Study Guides (400,000)
CA (160,000)
U of G (8,000)
PSYC (1,000)
Midterm

PSYC 2650 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Semantic Similarity, Mental Chronometry, Long-Term Memory


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 2650
Professor
Dan Meegan
Study Guide
Midterm

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
Lab Summary for Midterm 2
Lab 4: Encoding Specificity
Procedure:
Participants asked to encode word pairs into memory
Either items have a strong semantic association or a weak or non-existent semantic
association
Strong: wasp-sting
Weak: cowboy-chair
Phase 1: Shown word pairs and asked to remember those pairs
Strong: wasp-sting
Weak: cowboy-chair
Phase 2: Asked to recognize whether a bolded word was presented previously during the
first phase.
Familiar Context: first word was the same as the word shown during phase the first
phase.
Strong: wasp-STING
Weak: cowboy-CHAIR
Unfamiliar Context: first word show was not the same as the word shown during the
first phase.
Strong: bee-STING
Weak: pool-CHAIR
Predictions
Predictions for the recognition test asking if the word in CAPS was seen in the first phase of
the experiment.
Old > New
Old/Strong (wasp-STING) > New/Strong
It will be easier to recognize words presented in the same context as the first
phase with strong semantic relationships than words presented in a different
context from the first phase with strong semantic relationships
Words that have strongly formed semantic relationships are best remembered
within the context of the same word they were originally learned in
Old/Weak (cowboy-CHAIR) > New/Weak
It will be easier to recognize words presented in the same context as the first
phase with weak semantic relationships than words presented in a different
context from the first phase with weak semantic relationships
Words that have weakly formed semantic relationships are best remembered
within the context of the same word they were originally learned it
Old/Weak (cowboy-CHAIR) > New/Strong (rocking-CHAIR)
It will be easier to recognize words presented in the same context as the first
phase with weak semantic relationships than words presented in a different
context from the first phase but with strong semantic relationships
It is easier to recognize a word within a weakly formed semantic relationship
when it is presented within the context of the same word it was presented in than
to recognize a word within a strongly formed semantic relationship when it is
presented outside the context of the word it was learned in
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Results Presented in Class
Effects that appear tiny on the class graph, but are actually reliable differences
We would be able to see them if the graph had been “zoomed in” (Presented on a different
scale)
Words presented in the same context as were learned took less than a second to recognize
while words presented in a different context from the learning context took more than a
second to recognize
Strong and weak semantic relationships didn't have much of an effect, but old context and
new context did have an effect on recognition time
ie. when encoding context = retrieval context, retrieval is optimized
Reason why the strong/weak semantic manipulation was thrown in was because our
intuition tells us that strong contextual association is a major player in retrieval and
encoding
This experiment shows that it is not the semantic similarity but the the similarity between
the encoding and retrieval context that is the major influencer of our memory
This experiment showed the importance of the similarity between the encoding and
retrieval contexts for optimal memory retrieval.
Lab 5: Fan Effect
Procedure
Phase 1:
Asked to remember eight simple sentences of individuals (eg. Lawyer, Doctor, Secretary
etc...) in different places (eg. Theatre, Taxi, Factory etc...)
Some individuals were in only one place (1-1 relationship)
One association
eg. The lawyer is in the church
Some individuals were in two places (2-1 relationship)
Two associations
eg. The lawyer is in the park. The lawyer is in the church.
Some places contained two individuals (1-2 relationship)
Two associations
eg. The lawyer is in the park. The grandmother is in the park.
Phase 2:
Asked to mark which places a given individual is in
Asked to mark which individuals are in a given place
Questions are asked until it is clear that you have learned the information presented in
the eight sentences
Phase 3:
Recognition test: Was this sentence in the learning set?
Given a list of old and new sentences and asked if each one is true or false according to
the original knowledge set
One important aspect of this experimental procedure, was that it followed Ebbinghaus's
design of creating associations that were not previously created in memory in order to study
memory encoding as it is happening instead of retrospectively
Predictions
Reaction time will be fastest for 1-1 information (ie. Individuals who were only in one
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version