Topic 2: Memory - 2.2 Studies — Edexcel GCSE Psychology
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Topic 2: Memory - 2.2 Studies explained
Topic 2: Memory - 2.2 Studies covers 3 specification points, including Understand the aims, procedures, and findings… and *2.2.1 Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts.
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Understand the aims, procedures, and findings (results and conclusions), strengths and weaknesses of:
This section requires students to comprehend the core components of key psychological studies in the memory topic. For any named study, you must be able to outline its specific aims (what the researchers intended to investigate), the procedures (the step-by-step method used, including the sample and tasks), and the findings (both the numerical results and the overall conclusions drawn). Furthermore, you must evaluate each study by identifying its strengths and weaknesses, such as issues with ecological validity, sample bias, or the reliability of the experimental design. When reading study summaries, actively highlight these distinct elements to ensure you can recall and evaluate the methodology and outcomes accurately in an assessment.
*2.2.1 Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts
Bartlett (1932) investigated how cultural schemas influence memory using the Native American folk tale War of the Ghosts. He asked British participants to read the story and recall it after varying intervals through serial and repeated reproduction. Participants altered the story to fit their cultural expectations, a process called rationalisation (e.g. canoes became boats). The story also became shorter through omission. This demonstrated that memory is an active, reconstructive process. A strength of the study is its use of a meaningful story, offering higher ecological validity than nonsense syllables. However, a weakness is the lack of standardised instructions and strict controls, making it less scientific and harder to replicate.
*2.2.2 Peterson and Peterson (1959) Short-term Retention of Individual Verbal Items
Peterson and Peterson (1959) investigated the duration of short-term memory by preventing rehearsal. Participants were presented auditorily with trigrams (meaningless three-consonant syllables) and asked to count backwards in threes from a random number. This interference task prevented rehearsal. After intervals of 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, or 18 seconds, a red light signalled them to recall the trigram. Recall accuracy dropped rapidly, from high accuracy at 3 seconds to below 10% after 18 seconds, establishing STM duration as approximately 18 seconds. A strength is the highly controlled laboratory procedure, allowing cause and effect to be established. A weakness is the artificial task, meaning it lacks ecological validity.
Your focus
- Identify and describe the aims, procedures, and findings of key memory studies.
- Distinguish between the raw results of a study and the conclusions drawn by the researchers.
- Evaluate psychological studies by articulating specific methodological strengths and weaknesses.
Show all 9 objectives
- Describe the aim and procedure of the War of the Ghosts study.
- Explain the findings of the study in terms of rationalisation and omission.
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the study, including its ecological validity and lack of standardisation.
- Describe the aim and procedure of the study on short-term retention, noting the auditory presentation.
- Explain how the interference task prevented maintenance rehearsal and affected recall.
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the study, including its laboratory setting and artificial task.
Topic 2: Memory - 2.2 Studies exam tips
Marking Points
- Identify the aim: to investigate how memory is reconstructed when recalling an unfamiliar story.
- Describe the procedure: participants read the story and recalled it using serial and repeated reproduction.
- State the findings: participants shortened the story and rationalised unfamiliar details to fit their own culture.
- Explain the conclusion: memory is reconstructive and influenced by cultural schemas.
- Evaluate the study: a strength is the use of a meaningful task (high ecological validity); a weakness is the lack of standardised procedures.
- Identify the aim: to test the duration of short-term memory when rehearsal is prevented.
- Describe the procedure: participants auditorily received consonant trigrams and recalled them after varying intervals while counting backwards.
- State the findings: recall accuracy decreased significantly as the time interval increased, dropping below 10% at 18 seconds.
- Explain the conclusion: short-term memory has a limited duration of up to 18 seconds if maintenance rehearsal is prevented.
- Evaluate the study: a strength is high control over extraneous variables; a weakness is the use of artificial stimuli (low ecological validity).
Examiner Tips
- 💡Create summary flashcards for each key study, dividing them into aims, procedures, findings, and evaluative points.
- 💡When asked to evaluate a study, ensure you explain why a point is a strength or weakness, rather than just stating it (e.g., explain why a lab setting lowers ecological validity).
- 💡Pay close attention to the specific details of the procedure, such as the number of participants or the exact nature of the memory task, as these are often tested.
- 💡Be prepared to identify examples of rationalisation, such as changing unfamiliar cultural terms to familiar ones, in multiple-choice questions.
- 💡Remember that Bartlett used British participants and a Native American story, which created the cultural mismatch necessary for the study.
- 💡Link the findings directly to reconstructive memory and evaluate the study's lack of strict controls.
- 💡Ensure you can distinguish between the independent variable (time interval) and the dependent variable (correctly recalled trigrams).
- 💡Use the specific term interference task when describing why participants were asked to count backwards.
- 💡Be prepared to evaluate the study by discussing its high level of control and its low ecological validity.
Common Mistakes
- Confusing the results of a study with its conclusions. Correction: Results are the specific data or facts gathered (e.g., number of words recalled), while conclusions are the psychological interpretations of that data.
- Providing generic evaluations that could apply to any study. Correction: Always contextualise strengths and weaknesses by linking them directly to the specific procedures or sample of the named study.
- Merging the aims and the procedures when describing a study. Correction: Clearly separate the aim (the purpose of the research) from the procedure (how the researchers actually conducted the experiment).
- Error: Believing participants intentionally changed the story. Correction: Participants unconsciously altered the story as their schemas automatically filled in gaps or changed unfamiliar details.
- Error: Confusing serial and repeated reproduction. Correction: Serial reproduction involves passing the story from person to person, whereas repeated reproduction involves the same person recalling it multiple times.
- Error: Stating the study proves memory is like a video recorder. Correction: The study concludes the exact opposite, showing memory is an active, reconstructive process prone to distortion.
- Error: Thinking the counting task was the information to be remembered. Correction: The counting task was an interference task designed solely to prevent participants from rehearsing the trigrams.
- Error: Stating the study tested the capacity of short-term memory. Correction: The study specifically tested the duration, meaning how long information lasts, not capacity, which is how much it holds.
- Error: Claiming the trigrams were presented visually. Correction: The consonant trigrams were presented auditorily to the participants.