| Course | PS 350 Cognitive Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Applied cognition paper |
| Length | About 1,020 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 350 Unit 8
"For Prescriptions, Press Seven": Carrying Working Memory Limits and the Serial Position Effect Into the Design of a Composite Pharmacy's Phone Menu, One Link at a Time
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 350: Cognitive Psychology
Instructor Name
October 27, 2026
"For Prescriptions, Press Seven": Carrying Working Memory Limits and the Serial Position Effect Into the Design of a Composite Pharmacy's Phone Menu, One Link at a Time
The Mechanism and the Setting
This paper carries one mechanism, the limited capacity of working memory as it shows up in listening to a list, into one setting: the automated phone menu of a composite regional pharmacy. The menu greets callers with nine spoken options, "For store hours, press 1. For directions, press 2," and so on, reaching "For prescriptions, press 7" near the end. The pharmacy receives frequent complaints that callers choose the wrong option or hang up and call again. The paper sets out each link between the research and the design, so a reader can see where the chain is strong and where it depends on inference.
Link 1: Spoken Options Must Be Held in Working Memory
A phone menu presents options one at a time, in sound, and they disappear as soon as they are spoken. To choose, a caller must hold some of them in mind while listening to the rest. The multicomponent model of Baddeley and Hitch (1974) describes a phonological loop that holds speech-based information briefly, and Cowan (2001) argued from a wide range of evidence that the amount people can actively hold, when rehearsal and grouping are limited, is about four chunks. A caller listening to a menu cannot easily rehearse, because new options keep arriving. The research therefore predicts that a caller can hold only a few options at a time, far fewer than nine.
Link 2: Position in the List Affects What Is Remembered
Murdock (1962) presented lists of words at different lengths and rates and asked participants to recall them in any order. Recall followed a characteristic curve: items at the end of the list were recalled best, items at the beginning were recalled better than those in the middle, and items in the middle were recalled worst. The advantage for the final items, the recency effect, is usually attributed to their still being in an active state at the time of recall. Applied to the menu, this predicts that callers will best remember the last options heard and worst remember those in the middle. Option seven, prescriptions, sits in the weakest part of the list for a nine-item menu.
Link 3: What the Caller Is Trying to Hold
Most callers know what they want before the menu begins: a refill, a question for the pharmacist. What they need to hold is not all nine options but the number associated with their goal. The menu's wording, "For prescriptions, press 7," gives the description before the number, so the caller can wait for the relevant description and then hold a single number. Wording that gives the number first, "Press 7 for prescriptions," forces the caller to hold each number until its description arrives. The research on working memory limits predicts that the description-first wording places less load on the caller, which follows from how the mechanism works but has not been tested on this particular menu.
Link 4: From Mechanism to Design
Taken together, the links support three design changes. Reduce the number of options at each level to about four, grouping the rest under submenus, so that the list stays within the capacity the research suggests. Place the most frequently chosen option, prescriptions, first, where it benefits from the primacy advantage and where callers seeking it can stop listening early. And offer a "repeat these options" choice, which allows callers to re-encode options they lost. Each change follows from a specific link; none follows from a general instruction to make menus simpler.
How the Pharmacy Would Test the Changes
Because each design change is a prediction, the pharmacy can test them with information its phone system already records. For two months before the change and two months after, it could compare how often callers pressed an option and then immediately returned to the main menu, how often they asked for the options to be repeated, how often they hung up during the menu and how often the prescription line received calls that belonged elsewhere. If the working memory account is right, the shorter menu should reduce returns and hang-ups, and placing prescriptions first should reduce misdirected calls to other lines. If the numbers do not change, the account may be correct but the menu's problems may lie elsewhere, for example in callers not knowing which option describes their need.
Why This Setting Rather Than Study Practice or Testimony
Study practice and testimony are common settings for applied cognition, and both have rich research bases. A phone menu was chosen because the mechanism maps onto it unusually directly: spoken items arrive in sequence and must be held briefly, exactly the conditions of the list-learning research. That close fit makes each link easier to defend.
Where the Chain Is Weakest
The chain depends on laboratory findings obtained with word lists, presented to motivated participants under quiet conditions. Callers may be distracted, anxious or listening on a noisy line, which would likely reduce capacity further, but the research reviewed here does not measure that. The four-chunk estimate is a central tendency with individual variation, and older callers or callers listening in a second language may hold less. Placing prescriptions first relies on the primacy effect, which in Murdock's data was smaller than the recency effect, so placing it last would also be defensible; the choice of first rests on the additional benefit of letting callers stop listening early. Finally, the design changes are predictions. The pharmacy would need to compare wrong-option rates and repeat calls before and after the change to know whether they help.
