This is a lab report but i ONLY need the INTRODUCTION done. NO more than 900 WORDS please. APA referencing. Please read the 'instructions' powerpoint to get the instructions. There are two studies you have to read and then there is the current study. The current study is in the 'instructions' document whereas the other documents are attached by themselves.
Instructions Instructions HPS203/773 The Human Mind AT1: Lab Report Introduction Due: Thursday 29 March at 2pm, submit in the Dropbox Contribution to your final grade: 15% Word count: 900 (Note that there is a 10% leeway, so that you can go up to 990 words MAX. Any more than 990 words and you will get a penalty. The word count INCLUDES in-text references). There is no minimum word count. Required readings: Oliver, M. C., Bays, R. B., & Zubrucky, K. M. (2016). False memories and the DRM paradigm: Effects of imagery, list, and test type. The Journal of General Psychology, 143, 33-48. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2015.1110558 Read, J. D. (1996). From a passing thought to a false memory in 2 minutes: Confusing real and illusory events. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 105-111. doi: 10.3758/BF03210749 Your task: Write the introduction to your lab report. Start with a general opening statement that introduces the reader to the topic. Describe the background research to the current experiment. Also make sure that you include definitions of all key terms. State the link between the past research and the current research; how does the current experiment build on the past findings? Include the aim and hypotheses of the current experiment, and make sure that they logically follow on from the information described in the introduction. Please see the marking rubric for more information about what you should include in your introduction. Your introduction should be well-structured and all formatting should APA style (see http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/studying/study-support/referencing/apa-6?_ga=2.249958918.1818398259.1517781311-224664185.1395099286 for more information). Note that students should NOT use secondary citations. Instead, please pretend that you have read the original sources (you don’t actually need to read them), and cite them as primary sources. Please spell-check your work before submitting. Please note that writing your Lab Report introduction will be covered in more detail in the Week 1 and Week 2 Seminars. Good luck! HPS203/773 AT1 Lab Report Introduction marking rubric T1 2018 INTRODUCTION: Explaining the importance of the study and how it addresses a problem or gap in the literature Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory Needs work a. Identifies the general relevance of the area of study [1 marks] • Provides appropriate reason to study false memories 1 mark Very clear and appropriate reason. 0.7 marks Clear and appropriate reason. 0.6 marks Mostly clear/ appropriate reason. 0.5 marks Somewhat clear/ appropriate reason. 0 marks Reason needs work b. Provides a purposeful and critical integrative overview of relevant existing knowledge on the topic (including definitions). • Describes procedure used to create DRM false memories [2 marks] 2 marks Excellent description 1.4 marks Very good description 1.2 marks Good description 1 mark Satisfactory description 0 marks Description needs work • Uses the Activation Monitoring account to describe why DRM false memories occur [2 marks] 2 marks Excellent description 1.4 marks Very good description 1.2 marks Good description 1 mark Satisfactory description 0 marks Description needs work • Describes background research: Oliver, Bays, and Zubrucky (2016) – aim, past research, method, results, reason for non-significant difference [5 marks] 5 marks Excellent description 3.5 marks Very good description 3 marks Good description 2.5 marks Satisfactory description 0 marks Description needs work • Provides two explanations for the effect of imagery on DRM false memories (impoverished relational- encoding hypothesis; distinctiveness heuristic hypothesis) [4 marks] 4 marks Excellent description 2.8 marks Very good description 2.4 marks Good description 2 marks Satisfactory description 0 marks Explanations needs work • Describes background research: Read (1996) – aim, method, results [3 marks] 3 marks Excellent description 2.1 marks Very good description 1.8 marks Good description 1.5 marks Satisfactory description 0 marks Description needs work c. Identifies the specific rationale and aims for this study within this topic and their contribution to addressing a problem • Identifies gap in the literature that current research will fill [2 marks] 2 marks Excellent description of gap 1.4 marks Very good description of gap 1.2 marks Good description of gap 1 mark Satisfactory description of gap 0 marks Description of gap needs work • Provides rationale for the current experiment [1 mark] 1 mark Excellent rationale 0.7 marks Very good rationale 0.6 marks Good rationale 0.5 marks Satisfactory rationale 0 marks Rationale needs work • Aim of current study – include IV and DV [1 mark] 1 mark Excellent aim 0.7 marks Very good aim 0.6 marks Good aim 0.5 marks Satisfactory aim 0 marks Aim needs work • Brief description of the three conditions in the current study [1 mark] 1 mark Excellent description 0.7 marks Very good