Cog: long term memory (copy)

levels/depth of processing approach

argues that deep, meaningful processing of info leads to more accurate recall than shallow, sensory kinds of processing

in general, ppl achieve a deeper level of processing when they extract more meaning from a stimulus

levels of processing and memory for general material

deeper levels of processing should produce better recall

meaning vs physical appearance

distinctiveness

elaboration

deep processing also enhances memory for faces

• from most to least likely to remember: meaning, rhyming, appearance

representative research

most to least likely to remember:

• self-reference instructions

• semantic (meaning but still gets beat by self reference)

• acoustic

• visual

factors responsible for the self reference effect

the “self” provides a rich set of “cues” (is the best way to encode and retrieve)

self-reference instructions encourage people to consider how their personal traits are connected to one another (elaboration)

material associated with the self is rehearsed more frequently

• retrieve it regularly → “online”/practiced more often

• it feels personal → connected to episodic memories we already have → easier to encode

Ex. someone

encoding specificity principal

recall is better if the context during retrieval is similar to the context during encoding

• study in same place you test (also applies to emotional state)

• study drunk → test drunk, study under water → test underwater

when the 2 contexts do not match, you are more likely to forget the items

research on encoding specificity

marian and fausey (2006)

bilingual english/spanish speakers

stories and questions (in either english or spanish)

match or mismatch of story and question languages

encoding-specificity principle: different kinds of memory tasks

1. recall task (harder, no cues) vs recognition tasks (easier)

2. real life vs laboratory

3. short delay vs long delay (natural decay over length of delay but cues fade too, can forget details and specifics)

4. encoding specificity is typically strong in recall, real-life, long delay situations

encoding-specificity principle: physical vs mental context

• how the environments “feel”, not so much how they look

levels of processing and encoding specificity

encoding specificity can override level of processing

bransford et al (1979):

• various levels of processing tasks during encoding

• test with rhyming task

• ppl perform better on rhyming test if they had originally performed the shallow-encoding task, rather than the deep-encoding task

semantic processing is effective only if the retrieval conditions also emphasize deeper, more meaningful features

ex. “if i teach you in a certain way, i should test you the same way”

teach: theories/concepts → test: years/names = bad

ways the emotional nature of the stimuli can influence LTM: pleasant

more accurate recall for pleasant items

• pollyanna principle

recall: pleasant → unpleasant → neutral (balch)

• if something creates pos or neg feeling, we tend to forget the context

Pollyanna principle

pleasant items are usually processed more efficiently/accurately than less pleasant items

ways the emotional nature of the stimuli can influence LTM: neutral pos association

more accurate recall for neutral stimuli associated with pleasant stimuli

• do ppl remember commercials less accurately when they are associated with violent media (yes?)

bushman

• significantly better recall for commercials that had appeared in the nonviolent film

• anger/violence in a show typically reduce memory accuracy for info in a commercial

ways the emotional nature of the stimuli can influence LTM: unpleasant

over time, unpleasant memories fade more than pleasant

walker 1997

• personal events; pleasantness and intensity ratings

• changes in pleasantness ratings over time

• positivity effect

  • this isn’t applicable for ppl w depressive tendencies (ties back to their tendencies to pay ATTENTION to neg things)

walker 2003

• students with/without depressive tendencies

• students without showed positivity effect

• students with showed same amount of fading for unpleasant and pleasant events

ex. old married couples

positivity effect

tendency to prioritize attend to, and remember positive information over negative information

explicit memory tasks

maps in a declarative way

map to:

• recall - “was Mia there?”

• recognition - “have you seen this before?”

even if ppl cannot remember stimuli when they are tested using an explicit memory task, they may remember when tested with implicit memory task

ex. ppl typically recall more words if they have used deep levels of processing to encode them

implicit memory tasks

you might not be aware that you know these things

• blindsight

• sitting down and being able to do a skill (Cline W. playing piano bc it’s a learned skill)

you can have a weak/unconscious memory trait pulled out by implicit and not explicit

ex. research illustrates that ppl often know more than they can reveal in actual recall

on test, semantic and perceptual encoding may produce similar memory scores, or lower if they used semantic encoding

anxiety disorders and explicit/implicit memory tasks

mitte (2008) - meta-analysis

• implicit memory tasks: high and low anxious people performed similarly

• recognition tasks: high and low anxious people performed similarly

• recall tasks: high anxious ppl more likly to recall negative, anxiety-arousing words but less likely to recall neutral/pleasant words (when compared to low anxious)

  • working memory: if you are recalling what you encoded (neg. memories) its going to create more negative though processes

  • this is a cycle and it adds to rumination/worry

individuals with amnesia

patient HM: damages temporal lobes, but over time got a little of his memory back

• other parts close by started to support the damaged areas

MLT/Hippocampus:

• larger amount of tissue cut out → more severe amnesia

• more damage, worse cognitive deficit

the context-specfiic nature of expertise

in general, researchers have found a strong positive correlation between knowledge about an area and memory performance in that area

ppl who are expert in one area may not dispaly outstanding general memory skills/expertise in other areas

• if you’re an expert in an area → you’re an expert in THAT area (and not necessarily anything else)

• when you have a broad spectrum, you likely lose depth of expertise

how do experts and novices differ?

experts:

