Social Psychology

Key knowledge：Obedience（强制性服从）
Agent state（代理理论）

Study：Milgram‘s obedience （1963）

 Question ： Describe the procedure of Milgram’s (1963) telephonic

instructions (Experiment 7) study.

 Sample Answer：

 The experimenter gave the initial instructions to the participants while

face to face in the same room (1).
 The experimenter then left the room, leaving the participants alone to
administer the punishment to the learner (1).
 There was a shock machine in the room that went up to 450 volts for
participants to shock the learner (1), with further instructions about
administering the shocks being given by the experimenter over the
telephone (1).

Study：experiment 7

Sample Answer：

Milgram (1963) concluded that the physical presence of an authority figure was
important in whether a person showed obedience or defiance (1) as 31/40
participants in experiment 7 did not obey the instruction to give the maximum
shock of 450 volts (1).

Experiment 1:
Aim（目标—验证我的假设）
The primary aim was to explore the extent to which individuals would follow orders to administer
electric shocks to another person, under the authority of an experimenter.
Participants（被试）
Participants were adult males ranging from 20 to 50 years of age, from various educational
backgrounds and occupations. They were recruited through newspaper ads and direct mail.
Procedure （如何验证）
Upon arrival, participants were introduced to another participant (who was actually a confederate
of the experimenter) and were told the study was about the effects of punishment on learning.
They drew lots to determine their roles, but the draw was rigged so the real participant always
ended up as the "teacher."
Methods （验证方法）
The "teacher" was instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the "learner" each
time an incorrect answer was provided to a memory task. The shocks started at 15 volts and
increased to 450 volts. The "learner," in a separate room, did not actually receive shocks but pre-
recorded audio was played to simulate reactions to the shocks.
Data （数据收集）
Data were collected on the highest level of shock administered by each participant, along with
their reactions, objections, and behavior during the experiment.
Findings （实验发现）
A significant majority of the participants (65%) proceeded to the highest level of shock (450
volts), despite the apparent distress and unwillingness of the "learner." Participants
displayed various signs of stress and discomfort during the process.（1）
Conclusion （结论）
The findings indicated that people are surprisingly likely to follow orders from an authority figure,
even to the extent of causing harm to another person. This suggested a powerful influence of
authority on obedience and raised ethical and social questions about the nature of authority
and individual responsibility.（1）

Experiments 2: Female Participants

Aim
The aim of this experiment was to investigate whether the levels of obedience observed in the
original Milgram experiment with male participants would be replicated with female participants,
thereby assessing the impact of gender on obedience to authority.
Participants
The participants were adult females, similar in age range and diversity to the male participants of
the original study. They were also recruited through advertisements and direct mail invitations.
Procedure
The procedure for Experiment 2 closely mirrored that of Experiment 1. Female participants were
introduced to a setup where they believed they were assisting in a learning experiment. Each
participant was assigned the role of the "teacher," while a confederate acted as the "learner." The
teachers were instructed to administer electric shocks of increasing intensity for every incorrect
response given by the learner.
Methods
As in the original experiment, the shock generator was marked with switches ranging from 15 to
450 volts. The female teachers were instructed to increase the shock level with each incorrect
answer. No actual shocks were given to the learners, but pre-recorded audio responses were used
to simulate the learner's reactions to the shocks.
Data
The primary data collected included the maximum level of shock administered by each participant
and their observable reactions during the experiment, such as signs of stress, hesitation, and verbal
objections.
Findings
The findings from Experiment 2 showed that the level of obedience among female participants
was comparable to that of the male participants from Experiment 1. A significant majority of the
women were willing to administer the highest level of shock to the learners, indicating that gender
did not have a significant impact on the likelihood of obedience to authority in this experimental
context.
Conclusion
This experiment concluded that the propensity to obey authoritative commands, even at the
expense of harming another individual, is not significantly influenced by the gender of the
participant. This challenged any gender-based stereotypes about obedience and suggested a more
universal psychological predisposition towards compliance with authority figures, highlighting the
profound effect of situational variables over individual characteristics like gender.

