Memory flashcards - full topic (copy)

STM capacity

5-9 items

STM coding

acoustic

STM duration

18 secs

LTM capacity

unlimited

LTM coding

semantic

LTM duration

up to a lifetime

Alan Baddeley (1966) study

a study that supports the idea that information is coded differently in different memory stores - STM and LTM

method: 4 groups shown acoustically and semantically (dis)similar words and asked to recall in the same order

results: when recalling immediately (STM) people did worse on acoustically similar and when recalling after 20mins they did worse on semantically similar words

Evaluating Baddeley (1966)

strength: identified 2 memory stores coding differently

strength: supports MSM

limitation: participant variables not accounted for

limitation: artificial stimuli

Joseph Jacobs (1987)

a study to measure digit span (and STM capacity)

method: starting at 3 digits read to participant and recalled in same order, the nom of digits increases until participant gets order wrong

results: mean digit span = 9.3 and mean letter span = 7.3

evaluating Jacobs (1987)

strength: replicated confirming validity

George Miller (1956)

research on STM capacity and chunking

results: observed things in 7s so thought capacity was 7 ±2 and thought we can chunk around 5 things together

evaluating Miller (1956)

limitation: overestimated STM capacity as 2001 study by Cohen though capacity was 4 ± 1

Peterson and Peterson (1959)

investigate the duration of STM

method: given a 3 digit number and consonant syllable and counted backwards then asked to recall the syllable in 3 sec pauses

results:

3 sec recall = 80%

18 sec recall = 3%

duration of STM is 18secs

evaluating Peterson and Peterson (1959)

limitation: artificial meaning

Harry Bahrick (1975)

investigate the duration of LTM

method: studied under 400 American between 17-74, asking them about yearbook people (through photo recognition and free recall)

results:

within 15 years of graduation - photo rec = 90% free recall = 60%

within 48 years of graduation - photo rec = 70% free recall = 30%

LTM can last up to a lifetime for some material

evaluating Bahrick (1975)

strength: high external validity (meaningful memories)

limitation: cultural bias (all American participants)

MSM: sensory register to STM

Attention

MSM: STM to LTM

prolonged rehearsal

MSM: LTM to STM

retrieval

MSM: LTM to STM

maintenance rehearsal

MSM: STM → out of memory

recall/retrieval

Sensory register coding

iconic: visual

echoic: acoustic

sensory register capacity

very high

sensory register duration

very brief - less than 0.5 secs

who proposed the MSM

Richard Atkinson and Richard Shiffin (1968-1971)

evaluating MSM

strength: research support shows STM and LTM coding is different (Baddeley 1966)

C/A: lack external validity as it uses artificial stimuli

limitation: More than one STM store/componant - Tim Shallice and Elizabeth Warrington (1970) studied KF who had bad acoustic recall but great visual recall of digits given to him = STM has more than one component

limitation: elaborative rehearsal = better quality than quantity of rehearsal can also transfer information into the LTM meaning there is more than one way (Fergus Craik and Michael Watkins 1973)

limitation: too oversimplified as it fails to show different parts of LTM - episodic, semantic, procedural

Case of HM

brain surgery to solve his epilepsy and had his hippocampus removed (central memory function)

he couldn’t form long term memories but very good STM span (so supports the MSM)

what are the types of LTM

episodic, semantic and procedural

episodic memory

our ability to recall specific memories throughout our life

time stamped (certain point in time that the memory was made)

a conscious effort must be made to retrieve the memory

semantic memory

our shared knowledge about the world

not time stamped (not a certain point when the memory was made)

Tulving says its less vulnerable to distortion and forgetting

procedural memory

memory for skills or actions

not time stamped (not a certain point when the memory was made)

no need to consciously think about how to do a skill/action

evaluating the types of LTM

strength: clinical evidence - HM and Clive Wearing left them unable to remember episodic memories, but recall semantic and procedural ones

C/A: lack of control of extraneous variables - researcher had no way of previously knowing the person’s memory failures

limitation: conflicting research finding linking LTM to parts of the brain (Buckner and Peterson 1996) but their research has been challenged before (eg. Tulving 1994)

strength: real world application - understanding types of LTM means psychologists can help people with memory problems (eg. older people can remember past episodic memories, but not recent ones)

limitation: separation of episodic and semantic memories - Tulving considered episodic memory being a category of semantic memory as research showed people with amnesia have good semantic but bad episodic memory (but a study showed people with Alzheimer’s could form new episodic memories but not remember old ones)

who introduced the idea of different types of LTM

Endel Tulving (1985)

