Paper 1: Cognitive Approach (memory)

Define memory

Define memory

The encryption, storage and ability to retrieve information

Who devised the MSM and in what year?

Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968

Who carried out research that supports the MSM?

Glanzer and Cunitz, 1966 and the case study of HM (both supports and does not support it)

MSM: Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) APFC

-A: to investigate serial position effect (nb. the MSM had not actually been devised yet) -P: 240 army US males were given a list of words and asked to recall them in any order. The IV was the presence/absence of a 30-sec distraction task. -F: participants asked to count out loud for 30 secs remembered fewer of the last words. This destroyed recency effect but did not effect primacy effect. -C: provides evidence for short-term and long-term memory as two seperate stores and so supports MSMS.

MSM: Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) critical thinking

-Low population validity as the sample size was relatively small, low ecological validity as it was an artificial setting/task

-Low generalisability as it cannot be applied to women or civilians

-High reliability as variables were carefully controlled

-Later research has found that it is depth of processing and not rehearsal that leads to information being stored

How does Glanzer and Cunitz’s research link to the MSM?

-Recency effect was destroyed by distraction task which inhibited maintenance rehearsal

-Primacy effect was intact regardless of presence of distraction task as information was elaborately rehearsed

MSM: case study of HM (background)

-HM experienced a bicycle accident which led to him having seizures -By age 27 he was having multiple seizures/day

MSM: case study of HM (key people)

-Dr Scoville (Neuroscientist) removed HM's hippocampus in 1953 (when he was aged 27) -Milner carried out observations of HM, interviews with him and his family, psychometric and cognitive tests -Corkin used MRI tech to analyse the extent of the damage in the 1990s

MSM: case study of HM (findings and critical thinking)

-Triangulation and depth/detail of study makes the data very rich and detailed -However lacks generalizability (to non brain-damaged humans) -Supports part of MSM theory that there are different memory stores -MSM did not differentiate between episodic, semantic and procedural memory (HM had procedural but not the others)

How does HM’s case study support the MSM?

-Milner’s research shows a distinction between STM and LTM (HM’s LTM was unaffected by the damage)

How does HM’s case study contradict the MSM?

-HM could trace a star despite not being able to form new episodic memories. The MSM does not draw a distinction between episodic, semantic and procedural memories.

Declarative memories

Conscious memories, knowing ‘what‘. Includes episodic memory (memory of specific events) and semantic memory (retention of facts)

Procedural memories

Knowing ‘how‘, the unconscious memory of skills and how to do things

Strengths of the MSM

-Biological evidence – researchers have found that the Prefrontal Cortex is active when individuals are working on a STM task and the hippocampus is active when it is a LTM task -Model is of historical importance -Significant research supports it

Weaknesses of the MSM

-Oversimplified, reductionist -Does not explain how some things are learnt with minimal rehearsal -Does not explain flashbulb memory or memory distortion -Evidence that LTM is not a unitary store -Low temporal validity

Who devised the Working Memory Model and in what year?

Baddeley and Hitch, 1974

Working Memory Model

Consists of central executive, episodic buffer (added later in the early 2000s), phonological loop (primary acoustic store and articulatory control process) and visuospatial sketchpad (inner scribe and visual cache)

Central executive

-The ‘boss of the WMM‘

-Focuses attention between two or more sources and delegates tasks to the phonological loop or visuospatial sketchpad

-Limited capacity (can’t multitask too hard)

-Attention control can happen either on the automatic level based on habits/schemas or on the supervisory attention level (planning and decision making)

Phonological loop

-The auditory component, further divided into:

-The articulatory control system or ‘inner voice‘ which can hold information in a verbal form

-The phonological store or ‘inner ear‘ which holds auditory memory traces

Visuospatial sketchpad

-Also called the ‘inner eye‘

-The visual component of the WMM, a temporary store for visual and spatial information from sensory input or LTM

Who carried out research that supports the WMM?

Quinn and McConnell (1996) and Landry and Bartling (2011)

WMM: Landry and Bartling (2011) APCF

A: to investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of a written list of phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall. P: 34 undergrad psychology students had to remember a list of letters with dissimilar sounds. The experimental group had to repeat the numbers 1 and 2 out loud while the paper was in front of them. FKLMRX F: the scores from the control group were much higher (76%) compared to experimental group (45%) C: supports WMM in that disruption of the phonological loop through articulatory suppression results in less accurate WM. Articulatory suppression is preventing rehearsal in the phonological loop because of overload.

