modified erq prompts

evaluate one model of memory

schema theory

highly testable with empirical evidence bc can be proven falsifiable

a + p: participants who switched schemas could recall previously unrecalled info relevant to new perspective

shows memory is influenced by schemas in encoding and retrieval

showed expected results → clear predictions that could’ve been proven wrong

limitation: uncertainty to which they’re acquired

vagueness limits construct validity and questions whether schemas actually exist or are just explanations (Cohen)

contrast two models of memory

working memory model and schema theory

focus of memory: ST = how schemas influence memory, WMM = structure and processes in STM

a + p: only schemas influence encoding and retrieval

w + s (kf): how STM operates through separate systems bc impaired verbal but intact visual memory

explain different phenomena: ST = distortion, WMM = multitasking

l + p: distorted by post-evet info, emotionally charged language alters the way people remember events

l + b: limited to tasks using the same component of WMM (used phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad)

models explain different phenomena: ST = how meaning/experience shape memory, WMM = temporarily stores/manipulates info

discuss the reliability of memory

argue against: reconstructive memory

point of concern against them is ecological validity

l + p: task doesn’t mimic real-life situations, limits generalization

twe is memory even unreliable: memory with personal significance

b: emotional connections can be highly reliable over time

uncertainty lies in whether lab evidence can be generalized

evaluate the use of one or more research methods used to study memory

lab study bc determines cause and effect

researchers control all other variables for clear view → internal validity

b + j: clear manipulation of timing of contextual info → only change

bc of this, they lack ecological validity bc they’re aritifcal

b + j: unnatural situation that doesn’t reflect real life memory

limits how well the results can generalize

evaluate research on the reliability of memory

experimental nature as both value and limitation

shows cause-and-effect relationship

l + p: manipulation of verb only → cause-effect relationship

low ecological validity bc artificial

b + j: lab setting with strict controls, unnatural situation that doesn’t reflect real-life memory use → limits generalization

can’t determine if the same stuff would happen in real life

anderson and pichert

buying a house vs robbing a house

coher

schema theory is too vague

warrington and shallice

case study on kf where parts of STM still work even if others are damaged

loftus and palmer

different verb used to describe car collision

landry and bartling

1,2,1,2 → multitasking

bahrick

emotional memories with a strong personal connection are remembered

bransford and johnson

heard topic info before/after/never passage