Why One Mechanism Is Enough
A paper that invoked attention, decision making and memory together would assert more and show less. Following one mechanism through four links makes every inference visible, which is the point of applied cognition: to show exactly why the research bears on the setting, and exactly where it stops. A reader who disagrees with the design can then point to the specific link they doubt.
References
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 482-488. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045106
The Herzing PS 350 Unit 8 instructions
The final PS 350 unit asks students to take one evidenced mechanism into one setting, such as study practice, interface design or testimony, and to show every step of the chain from research to application. Expect to name the mechanism and its studies, describe the setting, write out each link with the prediction it makes, derive specific changes and state where the chain depends on inference. A handful of strong sources, typically three to five, will carry the argument. A process from your own job can be used if it is described without identifying the employer, though a composite often keeps the focus on the evidence. A plan for testing the changes is a strong addition.
Inside the PS 350 Unit 8 example
The mechanism and setting are introduced together, with the pharmacy's complaints. Four links follow under their own headings: spoken options must be held in working memory, list position affects memory, what the caller is actually trying to hold, and the step from mechanism to design. Each link names its studies and the prediction it makes. A section describes how the pharmacy could test the changes using call records. Another explains why this setting was chosen over study practice or testimony. A section sets out where the chain is weakest, and the close explains why one mechanism is enough. Each link ends with the prediction it makes for callers. The weak links are named in their own section rather than hidden in caveats.
Reading the PS 350 Unit 8 rubric
The rubric for the applied cognition paper typically rewards a clearly evidenced mechanism, a well-described setting, every link from research to application written out, specific design changes, a testing plan and an honest account of weak links. The mechanism earns credit when its studies are named. The setting scores when its features relevant to the mechanism are described. Written links carry the most weight here, because the whole unit is built around them. Design changes earn points when each follows from a specific link. Testing and weak links are credited when the writer treats changes as predictions rather than certainties. A plan for testing the changes with available records is frequently credited.
Common PS 350 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Applied papers lose points when they assert that research applies without showing how. Another frequent weakness is invoking several mechanisms loosely instead of following one in depth. Students often skip the conditions of the original studies, which may differ greatly from the setting. Some propose changes that do not follow from any specific finding. Others present predictions as results. Omitting a way to test the changes leaves the argument unfinished. Describing a real employer's system in identifiable detail raises confidentiality issues that a composite setting avoids. Treating a laboratory capacity estimate as exact for every caller ignores individual differences the research reports.
Get a PS 350 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Three things finish the term here: the Unit 8 instructions, your PS 350 rubric and the setting if the assignment names one. We write a custom example that opens on the mechanism and its conditions, writes the chain link by link and names the weakest step. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 350 papers and psychology samples
- PS 350 Unit 1: Cognitive methods paper
- PS 350 Unit 2: Attention paper
- PS 350 Unit 3: Working memory paper
- PS 350 Unit 4: Long-term memory and encoding paper
- PS 350 Unit 5: Memory distortion paper
- PS 350 Unit 6: Language or knowledge paper
- PS 350 Unit 7: Problem solving and decision paper
- PS 303 Unit 8: Applied social psychology paper
- PS 323 Unit 8: Applied or policy paper
- PS 360 Unit 8: Comprehensive case analysis
- PS 101 Unit 8: Final applied paper
PS 350 Unit 8 questions, answered
Study practice, design or testimony, which setting works best?
Whichever one your chosen mechanism reaches without stretching. Study practice suits encoding and retrieval findings, interface work suits attention and working memory, testimony suits the distortion literature. Your instructions may decide it. The test is not which setting sounds most impressive but which one the conditions of your studies actually cover.
How many sources does the final paper need?
The number comes from your instructions, and it is rarely large. What matters is whether each source holds up a link: four studies each supporting a specific step beat eight in a list while the chain runs on assertion. Cite where a step needs backing, and let the reference list follow the argument rather than decorate it.
Can I write the chain around a real process at my job?
Use the shape, not the workplace. Describe the activity by its type, keep the employer, the software and the people out, and drop anything held in a personnel file or a client record. A generic version of the same activity gives the chain exactly what it needs, and it keeps the paper from turning into a case about colleagues.
Where can I find a free PS 350 Unit 8 sample paper?
The finished PS 350 Unit 8 applied cognition paper is on this page in full, free, with four written links, the design changes, a testing plan and margin notes. Pairing another mechanism with another setting? Describe both, and an applied paper written link by link comes back free.
Study practice, design or testimony, which setting works best for PS 350 Unit 8?
The one where the mechanism maps most directly onto the task. The sample chose a phone menu because spoken options arriving in sequence match the conditions of list-learning research closely.