Lamar has just gotten a new job and is attending a company party where he will meet his colleagues for the first time. His boss escorts him around to small groups to introduce him. At the first group, Lamar meets four people and is told only their first names. The same thing happens with a second group and a third group. At the fourth group, Lamar is told their names and that one of the women in the group is the company accountant. A little while later, Lamar realizes that while remembers the names of the people in the fourth group, he can no longer recall the names of anyone he met earlier in the party. Lamar's experience demonstrates
a. the phonological similarity effect.
b. retroactive interference.
c. the cocktail party phenomenon.
d. a partial-report procedure.
Question 2Which of the following sets of results shows evidence of proactive interference with a three-trial recall task? (Note: Read the selections as percent correct for Trial 1: Trial 2: Trial 3)
a. 20 : 50 : 70 correct
b. 80 : 40 : 30 correct
c. 30 : 30 : 30 correct
d. 70 : 40 : 60 correct
Question 3The research by Ericsson and colleagues (1980) examined the ability of a college student to achieve amazing feats of memory by having him remember strings of random digits that were recited to him. They found that this student used his experience with running times to help him retain these strings of numbers. The significance of this finding was that
a. experts show larger primacy and recency effects than beginners.
b. knowledge in an area of expertise increases a person's digit span.
c. expertise with some material reduces susceptibility to proactive interference with that material.
d. chunking requires knowledge of familiar patterns or concepts.
Question 4The primary effect of chunking is to
a. maximize the recency effect.
b. increase memory for items by grouping them together based on sound.
c. develop a visual code to supplement a phonological code for the information.
d. increase the efficiency of short-term memory.
Quick Reply
