memeory long

What is one limitation of research into sensory memory capacity regarding usefulness?

• POINT: Sensory memory capacity research lacks usefulness in real-life settings (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Sperling’s partial-report experiment used brief displays of letter rows recalled after a tone[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: These artificial lab tasks don't reflect everyday life where sensory information is continuous and meaningful, not quick flashes[cite: 1].\n* LINK: The findings have limited practical usefulness and low external validity regarding real-world sensory memory[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of research into sensory memory capacity regarding sensory stores?

• POINT: Research is not very useful for understanding all sensory stores (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Most studies focus on the iconic store (visual, holding ~15–20 items), ignoring echoic or haptic stores[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Other stores fade extremely fast and are processed automatically before conscious awareness, making them harder to test with iconic methods[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Capacity cannot be accurately measured across all stores through direct experiments, limiting overall theoretical usefulness[cite: 1].

What is one strength of explaining the sensory register using an evolutionary perspective?

• POINT: Evolutionary theory helps explain the very short duration of the sensory register (SCOUT: Other theories)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Humans only need to retain sensory data long enough to detect immediate survival threats or environmental shifts[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Information not useful for survival naturally fades quickly; holding raw sensory data longer would be inefficient[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Supports the idea that brief duration is an adaptive evolutionary feature, not a flaw[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of short-term memory research regarding real-life situations?

• POINT: STM research lacks usefulness and mundane realism (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Studies use artificial stimuli like Baddeley’s word lists or Peterson & Peterson’s trigrams (e.g., XQF)[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Real-life memory is used for meaningful information (like shopping lists), whereas random lab items lack personal meaning[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Reduces external validity, meaning findings may not represent how memory functions outside controlled settings[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of research into the duration of short-term memory regarding expectations?

• POINT: STM duration is not fixed and varies based on expectations (SCOUT: Conflicting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Marsh et al. (1997) found STM duration was only 2–4 seconds when participants did not expect a recall test[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: When people expect a test, they actively rehearse, artificially extending the duration beyond unexpected real-life situations[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Challenges the assumption of a fixed STM duration, showing earlier lab research may exaggerate normal retention time[cite: 1].

What is one strength of Bahrick et al.’s study on long-term memory?

• POINT: High usefulness due to strong external validity (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Bahrick et al. used real-life memories, asking participants to recognise faces/names from school yearbooks[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Relies on naturally formed, meaningful personal memories rather than artificial lab tasks[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Results reliably represent how LTM operates in real-world scenarios over decades[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of long-term memory research regarding artificial stimuli?

• POINT: Low usefulness for explaining everyday memory (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Researchers like Baddeley frequently used lists of random, unrelated words[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Lab word lists lack mundane realism because everyday memory processes familiar, contextualised information[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Lowers external validity, making it difficult to generalise laboratory findings to daily life[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of the Multi-Store Model of memory regarding LTM stores?

• POINT: Conflicting evidence shows LTM is not a single unitary store (SCOUT: Conflicting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Case study of Clive Wearing after viral brain damage[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Lost his episodic memory (personal events/children), but retained procedural memory (playing piano) and semantic memory (facts)[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Proves LTM consists of distinct sub-stores, showing the MSM's single LTM structure is too simplistic[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of the Multi-Store Model of memory regarding its focus on processes?

• POINT: Overemphasises structure while ignoring complex cognitive processes (SCOUT: Other theories)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Focuses strictly on 3 static stores (Sensory, STM, LTM) connected by attention and maintenance rehearsal[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Fails to explain how information is manipulated, transformed, or actively worked on once inside STM[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Provides an incomplete, overly structural explanation of how human memory actively processes data[cite: 1].

What is one strength of the Multi-Store Model regarding its influence on memory research?

• POINT: Highly influential and increased practical usefulness (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Formed the theoretical foundation for Baddeley & Hitch’s Working Memory Model[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: As one of the first systematic cognitive models, it prompted extensive empirical testing and deeper investigation into memory mechanisms[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Value lies in stimulating decades of further research and refined cognitive modeling[cite: 1].

What is one strength of the Multi-Store Model regarding serial position effects?

• POINT: Primacy-recency effect provides supporting evidence for separate stores (SCOUT: Supporting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Free recall experiments show high recall for early words (primacy) and late words (recency)[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Early words are rehearsed into LTM, while late words remain in STM at recall, while middle items are lost[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Directly supports the core MSM claim that STM and LTM function as distinct, separate systems[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of the Central Executive in the Working Memory Model?

• POINT: The Central Executive is too vague and poorly specified (SCOUT: Other theories)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Critics argue it can conveniently "explain" any experimental outcome post-hoc[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: If dual tasks fail, capacity was exceeded; if they succeed, capacity wasn't exceeded—making it circular and hard to falsify[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Lacks testability and clear operational detail, reducing the scientific validity of the WMM[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of case study evidence (like KF) supporting the Working Memory Model?

• POINT: Case studies lack generalisability (SCOUT: Conflicting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Patient KF suffered brain damage following a motorcycle accident[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Brain injury cases involve unique trauma, altered physiology, and individual cognitive compensation strategies[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Findings from brain-damaged individuals may not represent normal, healthy working memory function in the wider population[cite: 1].

