Memory

types of memory?

-long term memory
-short term memory

coding?

the format or ‘type’ of information which is stored in each memory store

\-stm= Baddeley (1966)= better recall of random words than acoustically similar words as it codes acoustically creating confusion

\-ltm= ‘‘ better recall of random words than semantically similar words as it codes semantically creating confusion

duration?

amount of time that information can be stored in each memory store

\-stm= Peterson + Peterson (1959) = longer the delay and more counting back in 3’s from 300, the less trigrams were recalled

\-ltm= Bahrick (1975) = free recall between 30-60% success rate

with pics, 60-90% age depending

capacity?

the volume of information/data which can be kept in any memory store at any one time

\-stm= (1956)= despite some variation, it can hold up to 7 items

the multi-store model

how information is processed through each store

\-it’s stored in a linear fashion

\-different stores with varying coding, capacity and duration

\-rehearsal is key for information to be transferred

sensory registry?

raw impressions eg iconic and echoic

capacity= unlimited

duration= half a second

coding= not coded

short term memory store?

temporary active store between to/from LTM

capacity= 7 +/- 2 items

duration= 18-30 sec

coding= acoustically eg firm film

long term memory store?

permanent memory storage

capacity= unlimited

duration= unlimited

coding= semantically eg big large

pro with multi store model?

SUPPORTING RESEARCH

\-many empirical studies help show existence of different stores within memory


1. Baddley
2. Bahrick

this increases validity

pro with multi store model?

PRIMARY/ REGENCY EFFECT

\-increase validity

\-when remembering lists, can recall start and end

\-middle part is displaced as start are in LTM and end push the middle out of STM

helps prove the duration, capacity, coding of both stores

con with multi store model?

ROLE OF REHERSAL

\-Morris (1977) challenges importance of rehearsal

\-if interested in the subject, more likely to recall it regardless of rehearsal

\-info has been automatically coded semantically no need to transfer or rehearse

info doesn’t just rely on rehearsal to be transferred so less validity

con with multi store model?

MORE COMPLEX

\-Shallice + Warrington’s case study on KP showed after an accident he could recall visual normally but not verbal

\-more than one store and each are controlled differently #

incomplete and flawed model

episodic memory?

\-ability to recall events from our lives

\-specific details from events, context of events, emotions involved

eg a trip to the dentist

features?

\-memories are time/ location stamped

\-have to be consciously recalled

\-declarative (can be explained to others)

\-in hippocampus

semantic memory?

\-our knowledge of the world (dictionary + encyclopaedia)

\-not personal- facts we all share

eg capital cities

features?

\-memories are not time/ location stamped

\-have to be consciously recalled

\-declarative

\-in temporal lobe

procedural memory?

\-memory for actions or skills

\-acquired through practise

eg playing an instrument

features?

\-memories are not time/ location stamped

\-not consciously recalled

\-non-declarative

\-in cerebellum

pros of LTM types

1\.Clive Wearing

\-had severe amnesia but could recall how to play the piano but couldn’t recall taste of food/ wife leaving

\-likely his episodic/ semantic was damaged but procedural

\-supports existence of many types

2\.Neuroimaging evidence

\-brain scan studies proves separate LTM stores

\-eg. Tulving 1994 used PET scans while different tasks were taking place to conclude that episodic and semantic = prefrontal cortex but procedural = cerebellum

\-high validity and empirical study → physically different places

cons of LTM types

1\.How many stores?

\-Cohen + Squire suggested just 2 stores

\-suggested just non-declarative and declarative

\-Wearing’s supports that declarative= prefrontal Turning

2\.Maybe more stores?

\-4th type of LTM = priming → association when exposure to 1 stimulus influences response to another

means we cannot be sure how many stores there are

the working memory model?

**-suggest STM isn’t unitary but more active**

\-__CENTRAL EXECUTIVE→__ has overall control

\-limited capacity, modality free coding, processes all info, delegates to other components

\-coordinates when processing multiple tasks

__-EPISODIC BUFFER→__ coordinates info between 3 stores and LTM

\-4 chunks as capacity, modality free coding

more stores?

