Paper 1 Overview

This paper covers three fundamental areas of psychology that affect your daily life. Memory explores how you store and retrieve information, perception examines how you interpret the world around you, and development looks at how thinking changes as children grow.

Each section includes key studies that have shaped our understanding of these psychological processes. You'll need to know the aims, methods, results, and conclusions of these studies for your exams.

Quick Tip: Focus on understanding the real-world applications of each study rather than just memorising facts.

Bartlett's War of the Ghosts Study

Ever notice how your memory of an event changes each time you tell it? Bartlett's classic study proves this actually happens. He wanted to investigate how memory reconstruction works when people recall something repeatedly.

Bartlett showed participants a Native American folk story, then asked them to recall it after 15 minutes. The results were fascinating - people shortened the story, changed unfamiliar phrases to match their own culture, and eventually their altered version became their "true" memory of the story.

This shows that memory isn't like a recording - it's more like a reconstruction that gets simpler and more personally relevant over time. However, the study had major weaknesses including casual methods and using an unusual story that doesn't reflect everyday memory.

Remember This: Your memories aren't exact copies - they're reconstructions influenced by your own experiences and culture.

Murdock's Serial Position Curve Study

Why do you remember the first and last items on a shopping list but forget the middle ones? Murdock's study explains this perfectly. He tested whether the position of words in a list affects how well people remember them.

Using 103 psychology students and word lists of varying lengths, Murdock discovered the serial position effect. Participants showed much higher recall for words at the beginning (primacy effect) and end (recency effect) of lists, with poor recall for middle items.

The controlled conditions make this study reliable, and research with people who have amnesia supports these findings. However, using random word lists doesn't fully represent how we use memory in real life.

Study Smart: When revising, pay extra attention to information in the middle of your notes - it's most likely to be forgotten!

Baddeley's Encoding Study

Think about how you remember a phone number versus the meaning of a poem - they feel different, don't they? Baddeley wanted to discover whether short-term and long-term memory use different types of encoding.

He tested four groups with different word lists, some recalling immediately and others after 20 minutes. The results showed participants struggled more with acoustically similar words (sounding alike) in short-term memory, but had trouble with semantically similar words (similar meanings) in long-term memory.

This proved that short-term memory encodes acoustically (by sound) whilst long-term memory encodes semantically (by meaning). The well-controlled experiment provides reliable results, though it may have overlooked visual encoding in short-term memory.

Key Insight: Your brain processes information differently depending on whether you're storing it briefly or long-term.

Memory Studies: Interference, Context, and False Memories

Three important concepts that affect how you remember things every day. McGeoch and McDonald studied interference - when learning new information disrupts old memories. They found that similar word lists interfere with each other more than different ones.

Godden and Baddeley explored context-dependent memory by having participants learn word lists underwater or on land, then recall them in the same or different locations. People remembered better when the learning and recall environments matched.

Loftus and Pickrell demonstrated false memories by implanting fake childhood memories in participants. A quarter of people developed detailed memories of events that never happened, showing how unreliable memory can be.

Real-World Application: Your study environment and what you learn before/after can significantly impact your memory performance.

Gilchrist and Nesberg's Study on Motivation

Your internal state massively influences what you perceive around you. This study investigated how food deprivation affects perception of food-related images, revealing the power of motivation in shaping what we see.

Twenty-six students went without food for 20 hours, then viewed slides of food alongside a control group who weren't hungry. The results were striking - hungry participants perceived food images as significantly brighter than they actually were, whilst the control group saw them normally.

This demonstrates that motivation affects perceptual set - your needs and desires literally change how you see the world. However, the study raises ethical concerns about depriving participants of food and may not reflect everyday perception.

Think About It: When you're really craving something, you're more likely to notice it everywhere - that's your perceptual set at work!

Bruner and Minturn's Study on Expectation

What you expect to see dramatically influences what you actually perceive. This clever study tested whether expectation plays a crucial role in perceptual set using a simple but effective method.

Participants were divided into two groups - one shown letters, the other shown numbers. Then both groups viewed an ambiguous figure that could be interpreted as either "B" or "13". Predictably, the letter group saw "B" whilst the number group saw "13".

This proves that expectation is a powerful influence on perception. Your brain uses context and prior experience to interpret ambiguous information. The study helps explain everyday perceptual errors, though using artificial ambiguous figures may not reflect normal perception.

Exam Tip: This study perfectly demonstrates top-down processing - when your brain uses expectations to interpret sensory information.

McGarrigle and Donaldson's 'Naughty Teddy' Study

Piaget might have got it wrong about children's thinking abilities. This study challenged his ideas about conservation - whether children understand that quantity remains the same despite changes in appearance.

Eighty Edinburgh children participated in a twist on Piaget's classic test. Instead of researchers deliberately rearranging counters, a "naughty teddy" accidentally messed up the rows. The results were remarkable - 68% gave correct answers when the change seemed accidental, compared to only 41% when it appeared deliberate.

This suggests children understand conservation better than Piaget thought, but struggle when they think adults are testing them deliberately. However, the children's better performance might simply be because they didn't notice the accidental changes.

Key Point: Children's abilities might be underestimated when they feel like they're being formally tested.

Hughes' 'Policeman Doll' Study

Another challenge to Piaget's theory, this time testing egocentrism - the idea that young children can't see things from another person's perspective. Hughes created a more child-friendly version of Piaget's three mountains task.

Thirty children aged 3½ to 5 were shown a model with walls and policemen dolls. They had to hide a boy doll where the policemen couldn't see it. An impressive 90% got it right, though younger children struggled with more complex versions.

This strongly challenges Piaget's timeline for overcoming egocentrism. The task made intuitive sense to children, unlike Piaget's abstract mountain task. However, researchers might have unconsciously provided hints to help children succeed.

Bottom Line: Children may be less egocentric than Piaget believed - the way we test them makes a huge difference to their performance.