IB EXAM GUIDE

Memory

Cognitive process of learning overtime

3 key points Memory

Encode: Getting info into brain
Storage: Information must be retained overtime
Retrieval: Must be able to get info back out of brain

Multi-Store Memory Model (Atkinson-Shriffrin 1968)

Sensory: Lasts for a few seconds unless paid attention to
Short-term: Lasts for 7 +/- 2 seconds: "Miller's Magic Number", 6-12 seconds. Lost w/o rehearsal
Long-term: Unlimited storage space, not detailed but summarized, fills in the gaps. Loss due to decay, old age, disease, or stopping in practicing overtime

Case study of HM

HM had epilepsy, hippocampus was removed where seizures were centered- resulted in memory loss

Anterogade amnesia

No new memories

Retrograde amnesia

Only able to recall things up to specific age/time

Procedural memories

How to do things

Episodic memory

Remembering events

Semantic memories

Remembering facts

Findings of HM research

Clear link between hippocampus and conversion of short-term memory

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

When we think about information, it is like a construction zone. We hold info, but work on it by comparing info to stored info. Alternative to MSM's short term memory

4 parts of Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Central executive (controls three below)
Phonological Loop
Episodic Buffer
Visuopatial Sketchpad

Central Executive (Working Memory Model Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Controls 3 components below- all goes to Long term storage, has limited capacity

Phonological Loop (Working Memory Model Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Stores memory briefly, 2 seconds, storage of words/sounds. Allows repetition but less efficient w/ memorization

Episodic Buffer (Working Memory Model Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Integrates info from phonological loop, VS sketchpad, and long term memory. True construction zone.

Visuopatial Sketchpad (Working Memory Model Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Short-term storage of images & spatial material, coming from the eyes or long-term storage

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974) Experiment - AIM

Investigate if people can use different parts of working memory at the same time

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974) Experiment - PROCEDURE

Participants do two tasks at once- repeat series of numbers while answering true/false questions

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974) Experiment - FINDINGS

As numbers increase, participants take longer to answer T/F questions, but don't have many errors still

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974) Experiment - CONCLUSION

Number task used phonological loop, reasoning questions used central executive, multiple stores of memory can be at work simultaneously

Primacy Effect

First few items in list recalled more frequently than middle items

Recency Effect

People tend to recall last few items on list (ones most recently said)

Schema

Group of neural networks of stored knowledge, beliefs, & expectations.

• When anything in a schema is brought up, all overlapping parts are activated. Automatic, happens naturally, w/o paying attention
• Helps us understand new things
• Schema is heavily influenced by cultural/social factors

Assimilation Vs. Accommodation

Assimilation: New info made to fit into existing schema
Accommodation: When new info modifies existing schema

Top down

Fitting into existing information

Bottom up

Using info coming from 5 senses - if one smells something burning, can connect that to a fire or something being burnt

Bartlett (1932) Experiment - AIM

To investigate if memories are influenced by previous knowledge

Bartlett (1932) Experiment - PROCEDURE

Reading participants an indigenous story & asking them to recall it

Bartlett (1932) Experiment - FINDINGS

Basics of story were remembered, details of story were assimilated to participants culture. (Ex: Canoe -> Boat). Leveling (shortening of story), sharpening (re-ordering story so it makes sense to them)

Bartlett (1932) Experiment - CONCLUSION

Culture/previous knowledge heavily impacts schema

Schema's impact on memory

People remember meaning, "gist" of the story. We fill in the blanks. People don't pay attention to detail that isn't in schema -> this can explain "Confirmation Bias"

Thinking

Cognitive process that modifies previously encoded info, results in getting new info from existing info

Decision-making

Cognitive process between choosing alternatives- involves choices

Dual Process Model of Thinking & Decision-making

Composed of two systems
System one: Automatic, intuitive, & effortless way of thinking
System two: Slower, conscious, rational way of thinking- effort

System 1 (Dual process)

• Employs heuristics, mental shortcuts
• Might have errors, not as rational/accurate
• Used when cognitive load is high, more stress, quick thinking
• Context dependent = focuses on existing info
• In everyday decision making

System 2 (Dual process)

• Thinking carefully about what is happening, why, and what likely is to happen next
• Abstract
• Conscious reasoning
• Logical and reliable
• Slow and requires effort
• Transfers info from one situation to a new situation

How the two systems co-exist (dual process)

We use both systems when addressing a problem. System 1 is quick, system 2 requires further analysis. System 1 is often activated before system 2.

