Memory

Evaluate the working memory model

STRENGTHS

• Dual task studies evidence - Participants struggles doing two visual tasks or two auditory tasks at the same time, but could perform one visual and one auditory task relatively easily - Supports different stores for STM and the difference between auditory and visual stores

• Case study evidence - Shallice and Warringon (1970 - studied KF after moterbike accident - Short term forgetting of auditory information was much greater than visual - Auditory problems were limited to verbal material such as letters and digits rather than meaningful sounds - Suggests brain damage was limited to phonoligcal loop

WEAKNESSES

• Issues with central executive being too simple - EVR (person intitials) who had a cerebral tumour removed, performed well on logical reasoning tests but took hours making basic desicinons like what to eat for lunch. This suggests that central executive is much more complicated and made up of different parts and areas of the brain.

• Evidence is lab studies - These have low ecological validity as tasks are not similar to everyday life - therefore not generasiable to everyday live and rest of population

• Issues with case studies - The process of brain damage (and for example a motorbike accident) is traumatic - This could be the cause of memory impairment rather than the actual brain damage. - Additionally there is no evidence of memory capabilites before brain damage/accident therefore there might have been no actual change to memory. Finally, case studies are unique individualsa and cannot be generalised to whole poulation.

Evaluate multistore model of memory

STRENGTHS

• Case study HM - Had parts of hippocampus removed to reduce epilepsy seisures - STM intact - LTM from before surgery intact - Could not form new long term memories - Supports different stores of memory - supports seperate

• Lab study evidence - Beardsley (1997) found that the prefrontal cortex is active during STM but not LTM - Squire et al (1992) found hippocampus is active when LTM is engaged - Supports seperate stores

WEAKNESSES

• Overly simplisitc (STM and LTM might be made of seperate parts and not be singular stores) - For example, WMM and supporting evidence suggests STM is more complex - LTM can be seperated into episodic and semantic memory - Suggests gaps/flaws in explanation

• Over simplistic (STM is dependent on LTM), they may be seperate stores but they are closely linked - Hulme et al (1991) - words were recalled better than nonsense syllables, words in foreign languages were recalled better when they knew the definition than those that they didn’t know, and that nonwords that sounded like words were recalled more than those that did not - suggests LTM has more of an impact on STM than the MMoM suggests.

Outline the multistore model of memory

Suggests that there are three distinct and seperate stores for memory: sensory register, short term memory, and long term memory. Information is transferred between these stores. From sensory to short by attention and from short to long through elaborative rehearsal. Maintenance rehearsal (i.e. repetition of information) keeps information in the short term.

Outline duration, capacity and encoding of MMoM

Sensory register

• Duration - A few milliseconds to seconds

• Capacity - Unlimited

• Encoding - Every sense

Short term memory

• Duration - 15-18 seconds

• Capacity - 5-9 items

• Encoding - Semantically

Long term memory

• Duration - A lifetime/unlimited

• Capacity - Unlimited

• Encoding - Semanticly

Outline the Working Memory model

Baddely and Hitch (1974) proposed that the MMoM is too simplistic and suggest that STM is made up of different stores/systems

Central executive - Controls two systems, directs attentional resources

Phonoligical loop - Processes auditiory information

• Phonological store - memory of sound is stored here

• Articulatory process - responsible for inner voice and forming sentances and words etc to write/speak

Visuospatial sketchpad - processes visual information

• Visual cache - memory of sight is stored here

• Inner scribe - plans out visual routes, tracks objects, processes distance/depth between objects

Episodic buffer - Combines information of two stores into one time-line sequence of events

Outline interference theory for forgetting - including AO1 key studies

Interference - when another memory interferes with the recall fo another memory. There are two types:

• Retroactive - When a newly learnt memory interferes with the recall of an old previously learnt memory

• Proactive - When an old memory interferes with the learning/recall of a new memory

Key Studies

• Muller and Pilzecker (1900) - Participants were asked to memorise nonsense syllables, half the participants were then asked to do an intervening task (describing pictures) - Participants describing pictures recalled worse - Suggests retroactive interferrence

• Underwood (1957) - Participants who memorised 10 lists or more recalled 10% after 24 hours, those who memorised 1 list remebered 70% - Suggests proactive interferrence as previously learned words stopped the recall of newer words.

• McGeogh and McDonald (1931) - Researched how similarity affects interferrence - Participants were asked to memorise a list of words, had an interval then asked to learn another list of synonyms, nonsense syllables or numbers. - Recall was respectively 12%/26%/37%

• Baddeley and Hitch (1977) - Natural study as IV was not manipulated - Asked rugby players who had played varying amounts of games over the season to recall names of past opposing teams - Those who had played less games could recall more names than those who had played more - Suggests real life example of interferrence.