What is one strength of using case study evidence (like KF) for the Working Memory Model?

• POINT: Provides strong supporting evidence for separate STM components (SCOUT: Supporting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Shallice & Warrington studied patient KF after his accident[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Verbal STM was severely impaired (digits read aloud), but visual STM remained intact (reading digits himself)[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Demonstrates that the phonological loop can be selectively damaged while the visuospatial sketchpad remains functional, validating separate slave systems[cite: 1].

What is one strength of the Working Memory Model regarding neuroimaging evidence?

• POINT: Biological supporting evidence for the Central Executive (SCOUT: Supporting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Braver et al. (1997) conducted fMRI brain scans during CE tasks[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Scans showed heightened activity in the left prefrontal cortex, which escalated as task difficulty increased[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Gives physical, objective brain-imaging support to the existence and attentional management role of the Central Executive[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of interference theory as an explanation for forgetting?

• POINT: Cannot explain all forms of forgetting (SCOUT: Other theories)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: People frequently forget information without any competing or similar memories being present[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Interference requires similarity between memories, ignoring mechanisms like trace decay or retrieval cue failure[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Oversimplifies forgetting by relying on a single mechanism rather than a holistic cognitive view[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of supporting research for interference theory regarding ecological validity?

• POINT: Supporting research lacks ecological validity (SCOUT: Supporting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Laboratory experiments force participants to memorize lists of unrelated words in rapid succession[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Unnatural tasks are deliberately structured to artificially maximize interference, unlike real-life learning spread over time[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Reduces external validity, meaning findings may exaggerate how much interference causes everyday forgetting[cite: 1].

What is one strength of interference theory regarding practical applications and sleep?

• POINT: Strong practical usefulness linked to memory consolidation (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Abel & Bäuml (2013) showed 12 hours of sleep significantly reduced proactive and retroactive interference compared to staying awake[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Sleep protects memories from incoming interfering data by strengthening consolidation[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Provides actionable revision strategies for students and memory preservation techniques in clinical care[cite: 1].

What is one strength of interference theory regarding real-life research support?

• POINT: Real-world supporting evidence with high ecological validity (SCOUT: Supporting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Baddeley & Hitch (1977) tested rugby players recalling opposing teams faced over a season[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Recall depended on the number of intervening games played, not the actual passage of time[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Demonstrates retroactive interference occurring naturally in everyday settings outside the laboratory[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of supporting research for retrieval failure theory regarding ecological validity?

• POINT: Key supporting research lacks ecological validity (SCOUT: Supporting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Godden & Baddeley (1975) tested divers learning word lists underwater vs. on land[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Extreme context shifts (underwater vs. land) and random word lists lack mundane realism compared to everyday environments[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Exaggerates context effects, as real-world context changes are rarely as dramatic[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of context-dependent forgetting regarding scientific testing?

• POINT: Lacks internal validity due to circular reasoning (SCOUT: Other theories)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Researchers infer encoding purely from whether recall occurs in the presence of a cue[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: If a cue triggers recall, it's assumed to be encoded; if it fails, it's assumed it was never encoded—without direct measurement[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Based on unobservable inferences, making the context-dependency hypothesis difficult to test scientifically[cite: 1].

What is one strength of context-dependent forgetting regarding real-life applications?

• POINT: High face validity and practical usefulness (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Re-entering a physical room triggers lost thoughts, a principle integrated into the Cognitive Interview[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Reinstating environmental cues aids memory retrieval by reconnecting with original memory traces[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Bridges theoretical cognitive concepts with effective, real-world memory recovery strategies[cite: 1].

What is one strength of retrieval failure theory regarding criminal investigations?

• POINT: High practical usefulness in forensic police work (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: In the Danielle Jones (2001) case, TV crime reconstructions prompted new witnesses to remember details[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Recreating contextual cues restores access to dormant, stored memories[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Demonstrates how cue-dependency principles directly improve the accuracy of real-world eyewitness testimony[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of Loftus and Palmer’s research into leading questions regarding sample validity?

• POINT: Lacks population validity (SCOUT: Generalisability)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Loftus & Palmer used a sample exclusively consisting of US college students[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Students are inexperienced drivers compared to older adults, making them more susceptible to speed misjudgments and leading verbs[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Results cannot be fully generalised to the broader, more experienced driving population[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of research into leading questions regarding individual differences?

• POINT: Ignores individual differences, limiting generalisability (SCOUT: Generalisability)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Tomes & Katz (1997) found personality traits alter susceptibility to leading questions[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Highly empathetic individuals are significantly more vulnerable to misleading post-event information[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Misleading information does not affect all eyewitnesses uniformly, reducing universal applicability[cite: 1].

What is one strength of Loftus and Palmer’s research into leading questions regarding experimental design?

• POINT: High internal validity due to strict experimental control (SCOUT: Validity)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Loftus & Palmer used identical video clips, standardised instructions, and isolated single verb changes (e.g., smashed vs. hit)[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Controlling extraneous variables ensures speed estimate shifts were directly caused by the independent variable[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Provides robust cause-and-effect evidence that leading verbs distort memory recall[cite: 1].