WMM: Landry and Bartling critical thinking

-Lab experiment, highly artificial task- however could be argued to represent IRL multi taking situations -Small sample size -Low in generalizability -Psych students so demand characteristics

WMM: Quinn and McConnel (1996) APCF

Aim: To find evidence for the working memory model. P: The researchers asked participants to learn a list of words, by either imagery or rehearsal. The task was performed on its own or with a concurrent visual noise (changing patterns of dots) or a concurrent verbal noise (speech in a foreign language). F: The participants who learned the list by imagery were unaffected by the verbal noise but were by the visual noise. The opposite is true of the rehearsal group. This shows that there is separate store for different types of short-term memory. C: This indicates that imagery processing uses the Visuo-Spatial Sketch Pad whereas verbal processing uses the Phonological Loop. If the two tasks used the same component, performance deteriorated. Lends support to WMM.

What research method was used by Quinn and McConnel?

Lab experiment

Strenths of the WMM

-Supported by evidence that there is more than one STM store -Brain scans have shown that a different area of the brain is active when carrying out visual vs verbal tasks -Less reductionist than MSM as it acknowledges different types of information -Research support: McDowell (1997)

Weaknesses of the WMM

-Does not explain anything about LTM -Isn't clear what the role of the CE is although B+H said it was the most important part. They said it had its own limited capacity but were unable to measure it independently -Does not explain distortion or fbm -Interaction between components is not well explained -Jones (1975) concluded "vision is not a necessary condition for spatial awareness" so evidence suggests visuospatial sketchpad could be subdivided in two

Who coined the term "schema"

Bartlett, in the 1930s

What is a schema

Schema: A mental representation of an individual's pre-existing knowledge about the world and experiences in the world.

What is the difference between accommodation and assimilation?

Assimilation is using an existing schema to deal with a new object or event

Accommodation is changing an existing schema or developing a new schema when it cannot adequately explain a new object or event

Schema theory: Loftus and Palmer (1974) APFC

A: to investigate whether leading questions asked of eyewitnesses can change memory of an event P: 45 USA uni students were split into 5 groups, shown a clip of a car crash and asked to estimate how fast the car was going when it SMASHED/COLLIDED/BUMPED/HIT/CONTACTED the other. In a variation of the study, participants were either asked "smashed" or "hit" and a week later, whether they saw broken glass. A third control group was not asked the first question. F: "Smashed" yielded mean estimate of 40.5mph vs "hit" which was 31.8. In variation 2, those asked with the more intense verb were more likely to recall seeing broken glass. C: External information can change memories of an event C: External information implied after an event can change memory of it.

Schema theory: Loftus and Palmer (1974) critical thinking

-They used students, so lowers population validity and generalizability -Demand characteristics -Lab experiment so high reliability but low ecological validity

What research method was used by Loftus and Palmer?

Lab experiment

Schema theory: Anderson et al (1976) APCF

A: To see how schemas infllunece interpretations of stories P: 30 female music students and 30 male PE students were provided with 2x 150-word passages, the prison/wrestling one and the cards/music one. They were asked to read them, then do 10 multiple choice questions about each, a free recall an autobiographical questionnaire and a debriefing questionnaire. F: "most students gave each passage one distinct interpretation or another." Schemas influenced interpretation and also number of questions got correct. 62 per cent of participants said they had not considered an alternative interpretation at all. C: “…personal history, knowledge, and belief influence the interpretations that they will give to prose passages." Basically, schemas affect our interpretation of stories.

Schema theory: Anderson et al (1976) critical thinking

-Can be applied to real life situations, suggests that poor reading comprehension is less related to lack of skill than background information that could inform knowledge -Gender could be a confounding variable in the study

Which three features can influence the reliability of reconstructive memory?

High emotion can improve reliability

Post-event information such as leading questions can reduce reliability

Desire to fill in the blanks (schemas) can reduce reliability

Reconstructive memory: Yuille and Cutshall (1986) APFC

A: to investigate accuracy of memory of real witnesses to a crime, over time and subject to leading questions P: 13 (10m, 3f) eyewitnesses to a violent crime were interviewed. They were asked to rate their stress on a tailored 7-point scale, and half were asked whether they saw "a" vs "the" broken headlight, when there had not been a broken headlight. F: leading questions had very little impact on witnesses' recall. Contrary to data from many other studies, the witnesses were very accurate and L+C ended up obtaining more details than the police had. C: misleading questions had very little effect on eyewitness memory. High emotion can improve recall.