Evaluate the interference theory for forgetting

STRENGTHS

• Not widely applicable - Anderson (2000) suggests that because interferrence only happens when information is similar it does not happen very often - This suggests its not an explanation for a large amount of real life forgetting making the explanation somewhat redundant

• Any of the AO1 key studies

• Real life application in advertising - Danaher et al (2008) found that recall recognition decreased when exposed to mulitple similar adds within the same week. They suggests running multiple adverts within the same day to reduce interferrence from competitors. - This makes the theory useful

WEAKNESSES

• Low external validity - Lots of research is lab which lacks mundane realism and does not create conditions similar to real life for example memorising whole lists of words - This means it is harder to generalise findings to everyday life.

• Accessability vs availability - Ceraso (1967) - found that recall (availability) made a spontaneous recovery after 24 hours. This suggests that interferrence may only affect accessability long-term and availability temporerally. - Makes the theory flawed as it tries to generalise to all types of memory.

• Motivation for forgetting - Anderson (2003) suggested that interferrence is not a passive side effect but a useful purposeful action - Suggests that new learning causes a direct inhibition of a competing memory trace as the goal is to be able to retrieve the most relevent information - This would mean that there is a flaw in the theory leading to a misunderstanding.

Outline retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting - Including AO1 key studies

Suggests that forgetting happens when the information is there we just can’t access it - this is due to the absence of retrieval cues.

• Tulving and Thompson (1973) - Suggests the encoding specificity principle which is the idea that recall/memory is best when original information/cues that were present during learning are also there during recall. For example, the weather, the people, the room, the clothes.

• Retreival cues can be social, enviromental and emotional

Key studies

• Tulving and Pearlston (1956) - Found that participants recalled 60% of words when given the categories during recall compared to 40% of words for those who didn’t the categories

• Godden and Baddely (1975) - Scuba divers learnt words either underwater or on land and then recalled the words either in the same enviroment of the alternative enviroment. Highest recall was present when there was the same enviorment during recall as there had been during learning.

• Goodwin et al (1969) - Male participants learnt words either drunk (3x the legal UK driving limit) or sober, then were tested 24 hours later where half of the original sober people stayed sober and half got drunk and the original drunk people either became sober or got drunk again - Highest recall was learning and testing sober. Testing drunk and recalling drunk performed better when the states did not match.

Evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting

STRENGTHS

• All of the AO1 studies - Goodwin et al, Godden and Baddely, Tulving and Pearlston

• Abernathy study - Students learnt knowledge with a specific teacher and classroom and then were tested with varying conditions of the same and/or different classrooms and/or teachers. Students performed best when classroom and teacher were the same

• Tulving and Psotka - Apparent interference effects are actually due to lack of retrieval cues - When not given the categories participants recalled less and less words the more they learnt - when given the categories the interference effect seemingly disappeared - this suggests that retrieval failure is actually a more important explanation than interference.

WEAKNESSES

• Lab study - Low external validity - Lots of research is lab which lacks mundane realism and does not create conditions similar to real life for example memorising whole lists of words - This means it is harder to generalise findings to everyday life.

• Outshining hypothesis - Contextual cues might not always be very useful in real life (real life learning is much more comples and in depth than lists of words). Outshining hypothesis suggests that the utility of a cue is reduced by better more relevent cues and that contextual cues are often outshone - Therefore, research into them might not be that useful.

Outline how misleading information affects accuracy of eye-witness testimony

Post event discussion - Discussing details with other witnesses after the event can cause a contamination of information - leading to false memories and incorrect beliefs.

Leading questions - Leading questions during interviews can directly or accidentally encourgae witnesses to answer a specific way that might not be accurate - For example, what colour jacket were they wearing when they weren’t wearing a jacket in the first place.

Conformity effect - Post event discussion can lead to conformity most often informational where if someone says something that you don’t think really happened you might be likely to doubt yourself and believe that the other person is right - creates false memories.

Repeat interviewing - Each time a witness is interviewed there is a chance that the witness will incorperate false information from leading questions and post-event discussion - This is particularly prevelent in children.

Key AO1 Studies

Elizabeth loftus - 45 students were asked to watch 7 films of a ca crash after which they were given a questionnaire. There was one critical question “How fast were the cars going when they_____” - Different groups got a different verb. They all resulted in different average estimates of speed.

• Smashed - 40.8 mph

• Collided - 39.3 mph

• Hit - 38.1 mph

• Bumped - 34.0 mph

• Contacted - 31.8 mph

Fiona Gabbert - Participants watched different videos of the same event so saw different items - One group were encouraged to discuss together before recall - 71% of those who discussed went on to incorrectly recall an item that wasn’t there.

Evaluate misleading information affecting accuracy of eye-witness testimony

STRENGTHS

• AO1 Key studies - Loftus, Gabbert

• Sharman et al - Participants watched a video of an electrician stealing 8 items, and they recieved a pre-warning either vague (caution should be taken) or detailed (there will be misleading information) - they then recieved misinformation in a tiktok style video or written format - the detailed warning prevented most written style misinformation but neither warning was very effective against the video

WEAKNESSES

• Vredevelt - Participants watched the same video, some participants were encouraged to discuss details in pairs, then all participants did a second interview - They found that those who collaborated reported more new information overall in the second interview and made significantly fewer errors. - This suggests that post event discussion actually improves accuracy, not reducing it.