Randy Buckner and Steven Peterson (1996)

created evidence against types of LTM

results: semantic memory is located on the left side of the prefrontal cortex and episodic memory is on the right side

what components does the WMM contain

central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer

phonological loop components

phonological store: stores the words you hear

articulatory process: allows maintenance rehearsal

visuospatial sketchpad components

visual cache: stores visual data

inner scribe: arrangement of objects in the visual field

phonological loop coding

acoustic

visuospatial sketchpad coding

visual

phonological loop capacity

2 seconds worth worth of what you can say

visuospatial sketchpad capacity

3 or 4 objects

episodic buffer

temporary store for information

integrates information by other stores

maintains a sense of time sequencing (records when events are happening)

central executive

supervisory role

monitors incoming data

focuses and divides our attention

allocates subsystems to tasks

doesn’t store information

episodic buffer capacity

4 chunks - very limited

central executive capacity

very limited processing capacity

evaluating WMM

strength: clinical evidence - case study of KF (good visual - VSS but bad acoustic - phonological loop) supports the existence of sparate visual and acoustic memory stores

C/A: unclear whether KF had other cognitive impairments/ other pre-exsisting damage to his memory or the trauma from the motorcycle injury might have affected his cognitive performance

strength: dual performance can’t take place for tasks in competition for the same subsystem - Badeley (1975) proved 2 tasks fighting for the same subsystem doesn’t work

C/A: the studies used to support this are lab experiments with artificial stimuli

limitation: nature of central executive is unclear - some psychologists believe it may have separate subcomponents and is unsatisfactory (challenging integrity of the model)

Cases of HM and Clive Wearing

both had brain damage from operation (HM) and infection (Clive Wearing) and underwent surgery leaving them unable to remember episodic memories, but recall semantic and procedural ones

Case of KF

got into a motorcycle accident and had brain surgery leaving him with poor STM for auditory information but normal STM for visual information

defintion of interference

forgetting because one memory blocks another, causing one or both memories to be distorted or forgotten

proactive interference

when an older memory blocks a newer one

retroactive interference

when a newer memory blocks an older one

mcGeoch and McDonald (1931)

studied retroactive interference by changing the similarity of 2 materials

method: participants are told a list of words then split 6 groups and told another list with different similarities to the original (including control group)

results: the worst recall was for the list with the most similar words to the original list showing interference is strongest when information is similar

2 reasons why similarity affects recall

proactive interference - older information makes it harder to store newer and similar information

retroactive interference - new information overwrites the older information making it harder recall both sets of information due to the similarity of them

evaluating interference

strength: real world interference (Baddeley and Hitch rugby player evidence = valid argument)

C/A: interference in everyday situation is unusual because sets of information aren’t as similar in everyday vs in a lab (lab studies are controlled therefore information is manipulated to be more similar)

strength: support from drug studies (Coenen and Luijtelaar 1997) proves drugs can help if info is learnt first, but increases interference for info learnt after the drug is taken

limitation: interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues (Tulving and Psotka 1971)

limitation: validity issues and lab experiments = artificial stimuli

Baddeley and Hitch (1977)

method: asked rugby players the names of teams they played during the season but some players missed games (due to injury)

results: the players that played the most games had the most interference and recalled the least team names

Anton Coenen and Gilles Van Luijtelaar (1997)

method: split participants into a drug taking (diazepam) and placebo group and gave them all a list of words which they had to later recall

results: the recall of the words learnt before the drug was taken was stronger than the placebo group but was extremely poor when the words were learnt after the drug was taken, meaning the drug helped recall when information was learnt first

Endel Tulving and Joseph Psotka (1971)

seeing the effect that cues have on interference and memory

method: gave participants lists of words in categories (categories not told to the participants at first)

results: free recall of words started at 70% and then gradually dropped, but when cues and category names were introduced it rose back to 70% throughout showing that interference causes temporary loss of information but cues can retrieve them

cue

a trigger of information that allows us to access a memory

accessibility vs availability

all stored LTM are accessible but cues help them become available

Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP)

discovered by Endel Tulving (1983)

states a cue will help with memory retrieval if it is present at encoding and retrieval

context dependent forgetting

recall depends on an external cue (eg. environment, weather, smells)

