Deck 6: Section 3: Memory

Question 1

Scenario II
Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery.
(Scenario II) Suppose that researchers attempted to teach a patient with the same condition as HM how to ride a unicycle. Researchers probably would find that the patient would:

A)not learn how to ride unless she previously had been taught this skill during childhood.
B)learn how to ride but at a much slower rate than those without the condition.
C)show learning within a single training session but not across sessions; that is, every session would be like starting over.
D)learn how to ride over time but not remember any of her previous training.

Answer 1

learn how to ride over time but not remember any of her previous training.

Question 2

Scenario I
Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study:
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121
In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory.
Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad.
Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance.
Figure 6.1
(Scenario I) Which statement is true?

A)Collaborative encoding was just as effective as individual encoding.
B)Collaborative inhibition was more evident during retrieval than encoding.
C)Collaborative inhibition was more evident during encoding than retrieval.
D)Collaborative inhibition occurred equally in both collaborative retrieval groups.

Answer 2

Collaborative inhibition was more evident during retrieval than encoding.

Question 3

Scenario I
Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study:
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121
In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory.
Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad.
Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance.
Figure 6.1
(Scenario I) If interested only in the effects of individual or collaborative encoding on subsequent retrieval, one should examine the:

A)average score of the two groups that encoded individually relative to the average score of the two groups that encoded collaboratively.
B)average score of the two groups that recalled collaboratively relative to the average score of the two groups that encoded individually.
C)difference between the Alone-Alone group and the Collaborative-Collaborative group.
D)difference between the Alone-Collaborative group and the Collaborative-Alone group.

Answer 3

average score of the two groups that encoded individually relative to the average score of the two groups that encoded collaboratively.

Question 4

Scenario I
Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study:
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121
In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory.
Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad.
Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance.
Figure 6.1
(Scenario I) It can be inferred that the experimenters inserted the maze task between encoding and recall to:

A)enhance retrieval-induced forgetting.
B)create a tip-of-the-tongue experience.
C)provide time for memory consolidation.
D)prevent rehearsal of the information.

Question 5

Scenario I
Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study:
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121
In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory.
Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad.
Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance.
Figure 6.1
(Scenario I) This experiment examined which type of memory?

A)procedural
B)prospective
C)explicit
D)working

Question 6

Scenario I
Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study:
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121
In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory.
Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad.
Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance.
Figure 6.1
(Scenario I) One possible explanation of collaborative inhibition is social loafing, or the established phenomenon that people do not exert as much effort on a task when studied as part of a group relative to when studied individually. A careful examination of the procedure and results, however, suggests that social loafing does not explain collaborative inhibition because:

A)the performance of the Alone-Alone group suggests participants were highly motivated.
B)the maze task successfully disguised the true purpose of the study.
C)collaborative inhibition was not observed in the Collaborative-Alone group.
D)there is little reason to believe that social loafing would occur to different degrees during encoding and retrieval.

Question 7

Scenario II
Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery.
(Scenario II) Based on the information provided, this scenario best illustrates which psychological research method?

A)double-blind experiment
B)correlational design
C)naturalistic observation
D)case method

Question 8

Scenario I
Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study:
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121
In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory.
Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad.
Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance.
Figure 6.1
(Scenario I) Some degree of collaborative inhibition was observed:

A)only in the Collaborative-Collaborative group.
B)only in the Collaborative-Alone group.
C)in the three groups in which collaboration occurred.
D)only in the two groups that recalled collaboratively.

Question 9

Scenario II
Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery.
(Scenario II) Which of these memory processes were severely impaired by the surgery?

A)episodic memories from after the surgery.
B)episodic memories from years before the surgery.
C)procedural memories from both before and after the surgery.
D)procedural memories from only after the surgery.

Question 10

Scenario II
Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery.
(Scenario II) As a result of the surgery, HM could NOT:

A)remember a relative's phone number called frequently in the decade preceding the surgery.
B)successfully hold a phone number in memory for 15 seconds by mentally rehearsing it.
C)remember a phone number called repeatedly an hour ago.
D)remember how to use a telephone.

Question 11

Scenario II
Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery.
(Scenario II) The hippocampus is crucial for:

A)manipulating information in working memory.
B)transferring information from the short- to the long-term memory store.
C)remembering events that occurred many years ago.
D)remembering events that occurred in the last 20 seconds.