MEMORY FLASHCARDS

AQA Psych A Level

Types of Memories + their functions

STM - temporary memory store for events in the present/immediate past - Short duration + Small Capacity

LTM - more permanent memory store for events that have happened in the more distant past - Long duration + Large Capacity

Coding definition

the way in which information is changed so that it can be stored in memory

Capacity definition

the amount of information that can be stored in the memory at any given time

Duration definition

the length of time information remains in storage within memory (how long a memory lasts)

Coding - Baddeley (1996)

Baddeley gave different lists of words to 4 groups of ppts:

• Acoustically similar - word sounded similar (cat, cab, can)

• Acoustically dissimilar - words sounded different (pit, few, cow)

• Semantically similar - words with similar meanings (great, large, big)

• Semantically dissimilar - words with different meanings (good, huge, hot)

Ppts were shown the original words and were asked to recall them in correct order

• when they did the task immediately, they were using STM and tended to do worse with acoustically similar words

• when they recalled from LTM (waited 20 mins) they did worse with semantically similar words

Coding - Conclusion

• For STM, since the list of acoustically similar words was recalled the least efficiently, it seems that there was acoustic confusion in STM - therefore STM is coded acoustically

• For LTM, since the list of semantically similar words was recalled the least efficiently it seems there was semantic confusion in LTM - therefore LTM is coded semantically

Definition: Acoustically Coded

Coded in terms of how it sounds

Definition: Semantically Coded

Coded in terms of meaning

Definition: Visually Coded

Coded in terms of the image

Evaluation - Baddeley Coding

Strengths:

• it identified 2 memory stores

• this led to the development of the MSM

Limitations:

• used artificial stimuli

• Lacks ecological validity - the words used had no personal meaning to the ppts so it does not tell us about coding for everyday memory tasks, so the findings of this study have limited application

Capacity (Testing Digit Span) - Jacobs (1887)

• Joseph Jacobs read out 4 digits and the ppts tried to recall them in the correct order

• If the ppt got it correct, they would increase the number of digits to 5 and so on until they make a mistake - this gives us an indication of their digit span

• the mean span for digits ranges between 9-3 items, and for letters this was a range of 7-3

• Jacobs concluded that STM has a limited storage capacity

Capacity (7±2) - Miller (1956)

• Miller observed everyday practice and noticed that things come in sevens - notes of musical scale, days of the week, seven deadly sins etc.

• He believed that the span of STM is around 7 items (plus or minus 2)

• He noted that people can recall 5 letters as easily as they can recall 5 numbers by chunking them together (grouping sets of digits or letters in units/chunks)

• Miller’s explanation highlights that the capacity of STM is limited by the number of chunks, not the number of individual, basic units of information

Evaluation - Capacity (Miller + Jacobs)

Strengths:

• Jacobs’ study has been replicated - his findings have been confirmed in later controlled studies (e.g. Bopp and Verhaeghen 2005)

• Enhances the validity that Jacobs’ study is a valid measure of STM digit span

• Real-world application in remembering phone numbers (for example)

Limitations:

• Cowan (2001) reviewed studies on capacity of STM and concluded that it is limited to 4 chunks - suggests that the lower end of Miller’s estimate (5 items) is more appropriate

• Vogel (2001) looked at capacity for visual items and also said it is limited to 4 chunks

• Simon (1974) found that people had a shorter memory span for large chunks (e.g. A phrase) and a longer memory span for small chunks (e.g. A one-syllable word) - So it is the size of the chunk that matters

Capacity of LTM - Linton (1975)

• Linton (1975) conducted an autobiographical study using a memory diary to record 6 years of event from her life

• A researcher would randomly select pairs of records once a month and Linton would try to estimate the chronological order in which they had occurred and the date of each recorded event

• The average items tested each month was 150, from 5,500 items in total after 6 years

• Linton found that her memory for real-life events decreased at a rate of 5% a year, but she was able to recall a lot more items than expected, suggesting that real-life memories are a lot more durable than those of most lab experiments

• Conclusion = the capacity of the LTM is very large and potentially limitless

Duration of STM (consonant syllables) - Peterson & Peterson (1959)

• 24 students were given a consonant syllable (e.g. YCG) to recall and a 3-digit number to count backwards from

• When tested after 3 seconds, they could recall 80% of them, but after 18 seconds (retention interval) they could only remember 10%

• recall got progressively worse as the delay increase

• Conclusion = STM lasts 15-30 seconds (average 18 seconds)

Evaluation - STM Duration Peterson & Peterson

Strengths:

• showed that forgetting in STM can occur if information is not rehearsed

• high levels of control

• replicability

Limitations:

• trying to memorise consonant syllables does not reflect everyday memory activities so it is artificial and lacks ecological validity

• Marsh et al. (1997) explained that when ppts aren’t expecting to be tested, forgetting will occur after 2 seconds

• Is the study really testing for duration or just displacement - the numbers may displace the syllables to be remembered

Duration of LTM - Bahrick et al. (1975)

• Participants - 392 Americans between 14-17

• Recognition test - 50 photos from high school year books - 90% accurate after 15 years, 70% after 48 years

• Free recall test - Participants listed names of their graduating class - 60% recall after 15 years, 30% after 48 years

Evaluation - LTM Duration Bahrick et al.