Experiment 3: Participant-Selected Shock Levels

Aim
This experiment sought to explore the impact of allowing participants to choose the level of shock
they administered to the learner. The primary aim was to understand how the freedom of choice
affects obedience and the severity of punishment administered under an authority figure's
instructions.
Participants
Participants were adult males, similar to those in the original study, recruited through newspaper
ads and direct mail, representing a variety of backgrounds and occupations.
Procedure
In this variation, participants were once again told they were participating in a study about
learning and memory. Each participant was assigned the role of "teacher," but with a crucial
difference: they were allowed to choose the intensity of the electric shock they administered for
each incorrect answer, rather than being instructed to increase the shock level progressively.
Methods
The experimental setup was similar to the original, with a shock generator labeled with voltages
ranging from 15 to 450 volts. However, participants were not obligated to increase shock levels in
a linear fashion after every incorrect response; instead, they could select any shock level they
deemed appropriate throughout the experiment.
Data
Data were collected on the shock levels chosen by participants, the frequency of each shock level's
selection, and observations on participants' behavior and expressions of conflict or stress during
the decision-making process.
Findings
The findings revealed a significant reduction in the average shock level administered by
participants when given the choice, compared to the predetermined escalation in previous
experiments. Many participants chose lower levels of shock more frequently and were less likely
to escalate to the highest levels of shock available.
Conclusion
Experiment 3 concluded that when individuals are given autonomy over their actions within an
authoritative framework, they are less likely to engage in harmful behavior towards others. This
suggests that the lack of personal agency and the pressure to conform to perceived authoritative
directives play a crucial role in obedience, leading individuals to act in ways they might not under
conditions where they feel more in control of their actions. This experiment highlights the
importance of personal choice and moral responsibility in situations involving obedience to
authority.

