COGNITIVE

Multi Store Memory Model

Memory Storage has 3 different stores

• Sensory

• Short Term

• Long Term

• Info is transferred between them linearly

Sensory, Short Term, Long Term

Parts of the MULTI STORE MEMORY MODEL

Sensory Memory (MSMM)

brief storage of info from your senses (milliseconds to a few seconds) and either fades or moves to short term

Short Term (MSMM)

where we hold a small amount of info temporarily (15-30 seconds)

• rehearsal can increase length or transfer it to long term

Long Term (MSMM)

Where we store info for long periods of time

Unlimited capacity

Can pull memories out of long term back to short term (retrieval)

Serial position effect (MSMM)

We remember the first and last thing of a list the best

First items - rehearsal - Long term

Last items - short term

Multi-store Memory Model critical thinking

strengths: groundbreaking theory, research supports the idea of multiple stores

weaknesses: too simplistic- doesn’t mention how the stores interact with eachother

Study to support Multi Store Memory Model

Glanzer and Cunitz (Serial Position Effect)

Glanzer and Cunitz (Serial Position Effect)

SUPPORTS MULTI STORE MEMORY MODEL

Procedure

○ Repeated Measures Design

○ army men are shown monosyllabic words on projector

○ Free recall of words after waiting A) no time, B) 10 seconds, or C) 30 seconds

Results

○ Primacy and recency effects with no time or 10 seconds (first words had been

rehearsed into long term memory, last words still in short term memory)

○ Only primacy effect in 30 second group (last words had faded from short term)

○ Supports idea of Multi-Store Memory Model

Evaluation

○ Lack of informed consent (some deception)

○ Easy words helps eliminate possible extraneous variables

○ Army sample = limited generalizability

○ Only words used, no test of visual or spatial inf

Working Memory Model

The short term memory is NOT A SINGLE STORE - has 4 sections that help us process information

• central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer

Central Executive

PART OF WMM

• ceo/conductor of the brain

• manages what we pay attention to, and directs the other parts of the working memory

Phonological Loop

PART OF WMM

• stores and manipulates auditory info

• maintenance rehearsal is used to keep info in this store

Visuospatial Sketchpad

PART OF WMM

• stores and processes visual info specifically spatial thinking and navigation

Episodic Buffer

PART OF WMM

• storyteller bc it combines info from other stores to make a clear story

• pulls info from the Long Term

Working Memory Model Critical Thinking

strengths: research to support multiple stores of stm

weaknesses: only about Short Term, doesn’t mention sensory or long term

Study to support Working Memory Model

Landry and Bartling (The Effect of Articulatory Suppression on Memory Recall)

Landry and Bartling (The Effect of Articulatory Suppression on Memory Recall)

SUPPORTS WMM

Procedure

○ Landry and Bartling (2011) conducted an experiment using articulatory suppression to test the Working Memory Model.

○ college psychology students

○ Shown different lists with a series of 7 letters randomly constructed from the letters F, K, L, M, R, X and Q

○ Control group wrote what remembered after 5 seconds, experimental group said 1, 2, 1, 2 to selves during those 5 seconds

Results

○ The results showed that the scores from the experimental group were much lower than the scores from the control group.

○ The mean percent of accurate recall in the control group was 76% compared to a mean of 45% in the experimental group.

Evaluation

○ The study is a well-controlled study with a high level of internal validity. A cause-and-effect relationship can be determined.

○ However, the nature of the study is rather artificial and thus lacks ecological validity.

○ The study supports the Working Memory Model and is easily replicable. The findings are, therefore, reliable

Schemas

organized units of knowledge based on past experiences

• enhances our memory

• cause distortion, sterotyping, and bias

Schema Theory

We build up ideas of things based on past experiences

○ Affects how we interpret, process, remember things

Bottom-Up and Top-Down Processing (Schema Theory)

Bottom-Up- interpreting info from scratch just using senses

Top-Down- processing things based on prior knowledge and schemas

Schema Theory Critical Thinking

strengths: lots of studies to support

weaknesses: vague on how schemes are acquired

Schema Theory Critical Thinking

strengths: lots of studies to support

weaknesses: vague on how schemes are acquired

Study to support Schema Theory

Brewer & Treyens (Office Schema Study)

Brewer & Treyens (Office Schema Study)