Strengths:

• The research demonstrates VLTM for a particular type of information - familiar faces that are likely to have emotional significance

• Study uses meaningful stimuli (high school year books) to test memory - therefore the research is more representative of natural behaviour so it has a high ecological/external validity

• When lab studies were done with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates were lower (e.g. Shephard 1967)

Limitations:

• it cannot be concluded that VLTM exists for all types of information - maybe just for emotionally meaningful stimuli

• a weakness is that it is unclear whether the drop off in accuracy is due to limits of duration or a general decline with memory as we become older

Definition - Theoretical Models

diagrammatic representations of the steps involved like a flow chart (e.g. the multi-store-model of memory)

Definition - Computer Models

Software simulations of internal mental processes that are created in collaboration with computer scientists. The computer analogy is used to describe the human mind through input, storage and output

Multi-store model (MSM) - Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)

• The MSM describes how information flows through the memory system

• Memory is made of three stores linked by processing

• MSM model is linear - suggests that informations flows in a fixed sequence/straight line: Sensory register → STM → LTM

• Loss of information from LTM is due to decay, interference or problems in retrieval

• The more something is rehearsed by rote repetition, the more lasting the memory will be (maintenance rehearsal)

Sensory Register (SR) - MSM

• All stimuli from the environment (e.g. sound of someone talking) passes into the SR

• This part of the memory is not one store but five, one for each sense

• Coding - modality-specific, depends on the sense (visual in iconic - acoustic in echoic etc.)

• Duration - very brief, less than half a second

• Capacity - very high, e.g. over 100 million cells in one eye, each storing data

• SR is not a unitary store

Transfer from SR to STM - (MSM)

• Information only passes further into memory only if attention is paid to it (attention is the key process)

• if information is not paid attention to, it will decay (disappear) and not pass on to STM

Short-term memory (STM) - MSM

• A limited capacity of temporary duration

• Coding - acoustic

• Duration - about 18 secs unless the information is rehearsed

• Capacity - between 5 and 9 (7±2) items before some forgetting occurs (Cowan argues for around 5)

• STM is a unitary store - one single undivided sotre

Transfer from STM to LTM - (MSM)

• Maintenance rehearsal occurs when we repeat (rehearse) material to ourselves

• We can keep information in the STM as long as we rehearse it

• If we rehearse it long enough it passes into LTM

Long-term memory (LTM) - MSM

• A permanent memory store

• LTM is a unitary store - one single undivided store

• Coding - mostly semantic

• Duration - potentially up to a lifetime

• Capacity - potentially unlimited

Retrieval from LTM - MSM

When we want to recall information stored in LTM it has to be transferred back to STM by a process called retrieval

Support of MSM - Clive Wearing CS

• Through a viral infection he suffered brain damage to his hippocampus

• His STM was intact, but he was unable to transfer memories from his STM to his LTM

• This supports the MSM because it suggests that STM and LTM are separate stores because he can form new STM but can’t form new LTM

Limitations:

• The CS is not generalisable because he is just one person and there is not a big sample size - not everyone’s memory can be compared to his

Support of MSM - Scoville and Milner (1957) - HM (anonymous)

• HM had brain damage caused by an operation to remove the hippocampus from both sides of his brain to reduce his sever epilepsy

• He could not form new LTMs (e.g. could not recall what he ate earlier in the day) but performed well on tests of immediate memory span which is a measure of STM

• This supports the MSM because it suggests that STM and LTM are separate stores because he can form new STM but can’t form new LTM

Evaluation of MSM - Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)

Strengths:

• There is research support which shows that STM and LTM are different

• Baddeley (1966) found that we tend to mix up words that sound similar when using our STMs (STM coding is accoustic) - but mix up words that have similar meanings when we use our LTMs (LTM coding is semantic)

• This supports the MSM’s view that these two memory stores are separate and independent

Limitations:

• The studies tend not to use everyday information (e.g. faces/names) but digits/letters - the MSM may not be a valid model of how memory works in everyday life where memory tends to involve meaningful information

• KF had amnesia (from motorcycle accident) (Shallice and Warrington 1970), STM recall for digits was poor when he heard them but much better when he read them - other studies confirm there may also be a separate STM store for non-verbal sounds (e.g. noises)