Godden and Baddeley (1975)

sees the effects of context-dependant forgetting

method: 4 conditions in which people would learn information on land/water and then recall it on land/water

results: recall was 40% lower in non-matching situations

state dependant forgetting

recall depends on internal cues (eg. mood, drunkness)

Carter and Cassaday (1998)

sees the effect of state dependant forgetting

method: 4 conditions in which people are told information on/off drug and recall it on/off the drug

results: memory was significantly worse in the mismatched conditions

evaluating retrieval failure

strength: real world application = retrieval cues can help stop forgetting everyday (eg. if you loose something, your likely to return to the environment in which you last remember having it/learning it)

strength: research support - Godden and Baddeley (land vs water) and Carter and Cassaday (drug vs no drug)

C/A: Godden and Baddeley (1997) was extreme environments, and everyday life the environment change isn’t as dramatic meaning less forgetting as environments are often similar

limitation: context effects may depend on the type of memory being tested - Godden and Baddeley was replicated as a recognition test instead of a recall test (participants were asked if they recognised a word instead of retrieving it themselves) and performance in all conditions was the same meaning retrieval failure is a limited explanation for when a person has to recall information instead of recognising it

limitation: problems with ESP - if a cue isn’t encoded at the time of learning, having it present at the time of retrieval has no effect

Post event discussion (PED)

when there is more than one witness to an incident and they are allowed to discuss what they witnessed, leading to possible influences on others accounts

Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer (1974)

studied the impact of misleading questions on EWT

method: 45 students watched car accident and were asked a critical question in which the description of the colliding (of the cars) was changed (eg. bumped, smashed, hit)

results: the estimated speed for the verb with the leats power (hit) was 31.8mph but for the most powerful (smashed) it was 40.5mph (and some recalled seeing broken glass that was never there)

response bias

the wording of the leading question doesn’t affect our memory, but impacts how we answer the question

substitution

the wording of a leading question changes our memory of an event

effect that leading questions have on EWT

response bias and substitution

Fiona Gabbert et al (2003)

research on post event discussion

method: participants paired up and watched the same crime filmed from different points of view (each pair saw a different angle of the crime) and then discussed what they saw before completing a recall test

results: 71% reported mistakes from the crime that weren’t in the video but in the control group this was 0%

memory contamination

when witnesses discusses events with each other, the testimonies become altered or distorted because they combine (mis) information from others

memory conformity

witnesses go along with each other during discussion due to NSI or ISI but their memories remain unchanged

2 ways in which PED affects EWT

memory contamination and memory conformity

why does PED affect EWT

source monitoring theory and conformity theory

source monitoring theory/ source confusion

memories of an event are distorted and witnesses will recall information without the memory of whether it was from their memory or from someone else’s account

conformity theory

memories aren’t distorted by PED but witnesses go along with others due to NSI or ISI

evaluating misleading information on EWT

strength: real world application (criminal legal system) and psychologists can improve the legal system but preventing legal convictions based on EWT

C/A: lab setting experiments, more stressful and traumatic living the experience than watching it and therefore EWT would be different in a lab vs courtroom

limitation: EWT is more accurate for some aspects of events than others - Sutherland and Hayne (2001) proved recall of main details are accurate but less accurate for peripheral ones due to where our attention goes to

limitation: memory conformity is evidence that PED alters EWT because if PED changes the EWT then people haven’t fully conformed to others

limitation: demand characteristics in lab experiment - dont want to let researcher down so they guess an answer

how does anxiety impact recall

anxiety creates a physiological arousal and stops us focusing on important cues so our recall is worse

what is weapon focus

when the introduction of a weapon increases anxiety of a situation making our recall worse

Craig Johnson and William Scott (1976)

saw the effect that anxiety has on recall

method: low and high anxiety condition, low = a man walked past the waiting room holding a pen with grease on it, high = participants listened to a heated argument and then a man walked past holding a blooding knife

results: identifying the man from 50 pictures in low = 49% but in high only 33%

tunnel theory

we have better memory for central events (eg. weapon focus) and bad recall for much else