Experiment 4: Touch Proximity

Aim
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of physical closeness on obedience
levels. Specifically, it examined how participants' willingness to obey orders to administer electric
shocks would change when they had to physically place the learner's hand on the shock plate.
Participants
As in previous experiments, participants were adult males recruited through newspaper ads and
direct mail, representing a diverse range of backgrounds and occupations.
Procedure
In this variation of Milgram's experiment, the setup was altered so that when the learner (a
confederate pretending to be a volunteer) gave an incorrect answer, the participant (the "teacher")
had to physically place the learner's hand onto a shock plate to administer the shock. This required
direct physical contact between the teacher and the learner, unlike in previous experiments where
the teacher administered shocks through a switch panel remotely.
Methods
The shock generator remained the same as in previous studies, with labels indicating voltages
from 15 to 450 volts. The significant change was the requirement for physical interaction to
administer the shock, which heightened the reality of the learner's experience of pain for the
teacher.
Data
Data were gathered on the highest level of shock administered by participants, the number of
participants who refused to continue at various points, and observations of participants' behavior,
including any signs of distress or hesitation.
Findings
The experiment found that the requirement for physical closeness and direct action to administer
shocks significantly reduced the rate of obedience among participants. A larger proportion of
participants refused to deliver the higher levels of shock when they had to physically place the
learner's hand on the shock plate, compared to when they could remain physically detached from
the consequences of their actions.
Conclusion
This experiment concluded that physical proximity to the victim significantly impacts an
individual's willingness to obey harmful orders from an authority figure. The physical act of
causing pain to another person heightened the emotional and ethical dilemma, leading to increased
disobedience. This finding underscores the influence of physical and psychological distance on
moral decision-making and obedience, suggesting that direct involvement in the consequences of
one's actions can provoke stronger moral considerations and resistance to unethical orders.
Experiment 5: Change of Location
Aim
The aim of this experiment was to examine the impact of the physical environment's authority
level on participants' obedience. Specifically, it sought to determine how conducting the
experiment in a less authoritative and prestigious setting compared to the original Yale University
setting would affect participants' compliance with orders to administer electric shocks.
Participants
Participants were adult males, similar to those in previous experiments, recruited through
newspaper advertisements and direct mail, coming from a variety of backgrounds.
Procedure
The procedure mirrored that of the original experiment, with participants assigned the role of
"teacher" and instructed to administer electric shocks to a "learner" (a confederate) for incorrect
answers. The key difference was the location of the experiment, which was moved from the
authoritative environment of a Yale University psychology laboratory to a nondescript office
building lacking the prestige and authority associated with the university.
Methods
The methodology remained consistent with previous experiments, using a shock generator marked
with voltages from 15 to 450 volts. The shift in experiment location served to test the influence of
environmental changes on obedience behavior.
Data
Data collection included the highest level of shock administered, the number of participants who
refused to continue, and observations on participants' behavior and emotional reactions during the
experiment.
Findings
The findings demonstrated a decrease in obedience levels when the experiment was conducted in a
setting with lower perceived authority. This indicated that the physical environment and its
associated level of authority significantly influence participants' willingness to follow orders,
especially those that could harm another person.
Conclusion
The experiment concluded that the authority conveyed by the physical environment plays a crucial
role in determining individuals' obedience to authority figures. In environments perceived as less
authoritative, individuals showed greater resistance to following orders that could result in harm to
others, underscoring the significant role environmental factors play in social influence and
obedience behaviors.
Experiment 6: Authority Present in the Same Room
Aim
The objective of this experiment was to examine the effect of an authority figure's immediate
physical presence on obedience levels. It specifically investigated whether participants would
exhibit higher levels of obedience and be more willing to administer electric shocks to a learner
when the authority figure (the experimenter) was physically present in the same room.
Participants
The participants were adult males, drawn from a broad range of backgrounds, similar to the
demographics of earlier experiments. They were recruited through advertisements and direct mail,
following the same procedure as previous studies.
Procedure
In this variation, the experimental setup was adjusted so that the experimenter remained in the
same room with the participant (teacher) and the learner (a confederate) throughout the
experiment. The participant was instructed to administer electric shocks of increasing intensity to
the learner for each incorrect response, with the experimenter providing commands and
encouragement to continue from within the same physical space.
Methods
The methodological approach maintained the use of the shock generator marked with voltages
from 15 to 450 volts. The key methodological change was the location of the experimenter, who,
instead of being in a separate room or communicating through a telephone, was physically present,
observing, and directing the participant throughout the procedure.
Data
Data collection focused on the highest level of shock administered by participants, the frequency
of participants refusing to continue, and qualitative observations regarding the participants'
behavior, hesitations, and interactions with the experimenter.
Findings
The results showed an increase in obedience rates with the authority figure present in the same
room. This setup led to a higher likelihood of participants administering the maximum level of
shocks compared to experiments where the experimenter was less directly involved or physically
absent. This demonstrated the significant impact of an authority figure's direct physical presence
on individuals' willingness to obey commands, even when those commands involve inflicting
harm on another person.
Conclusion
The experiment concluded that the physical presence of an authority figure significantly enhances
obedience. This experiment underscores the psychological impact of authority figures being
physically close and directly involved in the command process, suggesting that direct supervision
by an authority increases the pressure to comply with orders, even when such orders contradict
personal moral beliefs. This finding highlights the powerful role of situational factors, such as the
immediate environment and the presence of authority, in shaping human behavior.
Experiment 7: Remote Instructions
Aim
The aim of this experiment was to investigate how obedience to authority would be affected when
instructions were given remotely, without the experimenter being physically present in the same
room. It sought to determine the extent to which an authority figure's physical absence might
reduce participants' willingness to administer electric shocks to a learner.
Participants
Participants were adult males, recruited through the same methods as in previous experiments,
representing a broad cross-section of society in terms of age, occupation, and educational
background.
Procedure
In this variation of Milgram's obedience experiments, the experimenter gave instructions to the
participant over the phone instead of being present in the lab. Participants were briefed in person
about the task — to administer electric shocks to a learner for incorrect answers — but once the
experiment started, the experimenter left the room and communicated only by telephone.
Methods
The experimental setup, including the shock generator with voltages labeled from 15 to 450 volts,
remained consistent with prior experiments. The critical change was the mode of communication:
the experimenter's instructions and prompts were delivered over the phone, testing the impact of
removing the authority figure's immediate physical presence.
Data
Data gathered included the maximum shock level administered by each participant, the number of
participants who refused to continue at each shock level, and observations of participants' behavior
and expressions of reluctance or stress during the experiment.
Findings
The findings from Experiment 4 indicated a decrease in obedience levels compared to when the
experimenter was physically present. This reduction in compliance suggested that the physical
presence of an authority figure plays a significant role in eliciting obedience from individuals,
even when the authority's commands involve harming another person.
Conclusion
The experiment concluded that the physical presence of an authority figure significantly
influences individuals' obedience levels. When authority was exercised remotely, participants were
less likely to follow orders to administer the highest levels of shock, demonstrating the importance
of physical presence in the dynamics of authority and obedience. This experiment highlights how
the immediacy and visibility of authority figures can augment the psychological pressure to obey,
even in morally challenging situations.
Key Knowledge：Conformity （顺从）；
Minority influence：少数人影响