What research method was used by Yuille and Cutshaw (1986)

Case study

Reconstructive memory: Yuille and Cutshaw (1986) critical thinking

-Case study, not lab experiment, therefore useful to compare to results of other studies -Evidence that eyewitnesses were actually very reliable included recalling accurate details, arguing misleading questions, and healthy comparison between police and researcher interviews -Hard to generalise findings as the case is unique and there were only 13 participants

Reconstructive memory: Shaw and Porter (2017) APFC

A: to investigate whether false memories of committing crimes could be generated in a controlled setting P: 60 canadian second year undergraduate students (aged 18-31) took part in exchange for $50. They were told that the study was an examination of memory-retrieval methods and three interviews conducted. Social pressure applied, rapport built and false evidence given. The interviews were coded by two independent researchers. F: Rate of false recollection was high (70% for criminal, 77% for non-criminal memories) and memories themselves were detailed. False memories shared many characteristics with true memories. C: this study provides evidence that people can come to visualise and recall detailed false memories of engaging in criminal behaviour.

Reconstructive memory: Shaw and Porter (2017) critical thinking

-Good internal validity -Hard to generalise as all (few-60) participants were uni students, mostly white, female, native English speakers -Implications for eyewitness testimonies -Participants were paid money to participate ($50)

Who came up with flashbulb memory and in what year?

Brown and Kulik, 1977

What are the six features of flashbulb memories?

Place

Ongoing activity

Informant (how they learnt about the incident)

Own affect (how they felt)

Other affect (how other people felt)

Aftermath (consequences)

Which study can be used as an example of biological evidence for FBMs?

Sharot (2007)

Brief APFC for Sharot (2007)

A: To determine the role of biological factors with FBM formation

P: 24 people who were in NY during the 9/11 terrorist attacks were scanned in an fMRI scanner 3 years after the attacks. They were also asked to write down their personal memories.

F: Amygdaloid activation for participants who were downtown during the terrorist attacks was higher when recalling the attacks than the events of the preceding summer. This difference was not present in participants who were further away. Strength of amygdaloid activation correlated with FBM.

C: Close personal experience may be critical in engaging the neural mechanisms that produce the vivid memories characteristic of FBM. (However could link this to Kulkovsky’s findings as evidence that this is not true in all cultures!)

Give three examples of studies that can be used in an essay about Flashbulb memories

Brown and Kulik (1977), Neisser and Harsch (1992)- although Neisser and Harsch is anti-FBM, Kulkovsky (2011)

Flashbulb memories: Brown and Kulik (1977) APFC

A: To investigate flashbulb memories P: 40 white and 40 black American participants were given a questionnaire about 10 events, 9 being very famous public events and 1 being a shocking personal event. If the F/C: The two main factors in FBMs are high levels of surprise and consequentiality. More African-Americans formed FBMs than the European-Americans for MLK's assassination

Flashbulb memories: Brown and Kulik (1977) critical thinking

-Small sample size (80 people) so cannot generalise -All participants were American so cannot generalise to other cultures

Flashbulb memories: Neisser and Harsch (1992) APFC

-A: To test theory of FBM by investing accuracy of memories over time -P: Less that 24 hours after the Challenger tragedy, 106 intro psych students were given a questionnaire and asked how they heard the news, where they were, what doing, etc... 2.5 years later, 44 og students answered the same questionnaire and asked to rate their confidence in these memories F: on average participants only answered 42% of the 7 questions correctly despite high confidence (83%) in their answers. They were surprised to see their original questionnaire. C: emotional intensity was associated with greater memory confidence, but not with accuracy. So although Flashbulb memories are vivid and long-lasting, they are not reliable.

Flashbulb memories: Neisser and Harsch (1992) critical thinking

-Oldish study, low in temporal validity -Psych students so possible demand characteristics -Participants dropping out- "subject attrition" -High ecological validity -The memory may not have been a flashbulb memory at all if it did not have personal significance to participants

Flashbulb memories: Kulkovsky (2011) APFC

A: To investigate whether FBMs are found across all cultures

P: 274 adults from China, USA, Turkey, Germany and UK given five minutes public events that had from their lifetime (min 1ya). This was used to create a 'memory questionnaire', containing five questions about how they learned about the event like in B&K's 1977 questionnaire: where, when, who, how, what. They were then asked how personally/globally important the event was, how surprising was it, how many times had spoken about it since.

F: In a collectivist country like China, personal importance played less of a role in predicting FBM, but national importance is equally linked to FBM occurrence across cultures.

C: Culture does influence FBM formation

Flashbulb memories: Kulkovsky (2011) critical thinking

Questions were translated by bilinguals so that language/comprehension was not a confounding variable

However cultural factors could influence how information is self-reported