http://webs.wofford.edu/steinmetzkr/Teaching/Psy150/Lecture%20PDFs/Roediger.pdf
ID: 3494529 • Letter: H
Question
http://webs.wofford.edu/steinmetzkr/Teaching/Psy150/Lecture%20PDFs/Roediger.pdf
Please read the article.
Question is :
1) How many participants were there in Experiment 1 and how many participants in Experiment 2?
2) Describe how the six words lists and the recognition test were constructed in Experiment 1 ( excludes example in your answer) 130 words
3) Sumamrise how Experiment 1 was conducted
4) what was the reasons given for conducting experiment 2
5) explain what the "remember-know' task is, and why it was used in Experiment 2
Explanation / Answer
Q-1.
For experiment-1 the number of subjects were 36 RiceUniversity undergraduates who participated as part of a course project during a regular meeting of the class, Psychology 308, Human Memory. Thirty Rice University undergraduates participated in a one hour session as part of a course requirement.
Q-2 & Q-3:
Subjects were tested in a group during a regular class meeting.They were instructed that they would hear lists o words and that they would be tested immediately after each list by writing the words on successive pages of examination booklets.They were told to write the last few items first (a standard instruction for this task) and then to recall the rest of the words in any order.They were also told to write down all the words they could remember but to be reasonably confident that each word they wrote down did in fact occur in the list (i.e., they were told not to guess).The lists were read aloud by the first author at the approximate rate of 1 word per 1.5 s. Before reading each list, the experimenter said" List1 , List2," and soon,and he said "recall" at the end of the list. Subjects were given 2.5 min to recall each list.
After the sixth list, there was brief conversation lasting 2-3 min prior to instructions for there cognition test. At this point,subjects were told that they would receive another test in which they would see words on a sheet and that they were to rate each as to their confidence that it had occurred on the list.The 4-point rating scale was 4 for sure that the item was old (or studied), 3 for probably old, 2 for probably new, and 1 for sure it was new. Subjects worked through the recognition test at their own pace.
At the end of the experiment, subjects were asked to raise their hands if they had recognized six particular items on the test,and the critic allures were read aloud. Most subjects raised their hands for several items.The experimenter then informed them that none of the words just read had actually been on the list and the subjects were debriefed about the purpose of the experiment, which was a central topic in the course.
Q-4& Q-5:
First, they wanted to replicate and extend there call and recognition results of Experiment1 to a wider set of materials.Therefore, we developed twenty-four15-item lists similar to those used in Experiment1 and in Deese's (1959 )experiment.(We included expanded versions of the six lists used in Experiment1.
Second,we wanted to examine the effect of recall on the subsequent recognition test. In Experiment 1 , they obtain ed a high level of false recognition for the critical non presented words, but the lists had been recalled prior to the recognition test,and in40% of the cases the critical item had been falsely recalled, too. In Experiment 2, we examined false recognition both for lists that had been previously recalled and for those that had not been recalled.Third, we wanted to determine the false-alarm rates for the critical non presented items when the
relevant list had not been presented previously (e.g.,to determine the false-alarm rate for chair when related words had not been presented in the list).Although we considered it remote,the possibility existed that the critical nonpresented items simply elicit a high number of false alarms whether or not the related words had been previously presented.
The fourth reason—and actually the most important one—for conducting the second experiment was to obtain subjects' judgments about their phenomenological experience while recognizing nonpresented items.They applied the procedure developed byTulving(1985 ) in which subjects are asked to distinguish between two states of awareness about the past: remembering and knowing.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.