Yes：
One reason is that minority influence may result in individuals internalising new ideas creating a
change in beliefs leading to conformity (1).
Smith et al. (1993) found that when issues put forward by a minority are discussed then minority
influence on conformity towards minority ideas may be stronger (1).

No：
One reason is that when a minority group is inflexible and rigid in their ideas and beliefs, others
are less likely to internalise these, and conformity diminishes (1). Nemeth et al. (1974) found
inflexible, repetitive minority groups had a reduced influence in comparison to minority influence
when they demonstrated flexibility in their responses (1).
Key knowledge：conformity；
Study：Ash’s conformity study

Aim
Asch's (1951) study aimed to test whether social pressure from a majority group could influence a
person to conform.
Participants
Participants were individuals who took part in a controlled laboratory experiment. While the
specifics of their demographics are not provided in the text, typically, Asch's experiments involved
male college students.
Procedure
Participants were placed in a group setting with confederates (individuals who were in on the
experiment's aim). Each person in the group was asked to state which line (out of three) matched
the length of another line on a card shown to the group. Confederates were instructed to give
incorrect answers deliberately.
Methods
The method was a controlled laboratory experiment, which means that the conditions were
carefully managed and consistent for all participants. This controlled setting aimed to increase
internal validity by ensuring that the observed effects on conformity were due to social pressure
and not other factors.
Data
The data collected consisted of the number of incorrect responses given by the participants, who
were unaware of the confederates' role.
Findings
The findings were likely that there was a significant number of incorrect responses given due to
conformity with the majority group, demonstrating the impact of social pressure on individual
decision-making.
Conclusion
The conclusion drawn from Asch's study was that individuals could be swayed by group pressure
to conform, even when the group consensus was clearly wrong. This highlights the powerful role
of the majority influence and suggests that the desire for conformity can be stronger than the
desire to make accurate judgments. The controlled nature of the experiment also suggested high
internal validity, indicating that the findings were genuinely due to the influence of the majority
group, not extraneous variables.
Discussion：
Strength：
Controlled Conditions - The experiments by Asch were carried out under controlled laboratory
conditions. This means that the environment and the procedures were standardized and carefully
regulated to ensure that the behavior of the participants could be observed and measured without
the influence of external factors.

Replication for Reliability - Asch’s study can be replicated to check for reliability in findings
about social pressure to conform when in a majority group. Reliability in this context refers to
the consistency of the study's results over time. If the study is replicated and similar results are
obtained, it suggests that the findings are reliable.

Internal Validity - The controlled laboratory experiment design aimed to increase the internal
validity of the research. Internal validity is concerned with the extent to which the study
accurately establishes a causal relationship between the independent variable (the social pressure
from the majority group) and the dependent variable (whether the participant conforms).