__-PHONOLOGICAL LOOP→__ auditory information

\-phonological store= inner ear, speech perception, 1-2 s

\-articulatory process= inner voice, holds words about to say, speech production

2 s capacity and acoustic coding

__-VISIO SPACIAL SKETCHPAD→__ visual info organised

\-visual= look like/ spacial= in relation

\-visual cache= info about, form and colour

\-inner scribe= spacial movements

3-4 object capacity and visual coding

pros of the model

1.KF’s case supports the fact STM isn’t unitary

After crash, could recall visual but not verbal

suggests that PL was damaged but not VSS

demonstrating that the 2 cant be stored together SUPPORTED BY DUAL TASK PERFORMANCE

2.Robbins chess research

pp given a secondary task involving VSS or CE were negatively impacted in a game of chess/ PL= no ill effects

as chess involves VSS and CE

shown CE is needed for complex decisions that make multitasking possible in components

cons of the model

__1.we know so little about the CE__

its an important component however we have little evidence to support it

so its difficult to falsify as the slave component may be doing the work

hard to determine if it even exists reducing validity

2\.case study of EVR

he had brain surgery to remove a tumour

his cognitive ability eg IQ remained but social ability eg decision making depleted → both controlled by CE

reduces validity as this is hard to explain, perhaps another store within

forgetting

\-interference theory

\-when LT memories interfere with each other

\-past memories interfere with new memories = PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE

\-new memories interfere with past memories = RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE

evidence?

__McGeoh and McDonald 1931__

\-pp had a list of words they had to learn 100%

\-then, learnt a new list→ different categories, changed similarity

\-found that when the word lists were similar, word recall was worse as interference was much stronger

pros?

1.Lab-based research

-McGeoh and McDonald looked at explanations for forgetting and the retroactive theory

-found that interference causes forgetting in the LTM and similarities made word recall significantly worse

-adds validity to the theory as confounding and irrelevant variables were controlled and proves new memories can distort old ones

2.Real life studies show the same proof- Baddeley and Hitch

-They looked at rugby players- some had missed games and others had played all- to see if if interference leads to more forgetting of games they’d played

-found recall didn’t depend depend on how long ago matches were but how many were in between

3.useful practical implications- Tulving and Psotaka (1971)

-pp had 5 lists pf 24 words in 6 categories (unknown by pp)

-accurate recall deteriorated when new word was given but, when told the category names, performance on recall test improved

-suggesting that interference can be overcome with cues

con?

__4.Timing given to pp__

\-between learning and recalling was very short

\-this avoids pp attrition and incomplete second condition

\-doesn’t reflect reality of memory recall where there’s an extended delay and means some studies aren’t as valid

forgetting

\-retrieval failure

\-the more cues the higher the likehood of recalling

\-cue needs to be present at learning and recalling

\-if the cues are absent, forgetting occurs

context dependant retrieval

→context where information is learnt is used

\-external triggers= environment, smells, weather

**Godden and Baddeley (1975)**

\-4 conditions where pp learnt underwater or on land and recalled somewhere else to see if location effects memory

\-findings= 1/2 of conditions locations matched and accurate recall when the locations didn’t match was 40% lower

state dependant retrieval

→suggests that the state you’re in when info is learn is a cue

\-internal triggers= mood, drunk, sick

**Carter and Cassady (1998)**

\-gave an anti-histamine to pp, a mild sedative= drowsy

\-4 conditions- drugged when recalling or not

\-findings= when internal state was mismatched performance was significantly worse

pros?

**1.supporting research**

\-research by Baker (2004) looked at whether similar effects could be produced by the use of chewing

\-found recall was best when spearmint gum was chewed at learning and recall → real life suggestions as to how we can improve memory performance

**2.real life examples**

\-effectiveness of context related cues can be observed in real life

\-eg going upstairs at home to get something then don’t recall what they wanted

\-due to context of learning and recall being different

\-the situation isn’t just manipulated in experimental environment but also real-life, can give ideas on retrieval

cons?

**1.are lab experiments useful**

\-context dependant forgetting is criticised by Godden and Baddeley as being limited

\-replicated their experiment and changed recall test for a recognition test and found there was no context-dependant effect

\-context dependant forgetting only occurs when someone has too free recall not simply recognise information meaning it’s not a complete explanation for forgetting

2\.falsifibiloity

\-it lacks falsifiability meaning it’s hard to prove right or wrong

\-eg. in an experiment where a cue produces the successful recall, assume the cue was encoded at the time of learning but if it isn’t successful then it wasn’t encoded

\-theory is based on assumption- no way to test encoding or not

what are leading questions?

\-q. where information is included in the question which prompts a witness to provide an inaccurate EWT

**Loftus and Palmer 1974**

\-45 pp watched a car crash clip

\-asked a critical question about speed but the verb used changed

\-found this effected response: smashed 40.5, collided, bumped, hit, contacted 31.8

\-misleading info can effect EWT and remembrance= influence testimony

post event discussion?