SUPPORTS SCHEMA THEORY

Procedure

○ Hypothesized that schemas make it easier to comprehend, remember info

○ Room created to look like regular office with lots of office items, included some

random materials like skull and frisbee

○ Participants left in room for 35 seconds while “waiting” for the next part of experiment

● Results

○ Participants more likely to remember “regular” office items like desk or pencil

○ Easier to have false memories for regular items

○ Didn’t remember weird items better

● Evaluation

○ Lab experiment… good level of control

○ Couldn’t verify schema of participants beforehand (but gave questionnaire)

○ Deception involved to avoid demand characteristics

Dual Processing Theory

humans have two ways systems of thinking

• system 1 and system 2

System 1 Thinking

PART IF DUAL PROCESSING MODEL

• intuitive, automatic, emotional, fast, efficient

• prone to mistakes and biases

System 2 Thinking

PART IF DUAL PROCESSING MODEL

• rational, logical, slower, careful, more time and effort

• less prone to bias

Heuristics (Dual Processing Theory)

PART IF DUAL PROCESSING MODEL

• mental shortcuts used with system 1 thinking

• availability (how easy it is to happen)

• familiarity (if we already know about it-bias)

• scarcity (scarce = more valuable)

• affect (emotions over logic when assessing benefits and risks)

Dual Processing Theory Critical Thinking

Strengths: studies to supports, good explanation of different types of thinking

Weaknesses: oversimplifying ways of thinking, doesn’t explain how systems interact

Study to support Dual Processing Theory

Tversky and Kahnman (Anchoring Bias)

Procedure

○ Wanted to study the effects of anchoring bias (system 1 thinking)

○ High School students

○ Ascending Condition: estimate the value of 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8 in five seconds.

○ Descending Condition: estimate the value of 8 X 7 X 6 X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 X 1 in five seconds.

● Results

○ Those in the ascending group had lower eventual total, as their anchor number was 1.

Those in the descending group had a higher total, since they started with 8.

● Evaluation

○ The study was an independent samples design. This means that participant variability

may have played a role in the results. It would be better to have a matched pairs design

to attempt to have two groups with an equivalent level of maths competency.

○ Simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the reliability of the

results

○ highly controlled and has high internal validity

○ low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. It is not too often in life that we

have only five seconds to estimate the value of something

Levels of Processing Theory

Deeper processing of info leads

to better memory

Deep Processing: Semantic - The meaning of the info, rather than sounds or looks

Shallow Processing: Structural- physical attributes, Phonemic- encoding of sounds

Study to support Levels of Processing Theory

Craik & Tulving (Levels of Processing)

Procedure

○ Repeated Measures Design

○ 24 paid participants, male and female

○ Shown short monosyllabic words like shark, crate, etc.

○ Some questions tested for structural processing (is it capitalized?)

○ Some questions tested for phonological processing (does word rhyme with…)

○ Some questions tested for semantic processing (would word fit in this sentence?)

● Results

○ Results supported hypothesis… memory better when processed more deeply

○ A good contrast to the Multi-Store Memory Model

● Evaluation

○ Easily replicable, standardized

○ Lab experiment… low ecological validity

○ Lack of informed consent (some deception)… were told they were tested for their

reaction time

○ Only word recall tested, rather than images, etc

Flashbulb Memory Theory

Highly emotional, arousing events can cause “flashbulb” memories

Biological mechanism makes them extra vivid and cemented

these memories are more likely to be remembered

Flashbulb Memory Theory critical thinking

strengths: provides evidence that emotion plays a role in memory

weaknesses: arguable that these memories aren’t accurate

(could be exaggerated bc of emotion)

Study to support Flashbulb Memory Theory

McGaugh and Cahill (Emotion and Memory)

Procedure

○ The aim of McGaugh and Cahill's study was to study the role of emotion in the creation of memories.

○ Participants were divided into two groups. Each group saw 12 slides which were accompanied by a very different story (One boring, one graphic and violent)

○ After viewing the slides, the participants were asked how emotional they found the story on a scale of 1 - 10. Two weeks after participating in the experiment the participants were asked to come back and their memory for specific details of the story was tested.

● Results

○ Researchers found that the participants who had heard the more emotionally arousing story demonstrated better recall of specific details of the story.

○ They concluded that the amygdala plays a significant role in the creation of memories linked to emotional arousal.

● Conclusions

○ The study is artificial and highly controlled. Therefore, there is a concern about ecological validity.

○ The study can be easily replicated because of its standardized procedure, allowing other researchers to test the reliability of the results.