• have well-organized, carefully learned knowledge structure

• are more likely to reorganize new material they must recall into meaningful chunks/groupings

• have more vivid visual images ofr items they must recall

• emphasize distinctiveness of each stimulus during encoding

• rehearse in more strategic fashion

• better at reconstructing missing info from material they partially remember

• more skilled at predicting difficulty of task and monitoring progress

autobiographical memory

memory for events and issues related to yourself

characteristics of autobiographical memory

1. we make errors, but our memory is often accurate for a variety of info

2. when people make mistakes, these mistakes generally concern peripheral details and specific info about commonplace events, rather than central info about important events

3. our memories often blend together info from a variety of sources; we activity construct a unified memory at the time of retrieval

schema

general knowledge/expectation based on past experiences

consistency bias

tendency to exaggerate the consistency between our past feelings and beliefs and our current viewpoint

• altering memories to fit w current perception of self

• similar to cognitive dissonance

source monitoring

trying to identify the origin of a particular memory

reality monitoring

dreaming that you fought with someone and waking up mad at them

“did i dream that?”

dreaming that you found something you lost and waking up realizing it isnt true

• schizophrenic ppl struggle with this a lot

flashbulb memories

many ppl believe that they can accurately recall all the minor details about what they were doing at the time of this event

• (not true!)

• ex. remembering situation specifics that evoked strong emotion —> not true (threat, anxiety, fear)

• they arent wrong that the memories are VIVID, but they are more confident, which can lead to inaccuracies

• when compared to standard memories, its about the same or sometimes context details can be worse (clothes, weather, etc)

talarico and rubin (9/11 vs ordinary event)

• recall testing after 1, 6 and 32 weeks

post-event misinformation effect

1st, ppl view an event

then they are given misleading info about the event

later on they mistakenly recall the misleading info, rather than the event they actually saw

ex. Ronald Cotton - victim kept seeing his face, which implanted the idea that he was the aggressor

proactive interference

previously learned old material keeps interfering with new memories

retroactive interference/misinformation effect

recently learned mew material keeps interfering with old memories

autobiographical memory: loftus and colleagues (1978)

childhood memory implanting

• proposed false memories (journals, stories from parents)

• when asked to recall they recalled the false stories as if they were true

constructivist approach

memory is not stagnant, it’s a flexible and reconstructive process

GENERAL factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony

1. ppl may create memories that are consistent with their schemas (ex. using brain rot so gen z can understand)

2. ppl may make errors in source monitoring (mixing up sources: having a bad dream and waking up upset, retelling a joke to the person who told it to you initially)

3. post-event misinformation may distort recall

OTHER factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony

make more errors:

1. if they saw a crime committed during stressful circumstance (weapon, focused on threat→ effects memory)

2. when long delay between event and time of testimony

3. if the misinformation is plausible

4. if there is social pressure. In contrast, more accurate when ppl are allowed to report an event in their own words, when given sufficient time and allowed to respond w “IDK” (level of comfort leads to better recall)

5. if someone has provided positive feedback (someone affirms you, so that reinforces your answer)

eyewitness testimony: relationship between memory confidence and accuracy

• many participants are almost as confident about their misinformation based memories as they are about their genuinely correct memories

• confidence not strongly related w accuracy (despite us being more willing to believe confident ppl)

• majority of officers and jurors are not aware that a confident eyewitness is not necessarily an accurate eye witness

recovered memory perspective

memory for traumatic events may be forgotten for many years and then come flooding back into conciousness

false memory perspective

most recovered memories are actually incorrect memories, constructed stores about events that ever occured

potential for memory errors

• memory is less than perfect

• social pressure enhances the likelihood of memory errors

• the accuracy of childhood memories is not easy to determine

  • we can implant memories, even if not intentional

The Recovered Memory/False Memory Controversy

recovered/false memory perspectives

• occurs with vulnerable population

• hypnosis

• implanting memories

  • aliens, demonic, SA

we believe its effected by both aspects

• it IS possible to recover memories, but the methods used at the time were debatable

• but either way, there is no way to prove whether or not they’re real

Roediger/McDermott

• lists of similar words

  • and then show a different list with some words the same and some new but still related

  • list 1: sleep, snore, bed

  • list 2: sleep, snooze, bed

• false recall rate of 55% (intrusion errors)

• intrusions are common on this task, b/c each word that does appear on a list is commonly associated w a missing word

True or False: research demonstrated ppl can construct false memories for events during childhood that never actually happened

True

• most ppl do not claim to “remember” the event but a significant amount do

arguments for recovered memories

lab studies lack ecological validity (real world)

• Research shows ppl cannot be convinced to create false memories for more embarrassing events (ex. having an enema as a child)

• Researchers studied individuals whose sexual abuse had been documented by medical professionals/ the legal system. Still, some fail to recall the episode when interviewed as adults

betrayal trauma

describes how a child may respond adaptively when a trusted parent/caretaker betrays him/her by sexual abuse

• child depends on this adult and must actively inhibit memories of abuse in order to maintain an attachment to this person

The Recovered Memory/False Memory Controversy: Both perspectives are partially correct

• some ppl have truly experienced childhood SA and may forget about the abuse for many decades until a critical event triggers the recall

• in contrast, other ppl have never experienced childhood sexual abuse. however a suggestion about abuse may create a false memory of childhood experiences that never really occured