Influence on Conformity - The study was designed to test whether social pressure from a majority
group could influence a person to conform. Asch was interested in understanding if and how
individuals would change their answers or judgments to align with a group, even when the group's
answers were clearly incorrect.
Extraneous Variables - The controlled setting of the experiment was intended to ensure that the
number of incorrect responses given by participants was affected only by the majority group's
influence and not by extraneous variables. Extraneous variables are any variables other than the
independent variable that might affect the dependent variable, thus potentially confounding the
results.

The Asch conformity experiments are classic studies in social psychology that demonstrate the
power of conformity in groups, where individuals often tend to go along with the majority, even
when they have reasons to believe the majority is wrong. The findings have been influential in
understanding social behaviors and the psychological mechanisms that drive conformity and
decision-making in group settings.

Weakness and improvement：

Sample Representativeness
 Weakness: Asch's original sample consisted exclusively of 50 male college students. This
narrow demographic limits the generalizability of the findings.
 Implication: By using a more diverse and representative sample, including female
participants and a broader age range, the results would be more applicable to the general
population. Including a wider demographic would strengthen the argument that the
observed conformity behavior is not specific to male college students but rather a general
human phenomenon.
Task Realism
 Weakness: The task used in Asch's experiments—judging the length of lines—was
artificial and did not reflect everyday decision-making processes.
 Implication: A more realistic task could have been employed to measure conformity. For
instance, using photographs of real-life situations or objects might have increased the
ecological validity of the findings. Ecological validity refers to the extent to which the
results of a study can be generalized to real-world settings. If the task better mirrored real-
life decisions, the study's conclusions about conformity could be considered more
applicable to everyday situations.
General Critique
Sample Representativeness
 Aim for Improvement: To enhance the study's external validity, future research could
employ a stratified sampling technique to include participants from different genders,
ages, and cultural backgrounds.
Task Realism
 Aim for Improvement: The methodological design could be updated to include scenarios
or tasks that participants might encounter in their daily lives. This would potentially
provide a more accurate measure of conformity in natural settings.
Data and Findings
 Consideration of Bias: A limitation in the data collection process is the potential influence
of demand characteristics. Participants may have conformed due to the experimental
 setting, which may not reflect their behavior in a non-laboratory context.
Conclusion
 Broader Implications: While Asch’s findings provide valuable insight into conformity, the
ecological validity of the experiments is questioned. Thus, caution should be exercised
when applying these findings to understand conformity in real-world scenarios.
In summary, while Asch’s study was groundbreaking for its time and provided foundational
insights into social psychology, these critiques highlight the importance of considering how the
design and sample of a study can affect the robustness and applicability of its conclusions.
Kwame has been asked by his manager to work extra hours over the weekend.
The manager said the work was very important for the business and needed
completing urgently.
Kwame did not want to work the extra hours as he had planned to visit his friend, but
instead he agreed to come in to work and do the extra hours at the weekend.
When Kwame arrived to work at the weekend, his manager was also there. The
manager showed Kwame the tasks he needed him to do. The tasks were not Kwame’s
usual tasks, but he completed them in the way his manager had shown him.

Discuss how social power theory could explain Kwame’s behaviour.

You must make reference to the context in your answer.

Kwame 被他的经理要求周末加班。
经理说这项工作对公司业务非常重要，急需完成。
Kwame 本来打算去看望他的朋友，但他不想加班
相反，他同意来上班，并在周末加班。

