Person. indicid. D# Vol. 9. No. 5, p. 929, 1988 F’rinted in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0191-8869188 S3.00+0.00 Copyright C 1988 Pergamon Press plc STM and LTM as determined by age, sex, sense modality and distribution of practice JITENDRA MOHAN and VARINDER DHALIWAL Psychology Department, Punjab University. Chandigarh 160014, India (Recehed 7 October 1987) The present experiment employed Ss from three age groups (12, 16 and 20 years) and of both sexes. The stimulus material was presented visually or auditorily under massed or spaced conditions of practice. Thus, there was a basic 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 design. Three different memory tasks were presented (i.e. meaningful words, figures and nonsense syllables), and retention was tested after 30 set (STM) and 15 min (LTM). There were 240 Ss. A separate 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA was carried out for each of the six combinations of memory task and retention interval. There was a highly significant effect of age on memory performance in five cases, and a significant effect of age on memory performance in the case of STM for nonsence syllables. Sex of the Shad a consistently non-significant effect on performance. Visual presentation was highly significantly superior to auditory presentation with the sole exception of STM for nonsense syllables. Spaced practice was generally superior to massed practice, but the difference was only significant at the 0.01 level for STM of nonsense syllables, and for LTM of figures and nonsense syllables. In general terms, the findings of this study are consistent with those reported by Eysenck (1977). List, Keating and Merriman (1985), Ware (1982) and Kitoo (1983). Of the factors considered, age had the greatest impact on memory performance. REFERENCES Eysenck M. W. (1977) Human Memory: Theory, Research and Indicidual Differences. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Kitoo N. (1983) An investigation of the spacing effect in the free recall task. Jup. J. Psychol. 54, 243-249. List I. A., Keating D. P. Merriman W. E. (1985) Differences in memory retrieval: a constant validity investigation. Child Deu. 56, 138-151. Ware M. C. (1982) Visual and auditory presentation in recall and recognition: a developmental study. D&err. Abstr. Inr. 43, No. 6. 929

STM and LTM as determined by age, sex, sense modality and distribution of practice

Download PDF Report

Upload
varinder
View
215
Download
1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

0191-8869188 S3.00+0.00 Copyright C 1988 Pergamon Press plc

STM and LTM as determined by age, sex, sense modality and distribution of practice

JITENDRA MOHAN and VARINDER DHALIWAL

Psychology Department, Punjab University. Chandigarh 160014, India

(Recehed 7 October 1987)

The present experiment employed Ss from three age groups (12, 16 and 20 years) and of both sexes. The stimulus material was presented visually or auditorily under massed or spaced conditions of practice. Thus, there was a basic 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 design. Three different memory tasks were presented (i.e. meaningful words, figures and nonsense syllables), and retention was tested after 30 set (STM) and 15 min (LTM). There were 240 Ss.

A separate 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA was carried out for each of the six combinations of memory task and retention interval. There was a highly significant effect of age on memory performance in five cases, and a significant effect of age on memory performance in the case of STM for nonsence syllables. Sex of the Shad a consistently non-significant effect on performance. Visual presentation was highly significantly superior to auditory presentation with the sole exception of STM for nonsense syllables. Spaced practice was generally superior to massed practice, but the difference was only significant at the 0.01 level for STM of nonsense syllables, and for LTM of figures and nonsense syllables.

In general terms, the findings of this study are consistent with those reported by Eysenck (1977). List, Keating and Merriman (1985), Ware (1982) and Kitoo (1983). Of the factors considered, age had the greatest impact on memory performance.

REFERENCES

Eysenck M. W. (1977) Human Memory: Theory, Research and Indicidual Differences. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Kitoo N. (1983) An investigation of the spacing effect in the free recall task. Jup. J. Psychol. 54, 243-249. List I. A., Keating D. P. Merriman W. E. (1985) Differences in memory retrieval: a constant validity investigation.

Child Deu. 56, 138-151. Ware M. C. (1982) Visual and auditory presentation in recall and recognition: a developmental study. D&err. Abstr. Inr.

43, No. 6.

929