Wason Selection Task (1966) - AIM

Gain better understanding of how decisions are made

Wason Selection Task (1966) - PROCEDURE

Participants tasked with doing a logical abstract puzzle involving 4 cards. If thought through properly, can be solved

Wason Selection Task (1966) - FINDINGS

Participants repeatedly chose wrong and couldn't explain why they chose wrong when they found out it was incorrect. Had an "ohhhh that makes sense" moment

Wason Selection Task (1966) - CONCLUSION

System 1 automatically activated instead of system 2. A follow up study by another researcher showed w/ same cards that if puzzle was less abstract, people were less likely to make mistakes. System 1 works better w/ concrete (already known) scenarios

Cognitive Bias

Deviation from normal thinking.

Heuristics

Mental shortcuts. Used when there is no time/resources to analyze a situation. "Quick-thinking"

Anchoring bias

We heavily rely on first pieces of info, and rely on that primary evidence to think in decisions. Example: buying something on sale that you don't need. (The anchor is the original price, which is higher, which makes you believe you're scoring a deal when its sold on sale for less)

Englich and Mussweiler (2001) Aim

Investigate the role of anchoring bias in determining sentencing in the courtrooms

Englich and Mussweiler (2001) Procedure

Participants as younger judges, were presented with a case, and had 15 minutes to read it- intended to employ heuristics. One case had a suggested sentence of 12 months (low anchor), and another had a sentence of 34 months (high anchor). They had to determine what the sentence for each case would be after 15 minutes passed.

Englich and Mussweiler (2001) Findings

The low anchor case averaged around 19 months, and the high anchor case averaged around 29.

Englich and Mussweiler (2001) Conclusion

Results demonstrate cognitive/anchoring bias, relying on anchor because of short time, using system 1 thinking which is prone to error. (There shouldn't be such a disparity between the recommended sentence and the sentence the participants actually determined)

Eyewitness testimony

Reliable method courts use

Reconstructive memory

Memory can be altered or simplified, actively recreating memories

Elizabeth Loftus

Argues that eyewitnesses actively reconstruct their memories through schema, so an eyewitness testimony can be flawed

Misinformation effect

Memory can be manipulated. Putting misleading information in someones head can lead to memory errors. Example: asking the question "Was the mustache light/dark?" when the person doesn't even have a mustache in the first place

Loftus and Palmer (1974) Aim

To see if memory can be altered by misleading info in an eyewitness situation

Loftus and Palmer (1974) Procedure

45 university students (opportunity sample) are shown different video clips of a car accident (5 different conditions). After watching, participants are asked to describe what happened with a specific question (the verb in the question is altered per participant). Example: "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?", as compared to, "How fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?"

Loftus and Palmer (1974) Findings

The question that had the verb "smashed", was on average answered with a faster speed (41 mph). The question with "contact" was averagely answered with a speed of 32 mph. Guesses varied based on word usage.

Loftus and Palmer (1974) Conclusion

Memory is reconstructive in nature. What we remember can be influenced by outside factors (in this case, wording of questions).

Are memories set in stone?

False. They can be lost, changed, created, and manipulated.

Flashbulb memory

Clear memory of an emotionally significant event. Can be negative or positive

Emotion "Damasio (2000)"

Physiological signals coming in in response to the environment. How we react.

Cognition relationship with emotion

Cognition influences emotion and vice versa. Cognition influences emotion through cognitive appraisal of stimuli. Emotion influences cognition, example: flashbulb memory

Flashbulb theory

Vivid, detailed memories of highly emotional events seem "recorded" like a photograph/film. Highly resistant to forgetting due to emotion at time of encoding. A CONTROVERSIAL THEORY

Flashbulb theory's six components

1. Place (where you were)
2. Ongoing activity (what were you doing)
3. Informant (how you learned about the event)
4. Own effect (how you felt)
5. Other effect (how others around you felt)
6. Aftermath (consequences of event)

Brown and Kulik (1977) Aim

To see whether shocking and personally significant events are remembered more vividly compared to mundane events