当 Kwame 周末来上班时，他的经理也在那里。经理向 Kwame 说明了他需要他完成的任

务。但是这些任务不是 Kwame 能掌握的日常工作，但他按照经理的知道完成了这个任务。

讨论社会权力理论如何解释 Kwame 的行为。

你必须在回答时引用一定的材料说明。

Sample answer：
Social power theory as outlined by French and Raven can be applied to explain Kwame's behavior
in the workplace, particularly his decision to work extra hours despite his personal reluctance.
Reward Power
Kwame's behavior could be influenced by the anticipation of reward power held by the manager.
If Kwame believes that by working additional hours he may receive some form of incentive, such
as extra pay, or put himself in a favorable position for a future promotion, he might be more
inclined to agree to the manager's request. The prospect of tangible benefits can be a strong
motivator, and in this case, Kwame's compliance is likely tied to the perceived benefits that the
manager can provide.
Expert Power
The manager's demonstration of tasks to Kwame could have established a perception of expert
power. Kwame may view the manager as having superior knowledge or skills, which influences
Kwame to comply with the manager's request and perform the tasks in the manner shown to him.
By acknowledging the manager's expertise, Kwame is likely to trust the manager's judgment and
believe that following the manager's guidance will result in the most effective way of completing
the tasks.
Coercive Power
Finally, coercive power may also play a role in Kwame's behavior. The fear of negative
consequences, such as the possibility of being dismissed from his job, could pressure Kwame into
conforming to the manager's wishes. The perception that non-compliance could lead to punitive
measures means that the threat of punishment can be a powerful influence, even if it is not
explicitly stated.
Contextual Application of Social Power Theory
In the provided scenario, the interplay of reward, expert, and coercive power can explain Kwame's
behavior. While he may not intrinsically desire to work extra hours, the combination of potential
rewards, recognition of the manager's expertise, and fear of negative repercussions create a
compelling force that drives him to conform to the manager's request.
Conclusion
Social power theory elucidates Kwame's compliance as a response to the various forms of power
wielded by the manager. His behavior reflects a common workplace dynamic where employees
weigh the potential rewards against the risks associated with defying managerial authority. By
understanding the nuances of power in social relationships, we can better appreciate the complex
factors that shape individual behavior in organizational settings.

3.26 课程记录—past paper（Cognitive Psychology—paper 1）

Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968：
The aim of Atkinson and Shiffrin's model was to explain how memory processes information
through a series of stages. They sought to provide a clear framework that distinguishes between
different types of memory (sensory, short-term, and long-term) and explains how information is
transferred between these stores.
Procedure and Experiment Design
Instead of a single procedure or experimental design, their model synthesizes findings from
various studies to suggest that memory operates in a sequential process:
1. Sensory Memory: Information enters through sensory memory, where it is held in an
unprocessed form for a very brief period.
2. Short-Term Memory (STM): Attention to sensory memory transfers information to
STM, where it can be held for approximately 15-30 seconds unless actively rehearsed.
3. Long-Term Memory (LTM): Through processes like rehearsal, information from STM
can be encoded into LTM, where it can potentially be stored indefinitely.
Participants
The model is based on generalized observations from numerous studies involving diverse groups
of participants, rather than a specific participant group.
Data
Atkinson and Shiffrin's model was supported by various lines of research evidence rather than a
single set of data. This includes studies on the serial position effect, the duration and capacity of
short-term and sensory memory, and the role of rehearsal in memory retention.
Conclusion
The multi-store model concluded that memory is not a unitary process but rather consists of
multiple stores, each with distinct characteristics and functions. The model emphasizes the
importance of rehearsal in transferring information from short-term to long-term memory and has
been influential in guiding subsequent research in cognitive psychology and memory.

Peterson and Peterson（1959）

Aim
The primary aim was to explore the duration of short-term memory storage without the
opportunity for rehearsal, thereby understanding more about the characteristics and limitations of
STM.
Procedure
Participants were presented with trigrams (sets of three consonants, e.g., "TGH") and asked to
remember them. To prevent rehearsal (the mental repetition of information), participants were
instructed to count backwards in threes or fours from a specified number immediately after being
shown a trigram. This counting task was designed to occupy their verbal rehearsal facilities, thus
preventing them from rehearsing the trigrams.
Participants
The study involved a number of participants (the specific number is not often highlighted in
summaries of the experiment). These participants were typically college students, a common
demographic for psychological studies at the time due to their availability and reliability.
Experiment Design
The experiment used a controlled laboratory design. The key variable manipulated was the
retention interval, which ranged from 3 to 18 seconds. This interval was the time between the
presentation of the trigram and the signal for participants to recall it. The dependent variable was
the accuracy of recall for the trigrams.
Data
The findings showed that participants' ability to recall trigrams dramatically declined as the
retention interval increased. Specifically, after 3 seconds, participants could recall about 80% of
the trigrams accurately. However, after 18 seconds, recall accuracy dropped to less than 10%.
Conclusion
Peterson and Peterson concluded that without the ability to rehearse information, short-term
memory has a very limited duration, with most information being lost after approximately 18
seconds. This experiment supported the idea that active rehearsal is crucial for retaining
information in STM and for the potential transfer of this information to long-term memory.