What is one strength of research into leading questions regarding police procedures?

• POINT: High practical usefulness in reforming legal practices (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Led Geiselman et al. to develop the Cognitive Interview protocol[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Police forces changed protocols to eliminate leading questions, preserving witness accuracy[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Direct real-world application preventing wrongful convictions based on distorted eyewitness testimony[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of Gabbert et al.’s research into post-event discussion regarding mundane realism?

• POINT: Lacks mundane realism (GRAVE: Applicability)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Gabbert et al. had participants watch a staged video of a wallet theft[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Real witnesses experience unexpected shock/fear and don't anticipate being tested, unlike calm lab participants watching a screen[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Lowers ecological validity, as artificial viewing conditions don't mirror real-world co-witness dynamics[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of laboratory experiments like Gabbert et al.’s regarding external validity?

• POINT: Vulnerable to demand characteristics, lowering validity (GRAVE: Validity)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Zaragoza & McCloskey (1989) argued lab EWT participants modify answers to please researchers[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Post-event agreement might reflect social compliance rather than true memory distortion[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Distorts findings, making it unclear whether co-witness discussion truly alters memory traces or just reported answers[cite: 1].

What is one strength of Gabbert et al.’s research into post-event discussion regarding sample diversity?

• POINT: High population validity across age groups (GRAVE: Generalisability)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Gabbert et al. tested both university students and older adults[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Both demographics showed equally high rates of memory conformity (~71%) after discussion[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Demonstrates post-event distortion is a widespread phenomenon, increasing generalisability across age groups[cite: 1].

What is one strength of Gabbert et al.’s study on post-event discussion regarding control?

• POINT: High internal validity via lab control (GRAVE: Validity)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Strictly controlled video perspective, length of event, and time permitted for co-witness discussion[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Isolates post-event discussion as the direct cause of altered recall accuracy[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Confirms a clear cause-and-effect relationship between co-witness talk and memory contamination[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of the inverted-U explanation of anxiety in EWT?

• POINT: Overly reductionist (SCOUT: Conflicting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Focuses purely on physiological arousal (heart rate, adrenaline) tracking performance[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Ignores cognitive element (worry, threat assessment) and emotional components (panic, fear)[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Oversimplifies anxiety's complex, multidimensional impact on human memory recall[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of field studies on anxiety and eyewitness testimony?

• POINT: Lacks experimental control over extraneous variables (SCOUT: Conflicting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Field studies like Yuille & Cutshall interview witnesses months after real shootings[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Uncontrolled exposure to media reports, police interviews, and co-witness chatter during the delay[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Threatens internal validity, as post-event information—not initial anxiety—may explain recall accuracy[cite: 1].

What is one strength of research into anxiety and EWT regarding attentional narrowing?

• POINT: Empirical support for attentional narrowing (SCOUT: Supporting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Oue et al. (2001) found anxiety-inducing scenes reduced recall for peripheral details[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: High emotional arousal forces cognitive focus exclusively onto central, threatening stimuli[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Validates the weapon focus effect and attentional narrowing theories[cite: 1].

What is one strength of research into anxiety and EWT regarding practical application?

• POINT: Practical usefulness in legal evaluations (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Applying the Yerkes-Dodson inverted-U model to evaluate witness statement credibility[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Helps investigators assess whether extreme fear or low arousal compromised a witness's memory capacity[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Informs police and legal experts when evaluating witness reliability in court[cite: 1].

What is one practical limitation of conducting the Cognitive Interview?

• POINT: Highly time-consuming and costly to conduct (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Requires rapport building, relaxed retrieval, and specialized officer training[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Police forces operating under tight budgets and high workloads struggle to allocate required time and resources[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Reduces practical application, leading officers to fall back on brief standard interviews[cite: 1].

What is one limitation of evaluating the Cognitive Interview regarding standardized procedures?

• POINT: Low testability due to non-standardized application (SCOUT: Testability)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Police forces selectively apply different components (e.g., Thames Valley Police omit change perspective)[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Inconsistent real-world execution makes isolating which specific technique drives recall improvements difficult[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Limits scientific evaluation of the Cognitive Interview's overall effectiveness[cite: 1].

What is one strength of the Cognitive Interview regarding non-police settings?

• POINT: High usefulness beyond law enforcement (SCOUT: Usefulness)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Henderson (2019) highlighted CI adoption in civil legal firms[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: Successfully aids witness recall during civil litigation, corporate investigations, and legal interviews[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Demonstrates broader professional utility as a general memory retrieval tool[cite: 1].

What is one strength of the Cognitive Interview regarding specific demographic groups?

• POINT: Particularly effective for older witnesses (SCOUT: Supporting evidence)[cite: 1].\n* EVIDENCE: Mello & Fisher (1996) found CI produced significantly more detail from older adults than standard interviews[cite: 1].\n* EXPLANATION: The "report everything" instruction overcomes older adults' hesitation or fear of wasting time[cite: 1].\n* LINK: Reduces age-related recall disparities in eyewitness testimony[cite: 1].