\-discussion between witnesses after the crime resulting in CONTAMINATION of original witnesses recall with another

this can lead to inaccurate testimony

**Gabbert 2003**

\-pp studied in pairs, watched different angles of a crime

\-pp discussed before being asked to write down what they saw

\-71% recalled aspects of the video they got from discussion whilst 0% of the control group did

\-EWT contaminated by discussion

pros?

1\.practical applications

\-L+P showed how EWT can be altered by a simple change of wording

\-means wrongful conviction may take place based on how q. are asked

\-means police use the cognitive interview as a way of minimising impact of misleading information

2\. Clifasefi 2013- supports how powerful misleading information can be when altering recall

\-Pp received idea they became ill drinking a certain alcohol eg vodka

\-experimental group saw a larger likelihood of remembering the false event/ not drinking that alcohol again

\-implantation of false memories can impact current

cons?

3\.ecological validity

\-research in a lab isn’t always a good thing, pp had to watch videos of a crime meaning their emotions weren’t as strong as they would be when witnessing a crime in real life

\-emotions including shock and anxiety effect recall meaning the findings may lack validity

4\.pp differences

\-L+P used students as their sample = unrepresentative

\-they have certain traits making them better or worse at recalling info

\-tend to be younger so have better memories but less knowledge of speeds when driving

\-results aren’t generalisable to all ages as a result

EWT-

anxiety has negative effects?

\-WEAPON FOCUSSED EFFECT=

witness focussed on central details such as a weapon and ignored peripheral details

Johnson and Scott (1976)

procedure→ pp were sat in a waiting room and hear an argument

‘low anxiety’ condition= man walked with a pen and grease on hands

‘high anxiety’ condition= breaking glass, paper knife and blood

findings→ picked man from a set of 50 photos

pen= 49% could identify

bloody knife= 33% could identify

EWT-

anxiety has positive effects?

\-FIGHT OR FLIGHT RESPONSE=

can be triggered and increases our alertness and improves our memory of a certain event due to be aware of more cues

Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

procedure→ study of a real life shooting,

\-owner shot a thief dead and 13/21 witnesses agreed to take part

\-interviews were 4-5 months after event and compared to actual police interviews

\-accuracy was based off how many details recalled and they were asked about stress on a 7 point scale and if any emotional problems since eg sleeplessness

findings→ witnesses gave accurate account with little difference since 5 months ago some details eg colour were less accurate

\-highest levels of stress most accurate 88% vs 75%

contradiction?

Johnson pp had high anxiety due to it being threatening but guns also caused arousal

pros?

1\.Practical applications

\-Johnson and Scott showed behaviour is impacted by if a weapon is present or not

\-irl, likelihood of eyewitness being exposed to anxiety is high so police need to be aware when interviewing and minimise the impact of anxiety

\-as a result, use cognitive interview

2\.Y+C used a natural experiment

\-the crime was real so the anxiety also was

\-reduces chance of demand characteristics

\-high ecological validity

cons?

3\.natural research impacted by extraneous variables

\-pp were interviewed after 5 months leaving time for post event discussion which may influence their recall

\-recall may be improved due to others not anxiety meaning it lacks internal validity

4\.scary or unusual?

\-assumed the gun impacted recall

\-Pickel replicated the study with gun, scissors and chicken in hair salon

\-chicken and gun were equally bad

\-suggest unusual items impact recall reducing internal validity

cognitive interview?

\-suggested as an interviewing technique in order to improve eyewitness recall

what are the methods?

1\.report everything

\-encourages reporting every single detail about an event rather than just the specifics

\-even trivial events can trigger important details

2\.reinstate context

\-mentally recreate environment and personal context rather than recalling just the past but not the cues

\-context state dependant retrieval triggers recall

3\.reverse the order

\-different order than original events rather than chronologically

\-opens up retrieval pathways reducing schema impact

4\.change perspective

\-recalling from others pov

\-reduces impact of schemas

pros?

1\.not all of them are needed to be effective

\-Milne and Bull found each alone was more valuable and produced more info than a standard interview

\-re and rc to be the best

\-shortened version can be used when time restricted

2\.effectiveness shown by Kohnken

\-conducted a meta analysis of 50 standard interviews vs cognitive to find 81% more correct info was recalled

\-large volume of empirical evidence

cons?

3\.meta analysis uncovered some issues

\-increase in incorrect information by 61% vs standard interview

\-may not be relied on in court as false convictions may be a result

4\.time consuming interview

\-time spent giving support and helping relax

\-training to conduct so also time consuming

\-means police are reluctant to use it and may not use it effectively