Sample answer：
The experiment conducted by Peterson and Peterson in 1959 is related to and supports the multi-
store model of memory proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968. Peterson and Peterson's study,
which involved participants trying to remember trigrams (three-letter combinations) for short
periods without the opportunity to rehearse, found that the ability to recall these trigrams
drastically declined after just a few seconds unless participants actively rehearsed them. Their
findings illustrate the importance of rehearsal for retaining information in short-term memory
(STM) and suggest that without rehearsal, information is quickly lost from STM.
This experiment supports the multi-store model of memory's assertion that rehearsal is a crucial
process for transferring information from short-term to long-term memory (LTM). According to
Atkinson and Shiffrin, memory is composed of several stores, and the model specifically
highlights the role of rehearsal in moving information from the STM to the LTM store. Thus, the
Peterson and Peterson study provides empirical evidence for one of the key components of the
multi-store model, demonstrating the transient nature of STM and the necessity of rehearsal for
the stabilization and storage of memories in LTM.
Working Memory：
Working memory refers to the system involved in the temporary storage and manipulation of
information necessary for complex cognitive tasks such as learning, reasoning, and
comprehension. It's a core concept in cognitive psychology, introduced as an extension and
refinement of the earlier concept of short-term memory. Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch
proposed the multi-component model of working memory in 1974, which has since evolved to
better explain how we process and retain information over short periods.
Components of Working Memory
The original model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch includes three main components:
1. The Central Executive: Acts as a control system that directs attention and coordinates
the activities of the other two components. It is responsible for task management,
decision-making, and problem-solving processes, allocating limited cognitive resources
where needed.
2. The Phonological Loop: Deals with verbal and auditory information. It consists of two
sub-components:
 Phonological Store: Temporarily holds verbal and auditory data in a speech-
based form.
 Articulatory Rehearsal Process: Actively rehearses and refreshes the
information in the phonological store, extending its duration in memory.
3. The Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad: Handles visual and spatial information, allowing for the
manipulation and temporary storage of images and spatial relationships between objects.
Later, a fourth component was added:
4. The Episodic Buffer: Introduced in 2000 by Baddeley, this component integrates
information from the phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, and long-term memory
into coherent, episodic memories. It serves as a storage system that can hold information
in a multi-dimensional code (including temporal sequences and narratives) and
communicates with both long-term memory and the components of working memory.
Functions and Importance
Working memory is crucial for various cognitive activities:
 Learning: It allows for the temporary storage of information while it is being processed,
which is essential for language learning, reading, and comprehension.
 Reasoning and Decision Making: It enables the manipulation of stored information to
make decisions, solve problems, and reason about complex issues.
 Attention Control: The central executive plays a key role in focusing attention, resisting
distractions, and switching between tasks.
Capacity and Duration
Working memory has a limited capacity, famously encapsulated in Miller's (1956) concept of "The
Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two," suggesting that people can hold about 7 (plus or
minus 2) items in their working memory. However, this capacity can vary based on the nature of
the information and the individual. The duration of information in working memory without
rehearsal is believed to be about 20-30 seconds.
In summary, working memory is a foundational concept in understanding human cognition,
highlighting how we temporarily store and manipulate information across various domains.

