memory ao3

strength of coding research

identifies separate MSs: Baddeley's research helped identify LTM and STM and differentiate them via coding, helping develop the MSM

C/A: artificial tasks - meaningless to ppts + doesn’t tell us about coding in everyday life, therefore limited application

strength of capacity research

valid study: JACOBS' study has been replicated - lack of control over confounding variables, but has been replicated with similar findings, therefore valid study

/ca - overestimated STM cap: COWAN concluded that cap of STM is about 4+/- 1 chunks, therefore lower end of Miller's guess was more accurate

weakness of duration research (STM)

meaningless stimuli: PETERSON^2 used artificial stimuli. recalling syllabes doesn't reflect everyday memory, therefore lacks external validity

strength of duration research (LTM)

high external validity: Bahrick's study uses meaningful memories. LTM studies with meaningless pics to remember = low recall, therefore Bahrick's study = more 'real' estimate of duration

strength of MSM

RS: BADDELEY found low recall (STM) for acoustically similar words/low recall (LTM) for semantically similar, therefor STM + LTM = separate

/CA: artificial stimuli used therefore research lacks external validity and MSM may not be valid for meaningful info

strength 2 of MSM

Glazner and Cunitz found words at the start and end of word lists were more easily recalled by ppts (primacy and recency effect) but the middle words were displaced. suggests that the first words had transferred to the LTM and the last words were in the STM, therefore MSM = valid

weakness of MSM

more than one STM: KF = amnesia after motorcycle accident

visual STM ✅ but verbal STM ❌ therefore MSM incorrect in claim of one STM

weakness 2 of MSM

elaborative rehearsal: CRAIK and WATKINS found that prolonged rehearsal = not needed for STM -> LTM transfer. type of rehearsal = more important than amount of rehearsal. elaborative = linking new info to existing knowledge, therefore MSM doesn't explain how LTM storage is achieved

strength of types of LTM

clinical evidence: CLIVE WEARING AND HM= impaired episodic memory but unaffected semantic and procedural. CW = still play piano/read music, therefore support for Tulving's LTM stores

/CA lack control of variables: no way to control what happens prior to damage therefore hard to judge how much worse it has become - limits info from studies

weakness of types of LTM

conflicting neuroimaging evidence: BUCKNER AND STEVENSEN concluded that semantic memory = left prefrontal cortex and episodic = right, but other research links left PFC w/ encoding of episodic memories and right PFC w/ episodic retrieval

strength 2 of types of LTM

real world application: people -> older = memory loss occurs (mostly episodic). BELLEVILLE trained ppts to improve episodic memory and found better recall vs control

strength of WMM

clinical evidence: KF had poor STM for verbal info, but good STM for visual - damaged PL but intact VSS, therefore strong support for separate vis/acoustic stores

/CA unclear if KF had other cognitive impairments - lacks control of variables - may be a result of trauma

strength 2 of WMM

dual task performance: BADDELEY found that ppts performed better and ver/vis tasks rather than vis/vis or ver/ver as they compete for same system, therefore VSS and PL must be diff

weakness of WMM

lack of clarity about CE: BADDELEY said CE is most important but least understood - needs more clear specification, therefore is an unsatisfactory component

strength of retrieval failure

RWA: BADDELEY argues cues are worth paying attention to - going into a room to get something, forgetting what you need, going back to first room and recall is restored, therefore shows strategies IRL

strength 2 of retrieval failure

RS: GODDEN AND BADDELEY and CARTER AND CASSADAY show lack of relevant cues can lead to CDF and SDF - other researchers also argue RF is main reason for forgetting, therefore valid IRL and in lab studies

/CA BADDELEY argues context effects = not strong IRL. contexts have to be VERY different (e.g. land vs. water) therefore may not explain everyday forgetting

weakness of retrieval failure

Recall vs. recognition: G+B replicated study using recognition instead of recall - found no CD effect and performance was same in all conditions, therefore limited explanation as it only applies to recall not recognition

strength of interference theory

RWA: BADDELEY AND HITCH studies rugby players and tested their recall on the names of the teams they'd played in the season. played the most games = poorest recall(most interfering material), therefore increases validity of theory

/CA: unusual for interference to cause forgetting in everyday life - conditions are rare unlike lab studies which have high control therefore, forgetting is better explained by other theories

weakness of interference theory

overcome using cues: TULVING and PSOTKA gave ppts word list organised in categories. recall averaged 70% for first list but decreased as each list added (PI). ppts were given cued recall test w category names and recall rose again to 70% therefore, interference is TEMPORARY

weakness 2 of interference theory

retrograde facilitation: COENEN et al - learning whilst UTI = bad recall, learning b4 UTI = good recall. WIXTED suggested drug prevents new info reaching processing parts of brain therefore RI doesn't occur.

strength of leading questions

RWA: LOFTUS argued that LQs have distorting effects on memories - police must take care when questioning - therefore, can improve way legal system works, protecting innocents from convictions

/CA: L+P's study is very diff to IRL (watching clip vs. seeing IRL). Foster argues EW memory has important consequences (diff motivation) therefore EWT may be more dependable

weakness of leading questions

evidence against substitution: SUTHERLAND AND HAYNE found that when asking misleading questions, recall = more accurate for central details vs. peripheral ones so resistant to misleading info, which isn't predicted by sub explanation

weakness of PED

evidence against memory conformity: SKAGERBERG + WRIGHT showed ppts clips of mugging - 1. light brown hair, 2. dark brown hair, after PED blend of both colours was answer to what hair colour, therefore memory is distorted via contamination via misleading PEDs rather than conformity

weakness of effects of anxiety on EWT

unusualness not anxiety: J+S measures unusualness not anxiety. PICKEL found low anx in high unusualness condition (raw chicken in hairdresser), therefore WFE = unusualness not anx

strength of negative effects of anxiety on EWT

support for negative: VALENTINE and MESOUT put HR meters on ppts + split ppts (high anx vs. low anx) found that high anx had bad recall, therefore anx = bad effect on EWT

strength of positive effects of anxiety on EWT

support for positive: Christianson and Hübinette question 58 ppts after bank robbed in sweden - directly involved = best accuracy (more than 75% accuracy overall)

/CA - lack of control over CVs (PEDs etc.) as interviews were 4-15 mths later

strength of cognitive interview

support for the effectiveness: meta-analysis by KÖHNKEN -> combining data from 55 studies comparing CI to standard found 41% increase in accurate info in CI vs. standard, therefore it's effective in helping recall

/CA - found an increase in amount of inaccurate info too especially w/ ECI therefore CI sacrifices quality of EWT

weakness of cognitive interview

some elements = more useful than others: MILNE AND BULL found that each technique used alone = more info than standard but a combo of report everything and reinstate context produced better recall than any combo. therefore, lack of credibility of the overall usefulness

weakness 2 of cognitive interview

time-consuming: time is needed to establish rapport and requires special training to be carried out, therefore not realistic for all police to use it