely to be much
calmer and giving her account in a police station and therefore there are different context and state cues present
during recall that were present during encoding and therefore forgetting is likely to occur.
This is supported by: Godden and Baddeley 1975 who found that 50% more words were recalled when encoding
and recall environments were the same. Eich etal 1975 who found more words were recalled when ps smoked
marijuana during encoding and recall (i.e. were in the same state) than ps who smoked it during encoding or recall.
However, the police do use the cognitive interview to aid recall where they take the ps back to the scene of the
crime and, to some extent, put them in the same state they were in during the crime, to aid recall. Research shows
that the cognitive interview yield 35% more information than other methods.
Bartlett said that memory isn't like a tape recorder, we have schemata which help us understand what we don't
about the world. For example, if an EW sees that a criminal has a Malaysian text tattoo then the EW may say that
the tattoo was Chinese text as China a more well known Asian country than Malaysia and her schemata 'tell her'
than the text is Chinese.
This is supported by Allport and Postman 1947 who found when ps were shown a picture of a white man holding a
knife to a black man and ps were asked who was holding the knife, ps said the black man.
However, supporting evidence for Bartlett's reconstructive memory theory comes from his War of the Ghosts study
which is flawed because the story didn't make sense e.g. 'and they were dead.' so it's no wonder that ps didn't
accurately recall details of the story.

Prescribed Practical: Replication of Craik and Tulving's 1975 Study

For the prescribed practical you have to carry out your own practical using the methodology in the unit. The exam
board do not know what practical you have done and this has its advantages such as not having to remember
specific results from your experiment.
The procedure of your experiment is not what's important either; the exam board are looking for design decision
e.g. why you did something one way etc. It's unlikely that you will be asked to describe the procedure of your
prescribed practical. I will go on to explain what you need for this section and say what type of question you may be
asked. For any examples, I will use the prescribed practical I did (replication of Craik and Tulving 1975).
For your study you will need to have an hypothesis. This can be either one tailed (directional), two tailed (non-directional), or
null.
A one tailed hypothesis is one that states that there will be a difference and in what direction that difference occurs. For
example:
There will be more semantically processed words recalled than phonetically or structurally processed words.
Here, you are saying that there will be more semantically processed words recalled than other processing types and hence you
are giving the hypothesis a direction.
A two tailed hypothesis states that there will be a difference between 2 (or more) things, but doesn't state in what direction
they change.
There will be a difference in the number of semantically processed words recalled compared to the number of phonetically
and structurally words recalled.
Then you have a null hypothesis which is always the same, you just operationalise is. The null hypothesis simply says that there
will be no difference and any difference is due to chance. Make sure you put any difference is due to chance on the end.
There will be no difference in the number of semantically processed words recalled compared to the number of phonetically or
structurally processed words. Any difference is due to chance.
Next you have the sampling method you used. You are likely to be asked why you chose that method. For most people they
will have used an opportunity sample simply because of convenience, most of which will probably be psychology students and
as such, they are likely to know the aim of your experiment and so are likely to show demand characteristics, which will be
important later.
You need to clearly and accurately define your IV and DV. Make sure that the IV is operationalised otherwise your experiment
is pointless and very flawed. Make sure that you describe in detail how the IV is operationalised. For example:
Structural processing was operationalised by the question regarding the structure of the word e.g. ' Was the word in upper
case?'
Phonetic processing was operationalised by the question regarding what the word sounded like e.g. 'Did the word rhyme
with...?'
Semantic processing was operationalised by the question regarding what the word's meaning e.g. 'Does the word fit in this
sentence?'
You have to make design decisions like what type of experiment you'll use and what design you'll use (repeated measures,
independent groups, matched pairs) and for which state why you chose that an advantage and disadvantage.
You need to know the advantages and disadvantages of each method type as this is the type of thing they're likely to ask you
about.

Repeated measures:
Strength: There are no uncontrollable ps variables and therefore individual differences are less likely to affect the
results
Weakness: Suffers from order effects e.g. fatigue as the same ps are in both groups and therefore the results'
validity is questionable.
Matched Pairs:
Strength: Ps variables are reduced as ps are matched with someone similar and therefore individual differences
are less likely to affect the results.
Weakness: A high amount of ps are needed and it can be very difficult to match ps which therefore is expensive
and time consuming
Independent Groups
Strength: The results have no order effects (e.g. fatigue) because different ps are used in each condition
Weakness: Individual differences may affect the results because ps variables are not controlled.

Procedure
Then, after you have planned it, you carry out your practical. You obviously don't have to do the practical as the
exam board don't know, but doing it will help you identify flaws with your experiment. The procedure of my
experiment is as follows:
We got 24 ps to sit separately in silence, in a darkened room and read them standardised instructions. We then
flashed up a total of 18 words (6 of each processing type) for 0.5 seconds and then gave them a follow up, yes or
no question, as has previously been described, which got them to process the word semantically, phonetically or
structurally.
After all 18 words had been flashed up, there was an unexpected memory test. Here, a list of 40 words (18
original + 22 new) were shown to ps and they had to identify as many words as they could that were used in the
experiment.

Results
Then, after you have described your procedure you have to show your results - the measures of central tendency
(mean, median and mode) and range). My results were as followed:
Semantic Phonetic Structural
Mean number of
words recalled
Median

Mode

Range

Evaluation
After the description of your practical, you have to evaluate it. You could talk about problems you encountered and how this
lowered the results' validity, for example, the aforementioned demand characteristics.
Strengths: Supported by Craik and Tulving's 1975 experiment, who found that 65, 36 and 17% of semantically, phonetically
and structurally processed words were recalled respectively, improving the reliability of our results as we found the same
pattern in processing type and words recalled.
Learning a list of words in a school is a realistic task for that type of environment, therefore the results have experimental
validity.
The experiment took place in a lab setting and all extraneous variables such as length of time a word was displayed for were
controlled. But, the experiment was in a natural environment (for students - the sample used) and therefore the results
have ecological validity.
The memory test was unexpected and therefore the words could have only been processed by the follow up question and
not through other means (e.g. rehearsal).
Disadvantages:
Morris etal 1977 found that there were more phonetically processed words recalled, contradicting our results, lowering
their validity.
The results are only generalisable to 16 and 17 year old psychology students who attend school in England.
The sample used were psychology students and therefore would likely know the aim of the experiment and therefore
display demand characteristics.