This paper circulates around the core theme of Laboratory Report 1,500 words Research Question: What would be the relationship between perspective memory and event based memory task? together with its essential aspects. It has been reviewed and purchased by the majority of students thus, this paper is rated 4.8 out of 5 points by the students. In addition to this, the price of this paper commences from £ 99. To get this paper written from the scratch, order this assignment now. 100% confidential, 100% plagiarism-free.
Laboratory Report 1,500 words Research Question: What would be the relationship between perspective memory and event based memory task? • Summary (300 words more or less) • Title • Introduction (600 words more or less) Introduction include: -Literature review -definition of terms (memory, perspective memory, etc…) -perspective memory model(s)/theory (multi process theory Mcdaniel and Einstein), -support finds -research question -justify question -and last hypothesis • Method and Results (provided already, copy and paste) • Conclusion: discursion (600 words more or less) -comment about task 2 -comment on ongoing task on task 1 and task 3 -comment on perspective memory task on task 1 and 3 -why people presented better results on task 1 than task 3? -Result statements linked to the previous hypothesis • APA Reference: ONLY journal articles and books Refer to the journal article: The demands of an ongoing activity influence the success of event-based prospective memory. Marsh RL 1, Hancock TW, Hicks JL. Link to the journal: 4 There is a good reference list on the end of the journal: Other possible authors: McDaniel Einstein Russel Hancock Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L.,& Watson Method Participants 78 undergraduate psychology students from ACAP (53 female) volunteered to participate in the research experiment (M = 30.39, SD = 9.44 years). All participants were anonymous and consent was implied via submission of the data response sheet. Materials An Einstein-McDaniel paradigm exercise (Marsh et al., 2002) was administered in tasks 1 and 3 of the experiment, whereby 60 words were presented to participants at a rate of one word every two seconds. Visual stimuli were presented either via a projector screen in the laboratory classroom, or computer monitor. A word memory distractor task was presented between tasks 1 and 3. Participants used paper-based reporting sheets to record their responses to each of the three tasks. For the third task, participants were required to record either the pleasantness of a particular word on a scale of 1 (very unpleasant) to 5 (very pleasant), or record the number of syllables. Data was analysed using SPSS v.21 (2012). A t-test was employed for analysis. Procedure Students were invited to participate in a prospective memory study comprising 3 tasks. In the first task 60 trials were presented as a continuing task with a single word offered on each trial. The 60 words were presented on-screen to participants. Each word was presented for two seconds. Participants were instructed to make the same single judgment on all trials and manually record a yes-no answer of whether the word represented something living or not on a response sheet. Four prospective cues were embedded in the continuing task at trials 8, 18, 37 and 55. Specifically, participants were instructed that whenever an animal word appeared on the projector screen they should write an asterisk (*) next to the yes or no response to signify they had remembered the intention. The second task required participants to commit to memory a series of emotive words and served as a distractor task within the broader experiment. Participants were given two minutes to remember as many words as possible. In the third task participants were instructed to make one of two judgments on 60 trials, which were presented at the same frequency as the first trial. Participants were requested to look at each word and manually record either the number of syllables or their perceived pleasantness of the word on a response sheet. Prior to the word being presented on-screen, participants received a prompt on the screen to direct the type of judgment to be made: “number of syllables?” or “pleasantness”. Four prospective cues were again embedded in the ongoing task at trials 12, 31, 45 and 58. Participants were again instructed that whenever an animal word appeared on the projector screen they should write an asterisk (*) next to their yes or no response to signify they had remembered the intention. Task performance was measured by missed responses indicated by a blank cell on the participant’s response sheet (i.e., 3 missed responses equated to 3 incorrect answers). Prospective memory was measured by the number of missed prospective memory responses documented on the participant’s response sheet (i.e., no asterisk next to one animal word equated to one missed PM response). Results All statistical procedures were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 21.0. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure that collected data did not violate assumptions and assumptions of normality. No significant outliers were present in the data set. Therefore, the entire data set was deemed to meet the assumptions of normality and an alpha level of .05 was adopted for all analyses. To determine the relationship between the number of judgments made and task performance, a series of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated on all experimental variables. Results revealed that there was a significant relationship between the number of judgments made and the number of ongoing task errors recorded, r = .48, p < .05. Similarly, results also revealed a significant relationship between the number of judgments made and the number of prospective memory errors recorded, r = .72, p < .05.