In the scenario with Jaya, the waitress who struggled to remember a customer's verbal food order
due to simultaneous auditory input from the customer and her manager, the working memory
model provides a useful framework for understanding her experience. Let's examine one strength
and one weakness of applying the working memory model to this case, following the outlined
criteria for marking.
Strength
Identification (AO2): A strength of applying the working memory model to Jaya's situation is its
explanation of the limited capacity for processing and storing auditory information, particularly
through the phonological loop component.
Justification/Exemplification (AO3): The evidence supporting this strength comes from research
by Baddeley et al. (1975), which found that participants could remember short, one-syllable words
more effectively than longer, five-syllable words. This finding suggests that the phonological loop
has a limited capacity, primarily based on the time it takes to rehearse the information rather than
the number of items. In Jaya's context, the simultaneous auditory information from both the
customer's order and the manager's conversation could easily exceed the phonological loop's
capacity. This overflow could explain why Jaya struggled to retain the complete food order, as the
phonological loop could not efficiently process and store all the auditory information she received.
Weakness
Identification (AO2): A weakness of the working memory model in this scenario is its limited
emphasis on the interaction between short-term memory processes and long-term memory (LTM).
Justification/Exemplification (AO3): The working memory model primarily focuses on the
temporary storage and manipulation of information and does not thoroughly account for the
retrieval of information from LTM. In Jaya's case, the restaurant menu items, which she is
presumably familiar with, would be stored in her LTM. This familiarity should, theoretically,
make it easier for her to process and remember the food order with minimal short-term memory
processing. However, Jaya's difficulty in remembering some of the food order suggests that there
are additional complexities in how information is retrieved from LTM and processed in working
memory that the model does not fully explain. Thus, while the working memory model provides
valuable insights into the limitations of auditory information processing, it may not offer a
complete explanation for scenarios where LTM plays a significant role in remembering familiar
information.
In summary, while the working memory model effectively explains the challenges faced by Jaya
due to its limited capacity for processing simultaneous auditory information, it falls short in
explaining the nuances of how long-term memory interacts with working memory in situations
involving familiar information.

8 分题答题框架：

Evaluating the use of experimental methods in the investigation of human memory involves
understanding the distinct advantages and challenges associated with laboratory and field
experiments, as well as the impact of different experimental designs on research outcomes. Here’s
an integrated overview based on the provided points:
AO1: Understanding Experimental Methods
Laboratory Experiments:
 Conducted in a highly controlled, often artificial setting, allowing researchers to
manipulate the independent variable (IV) and observe its effect on the dependent variable
(DV) while controlling extraneous variables. This control enhances the experiment's
internal validity, making it more likely that changes in the DV can be attributed directly to
the manipulation of the IV.
Field Experiments:
 Carried out in naturalistic settings familiar to participants, field experiments offer a
balance between experimental control and ecological validity. Although some control
over extraneous variables is sacrificed, the behavior observed can be more representative
of real-world phenomena.
Experimental Designs:
 Research in human memory often employs different experimental designs, including
independent measures and repeated measures. These designs help address specific
research questions while also considering factors like participant variability and potential
learning effects.
AO3: Critical Evaluation
Ecological Validity vs. Control:
 Bartlett (1932) offers a prime example of balancing experimental control with ecological
validity. By controlling the learning phase but allowing recall to occur in various natural
settings over time, Bartlett’s method provides insights into memory that might be closer
to real-world memory processes than those obtained in more controlled, artificial
environments.
 However, the unique conditions of field experiments can sometimes hinder their
replicability. The inability to control all environmental variables means that repeating the
experiment with the same degree of precision can be challenging, potentially affecting the
reliability of findings.
Artificial Settings and Memory Testing:
 The controlled conditions of laboratory experiments, as seen in Baddeley (1966b), can be
particularly advantageous for isolating the effects of specific variables on memory
processes. For example, eliminating background noise can help assess the capacity of
short-term memory without external interference, providing clear evidence of memory
mechanisms.
Design Choices and Memory Research:
  Different experimental designs cater to specific research needs. Independent measures
designs can mitigate issues like practice effects, which are common in repeated measures
designs, thus preserving the validity of memory recall measures. However, choosing the
appropriate design depends on the specific research question, the nature of the task, and
practical considerations such as participant availability.
In conclusion, experimental methods in memory research offer a range of tools for investigating
the complex mechanisms of human memory. The choice between laboratory and field settings, as
well as the selection of an experimental design, hinges on a balance between control and
ecological validity, the specific memory processes under investigation, and the overarching
research objectives.