○ There was a significant difference between the total recall of the participants in the different test conditions, so the study demonstrates internal validity

Reconstructive Memory Theory

Memories aren’t stored as a fixed record

Instead, we reconstruct memories every time we recall them

• Reconstructions influenced by beliefs, schemas, etc

Example of Reconstructive Memory Theory

Misinformation Effect: memory is altered by adding misleading info after the event

Creation of False memories: remembering things that didn’t occur

Reconstructive Memory Theory critical thinking

strengths: lots of studies to support, helps explain false memories

weaknesses: reductionist/oversimplified, vague on reconstruction of memories

Study to support Reconstructive Memory Model

Loftus and Palmer (Misinformation Effect)

Procedure

○ Lab experiment, Independent Measures Design

○ 45 college students from University of Washington

○ 7 videos of car crashes of different varieties

○ 5 different groups (“About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted) each other?”)

○ IV = verb, DV = speed estimated

● Results

○ Verb affected recall of video (smashed = 40.8 mph, contacted = 31.8 mph, etc.)

○ Supports idea of misinformation effect and reconstructive memory

● Evaluation

○ Good control of extraneous variables, internal validity

○ Students maybe not a representative sample

○ Lab experiment… low ecological validity (video may not have same impact)

○ Deception required for the study

○ Emotionally traumatic

ERQ discuss reliability of ONE cognitive process

ERQ Describe the influence of emotion on ONE cognitive process

works for both

FLASHBULB MEMORY THEORY

• McGaugh and Cahill

• Neisser and Harsch (Challenger Explosion)

• Procedure

  ○ The aim of the study was to determine whether flashbulb memories are susceptible to distortion.

  ○ On the morning after the Challenger disaster – less than 24 hours after the event - 106 college

  students in an introductory psychology course were given a questionnaire at the end of the class. They

  were asked to write a description of how they heard the news and answer a variety of questions

  ○ 2.5 years later, 44 of those students took survey again as seniors and also asked to rate confidence in

  the memories

  ● Results

  ○ Scored on how similar responses were in 7 areas… average score was 2.95/7 details being the same

  ○ Only 25% remembered taking survey the first time

  ● Evaluation

  ○ The study was a case study

  ○ There was also method triangulation - both questionnaires and interviews were used.

  ○ The limitation is that it cannot be replicated. In addition, there was participant attrition - that is,

  participants who dropped out of the study over time.

  ○ The study has high ecological validity. The researcher did not manipulate any variables and the study

  was not done under highly controlled conditions.

  ○ The study was naturalistic/realistic. Although this is good for ecological validity, it is difficult to

  eliminate the role of confounding variables.

  ○ There are several studies of different events - like September 11th - which seem to have the same

  results. This demonstrates the transferability of the findings of this study to other situations

ERQ Discuss a model of thinking and decision making

Discuss one of more biases in thinking and decision making

Dual Processing Theory

Tversky and Kahnman

Hamilton and Gifford

Procedure

○ 40 American undergraduates (20 males; 20 females).

○ Participants were shown a series of slides, each with a statement about a member of one of two groups - simply

called groups A and B. There were twice as many people in Group A (26) as in Group B (13), so Group B was the

minority group.

○ Each statement was about one individual in one of the two groups; the statement was either positive or negative.

Each group had the same proportion of positive and negative comments.

○ Participants were then asked to rank members of each group on a series of 20 traits - for example, popular,

social, and intelligent. After completing this task, they were given a booklet in which they were given a

statement and then asked whether the person who did this was from Group A or Group B. Finally, they were

asked how many of the statements for each group had been "undesirable."

● Results

○ On the trait ratings, group A was ranked higher than Group B for positive traits and lower for negative traits.

○ In the booklet, participants correctly recalled more positive traits for Group A (74%) than for Group B (54%) and

more negative traits for Group B (65%) than for Group A (55%)

○ Participants overestimated the number of negative traits in the minority group, but this finding was not

significantly significant.

● Evaluation

○ The study was a repeated measure design… so no concern about participant variability

○ The researchers created two groups, A and B, for which there would be no pre-existing stereotypes. This

increased the level of internal validity.

○ It was, however, highly artificial - meaning that ecological validity was low. In real life, there is much more

context to making stereotypes

ERQ Describe research method

or Disuss and ethical consideration

LAB EXPERIMENT or DECEPTION

Loftus and Palmer

Tversky and Kahnman