Brown and Kulik (1977) Procedure

Questioned 80 different participants aged 20-60 asking them to recall a shocking event (9 famous assassinations, 1 personal event)

Brown and Kulik (1977) Findings

Participants had vivid memory of place, ongoing activity, and own effect (how they felt) during assassination and personal event

Brown and Kulik (1977) Conclusion

Concluded that FBM is real, and more likely in shocking/personally relevant scenarios. Suggests that high levels of amygdala activity is responsible for flashbulb memories

Brown and Kulik (1977) Controversy

These memories could be remembered from rehearsal rather than just emotion

Memory

Cognitive process of learning overtime

3 key points Memory

Encode: Getting info into brain
Storage: Information must be retained overtime
Retrieval: Must be able to get info back out of brain

Multi-Store Memory Model (Atkinson-Shriffrin 1968)

3 separate "stores" of memory: sensory, short-term, long-term

Sensory (Multi-Store Memory Model / Atkinson-Shriffrin 1968)

Memory that lasts for a few seconds unless paid attention to

Short-term (Multi-Store Memory Model / Atkinson-Shriffrin 1968)

Memory that lasts for 7 +/- 2 seconds: "Miller's Magic Number", 6-12 seconds. Lost w/o rehearsal

Long-term (Multi-Store Memory Model / Atkinson-Shriffrin 1968)

Memory that has unlimited storage space, not detailed but summarized, fills in the gaps. Loss due to decay, old age, disease, or stopping in practicing overtime

Case study of HM

HM had epilepsy, hippocampus was removed where seizures were centered- resulted in memory loss

Anterogade amnesia (HM case study)

No new memories

Retrograde amnesia (HM Case study)

Only able to recall things up to specific age/time

Procedural memories (HM case study)

How to do things

Episodic memory (HM case study)

Remembering events

Semantic memories (HM case study)

Remembering facts

Findings of HM research

Clear link between hippocampus and conversion of short-term memory

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

When we think about information, it is like a construction zone. We hold info, but work on it by comparing info to stored info. Alternative to MSM's short term memory

4 parts of Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Central executive (controls three below)
Phonological Loop
Episodic Buffer
Visuopatial Sketchpad

Central Executive (Working Memory Model Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Controls 3 components below- all goes to Long term storage, has limited capacity

Phonological Loop (Working Memory Model Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Stores memory briefly, 2 seconds, storage of words/sounds. Allows repetition but less efficient w/ memorization

Episodic Buffer (Working Memory Model Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Integrates info from phonological loop, VS sketchpad, and long term memory. True construction zone.

Visuopatial Sketchpad (Working Memory Model Baddeley & Hitch 1974)

Short-term storage of images & spatial material, coming from the eyes or long-term storage

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974) Experiment - AIM

Investigate if people can use different parts of working memory at the same time

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974) Experiment - PROCEDURE

Participants do two tasks at once- repeat series of numbers while answering true/false questions

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974) Experiment - FINDINGS

As numbers increase, participants take longer to answer T/F questions, but don't have many errors still

Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch 1974) Experiment - CONCLUSION

Number task used phonological loop, reasoning questions used central executive, multiple stores of memory can be at work simultaneously

Primacy Effect

First few items in list recalled more frequently than middle items

Recency Effect

People tend to recall last few items on list (ones most recently said)

Schema

Group of neural networks of stored knowledge, beliefs, & expectations.

• When anything in a schema is brought up, all overlapping parts are activated. Automatic, happens naturally, w/o paying attention
• Helps us understand new things
• Schema is heavily influenced by cultural/social factors

Assimilation Vs. Accommodation

Assimilation: New info made to fit into existing schema
Accommodation: When new info modifies existing schema

Top down

Fitting into existing information

Bottom up

Using info coming from 5 senses - if one smells something burning, can connect that to a fire or something being burnt

Bartlett (1932) Experiment - AIM

To investigate if memories are influenced by previous knowledge

Bartlett (1932) Experiment - PROCEDURE

Reading participants an indigenous story & asking them to recall it

Bartlett (1932) Experiment - FINDINGS

Basics of story were remembered, details of story were assimilated to participants culture. (Ex: Canoe -> Boat). Leveling (shortening of story), sharpening (re-ordering story so it makes sense to them)

Bartlett (1932) Experiment - CONCLUSION

Culture/previous knowledge heavily impacts schema