John Yuille and Judith Cutshall (1986)

studied a shooting in a gun shop in candy in which the owner shot a thief (21 witnesses and 13 took part in the study)

method: 13 witnesses were interviewed for 4-5 months after the event and recollections were compared to original police interviews done right after the shooting, they were also asked to rate their anxiety at the time

results: witnesses with the highest anxiety had the most accurate account (88% accuracy) showing that anxiety has a more positive effect on recall

inverted - U theory

Yerkes - Dodson Law says memory becomes more accurate as anxiety increases only to a certain point, but more anxiety after this point will result in a lower recall

evaluation of anxiety on EWT

strength: evidence exists to support that anxiety has a negative effect on recall - Valentine and Mesout 2009

C/A: Yuille and Cutshall experiment proves anxiety has a positive effect on recall

limitation: inverted U theory is too simplistic as it disregards the cognitive and behaviour components and focuses only on the physiological components of anxiety - cognitive (the way we think in stressful situation) is also important for the accuracy of EWT

limitation: unusualness vs anxiety - Johnson and Scott experiment may have tested people confusion on seeing the weapon instead of their anxiety to seeing the weapon - supported by Kerri Pickel 1998

Valentine and Mesout 2009

measured anxiety using a heart rate measure in high and low anxiety groups

method: participants went to London Dungeon and were scared by different actors and asked to recall which actor scared them (some raised the anxiety level higher than others)

results: heart rate showed that more scary actors creating more anxiety clearly disrupted participant’s ability to recall the actor - 17% more than other actors - 71%

Kerri Pickel 1998

repeated Johnson and Scott study to see unusualness vs anxiety

method: 4 conditions in which a man held 4 items (getting more unusual from scissors to a raw chicken)

results: EWT was poorer in higher unusualness conditions therefore Johnson and Scott lacks validity as it could have been measuring a person’s reaction to the unusualness of seeing a bloody knife

who proposed the cognitive interview

Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman (1992)

what is a cognitive interview

a method of interviewing eyewitness to help them retrieve more accurate memories of an event

what techniques are used (in order) for cognitive interviews

report everything

reinstate the conetxt

reverse the order

change perspective

what and why do we use the 1st technique of a cognitive interview

report everything - witnesses are encouraged to explain every single detail of an event (even if it seems unimportant) because everything may trigger important memories

what and why do we use the 2nd technique of a cognitive interview

reinstate the context - witnesses are encouraged to return to the scene of the event in their minds and imagine the exact environment (feeling, setting) as this relates to context dependant forgetting

what and why do we use the 3rd technique of a cognitive interview

reverse the order - witnesses should recall events in a different oder to how they actually occurred to prevent people reporting their expectations of how events occurred and prevent dishonesty as changing the order will make lies harder to include

what and why do we use the 4th technique of a cognitive interview

change perspective - witnesses are encouraged to recall the events for another’s perspective to disrupt the effect of the schema on recall (stops expectations centred around a specific environment)

who proposed enhanced cognitive interviews

Fisher et al (1987)

what is included in enhanced cognitive interviews

focus on establishing a good relationship with witness - more comforting

Making eye contact when necessary

witnesses are encouraged to speak more slowly

interviewer instructed to use open questions to avoid leading the witness

evaluating cognitive interviews

strength: research support - Gunther Kohnken et al 1999 to prove Cognitive interviews are successful in helping a witness recall information that is stored but not immediately accessible

C/A: Kohnken also found an increase in inaccurate information given in (E)CI meaning that information from (E)CI is more likely to include unreliable data as well as reliable data

strength: police forces use a ‘pick and mix’ approach to CI which makes it more flexible and individuals can develop their own approaches based off the (E)CI structure

C/A: It is hard to tell the effectiveness of different approaches to find the overall reliability of (E)CI for interviewing witnesses

limitation: not all elements of CI are equally effective (report everything and reinstate the context) - Milne and Bull (2002)

limitation: CI is time-consuming making it unrealistic for law enforcement to use in practise, making officers reluctant to using it as it takes more time and training, it might be better to use a few key elements of a CI instead of the entire structure of it

Gunter Kohnken et al (1999)

the effect cognitive interviews have on witness’ memory of an event

method: combined data from 55 studies comparing (E)CI to standard police interview

results: there is 41% increase in more accurate information given in (E)CI compared to standard interviews, with only 4 studies showing no difference between the information given

Milne and Bull (2002)

While they found that CI were more useful than standard police interviews, they found that a combination of report everything and reinstate the context produced the best recall than any other elements and combinations of them