description 0.6 marks Good description 0.5 marks Satisfactory description 0 marks Description needs work d. Provides hypothesis that follows from a reasoned argument stemming from reviewed literature. [2 marks] • Need to compare all three conditions 2 marks Very clear and testable hypothesis that follows from intro 1.4 marks Clear and testable hypothesis that follows from intro 1.2 marks Somewhat clear and testable hypothesis that follows from intro 1 mark Somewhat clear and/or testable hypothesis, but does not follow from intro 0 marks No hypothesis False memories and the DRM paradigm: effects of imagery, list, and test type THE JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY , VOL. , NO. , – http://dx.doi.org/./.. False memories and the DRM paradigm: effects of imagery, list, and test type Merrin Creath Olivera, Rebecca Brooke Baysb, and Karen M. Zabruckyc aGeorgia State University; bSkidmore College; cGeorgia State University ARTICLE HISTORY Received February Accepted October KEYWORDS DRM; false memories; false recall; false recognition; imagery; phonological word lists; semantic word lists ABSTRACT Several researchers have reported that instructing participants to imagine items using the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm lowers false memory rates (Foley, Wozniak, & Gillum, 2006). However, other researchers have found that imagery does not always lower false memory rates (Robin, 2010), and investi- gators have examined the effects of imagery manipulation on semantic but not phonological lists. In the present study, we presented 102 participants with semantic and phonological DRM lists, followed by a free recall test and final recognition test. Some participants received instructions to imagine list items dur- ing the study phase to facilitate memory, and others were sim- ply told to remember list items. Imagery instructions enhanced correct memories and further suggested a trend for decreased false memories. A test type by list type interaction also emerged, with phonological lists eliciting higher false memories at recall, and semantic lists eliciting higher false memories at recognition. Directions for future research are discussed. IMAGINING EVENTS, WHETHER AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL in nature (e.g., “get- ting lost as a child”; Garry, Manning, Loftus, & Sherman, 1996; Loftus & Pick- rell, 1995) or actions performed in a lab (e.g., “break the pencil”; Goff & Roedi- ger, 1998; Thomas & Loftus, 2002) may elicit false memories for those events, an effect termed imagination inflation. However, recent research involving the Deese- Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995), also referred to as the DRMRS paradigm (McKelvie, 2003), suggests that visual imagery may actually reduce false memories for words presented in lists (Foley, 2012; Foley, Cowan, Schlemmer, & Belser-Ehrlich, 2012; Foley, Wozniak, & Gillum, 2006; Olszewska & Ulatowska, 2013; Robin, 2010). Under traditional DRMprocedures, participants study a list of words (e.g., candy, sugar, chocolate, heart, taste, tooth, honey, cake, tart, pie) that are semantically asso- ciated to a non-presented item, known as a critical lure (sweet). During a memory test, participants often falsely remember the critical lure (sweet) as a studied list item, illustrating a false memory for the list. False memories for semantic lures are robust, CONTACT Rebecca Brooke Bays
[email protected] Department of Psychology, Skidmore College, North Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY , USA. © Taylor and Francis Group, LLC http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2015.1110558 mailto:
[email protected] 34 M. C. OLIVER ET AL. occurring on up to 80% of DRM list presentations (Gallo, 2010) and may occur as frequently as correct recognition of items presented on lists (Lampinen, Neuschatz, & Payne, 1999). Onemodel used by investigators to explainDRM findings is theActivationMoni- toring Framework. In this frameworkDRM falsememories are attributed to the dual processes of activation andmonitoring (Roediger, Balota, &Watson, 2001; Roediger, Watson, McDermott, & Gallo, 2001). Activation is the tendency for related items to be activated in working memory through the perception of close associates in a semantic network (Collins & Loftus, 1975). Since semantic networks are organized according to associative strength, spreading activation of semantically related DRM list items (candy, sugar) also renders the critical lure (sweet) as mentally “experi- enced” (Buchanan, Brown, Cabeza, & Maitson, 1999; McEvoy, Nelson, & Komatsu, 1999; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). When monitoring studied items during a memory test, the source of words experienced mentally (through spreading activa- tion) is mistaken for actual perception of the word during list presentation (Gallo, 2010). Recently, Foley and colleagues expanded traditional DRM procedures to investi- gate the mechanisms responsible for false memories resulting from visual imagery procedures (Foley, 2012; Foley,Wozniak, &Gillum, 2006; Foley, Cowan, Schlemmer, & Belser-Ehrlich, 2012). In these studies, some participants received instructions to describe the functions of semantically related items (i.e., describe something that might be done with candy) while other participants received additional