• Therefore the MSM is wrong to claim that there is just one STM store processing different types of information

• Prolonged rehearsal is not needed for STM-LTM transfer

• Craik and Watkins (1973) argued there are 2 types of rehearsal called Maintenance and Elaborative

• Maintenance (amount of rehearsal - described in the MSM), Elaborative (needed for LT storage - occurs when you link information to your existing knowledge, or think about its meaning)

• This suggests that the MSM does not fully explain how LT storage is achieved

• Craik and Tulving (1975) - LoP Study - Participants remembered most words from condition 3 (semantic processing) and least from condition 1 (shallow processing) - Shows that STM and LTM are more complex than suggested by MSM and memories will only go into the LTM when/if there is semantic (deeper) processing

Levels of Processing Theory - Craik and Lockhart (1972)

• Suggested that enduring (long-lasting) memories are created by the type of processing you do, rather than through maintenance rehearsal

• Things that are processed more deeply are more memorable

• Participants remembered most words from condition 3 (semantic) and least from condition 1 (shallow processing)

Definition - Elaborative Rehearsal

• A strategy that encourages a deeper semantic level of processing by connecting new information to existing knowledge

• According to the levels of processing theory, this will lead to more robust and durable long-term memories, whereas simply repeating information (maintenance rehearsal) leads to shallower processing and weaker memories

The Working Memory Model (WMM) - Baddeley & Hitch (1974)(2000)

• Baddeley and Hitch wanted a model that actually explained common mental activities

• Baddeley once described memory as 'a mental workspace'

• WMM is one of the most cited cognitive psychology models in the world

• performance of 2 simultaneous tasks requiring the use of 2 separate perceptual domains (e.g. a visual and a verbal task) is nearly as efficient as performance of the tasks individually

• In contrast, when a person tries to carry out two tasks simultaneously that use the same perceptual domain, performance is less efficient than when performing the tasks individually

Central Executive (CE) - WMM

• Allocates subsystems

• Supervisory role - monitors incoming data, directs + manages attention and allocates subsystems/’slave systems’ to tasks

• it has a very limited storage capacity - can only hold 1 piece of info at a time

Phonological Loop (PL) - WMM

• Consists of a phonological store and an articulatory process

• PL deals with auditory information + preserves the order in which the information arrives - it is subdivided into:

• Articulatory process: allows maintenance rehearsal (repeating sounds to keep them in working memory while they are needed - silently repeats words on a loop)

• Phonological store (‘inner ear’)- stores the words you hear (in the order it was heard/any visually-presented language converted by the articulatory process)

Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (VSS) - WMM

• Stores visual and/or spatial information when required (e.g. recalling how many windows your house has)

• Logie (1995) subdivided the VSS into:

• Visual cache - stores visual data about form and colour

• Inner scribe - records arrangement of objects in visual field + rehearses and transfers the information to the central executive

Episodic Buffer (added in 2000) - WMM

• temporary store for information

• integrates visual, spatial and verbal information from other stores

• maintains sense of time sequencing - recording events (episodes) that are happening

• it has a limited capacity and links working memory to LTM and other cognitive processes like perception

Evaluation - WMM Baddeley & Hitch (1974)

Strengths:

• the model is support from clinical evidence

• Shallice and Warrington (1970) studied patient KF who had brain damage from motorcycle accident - his STM for auditory was poor (damaged PL) but could process visual information normally (intact VSS)

• This supports the WMM view that there are separate visual and acoustic memory stores

• dual task performance studies support the VSS

• Baddeley et al.’s (1975) ppts found it harder to carry out 2 visual tasks at the same time than do a verbal and visual task together (same for 2 verbal tasks)

• This is because both visual tasks compete for the same subsystem (VSS) so there is no competition with a verbal and visual task - therefore there must be a separate subsystem that processes visual input (VSS) and also a separate system for verbal processes (PL)

Limitations:

• Counterpoint to KF study - KF may have had other impairments which explained poor memory performance, apart from damage to his PL - this challenges evidence from clinical studies of brain injury

• lack of clarity over the central executive

• Baddeley (2003) said the CE was the most important but the least understood component of the working memory

• there must be more to the CE than just being ‘attention’ (e.g. it is made up of separate subcomponents) - therefore the CE is an unsatisfactory component and this challenges the integrity of the model

Trace Decay Theory - Forgetting in STM

• Forgetting occurs as a result of the automatic decay or fading of the memory trace.

• Focuses on time and the limited duration of STM

• Suggests STM can only hold information for between 15-30 secs unless it is rehearsed -  After this time, the information / trace decays and fades away.

• The longer the time information is retained, the more the memory trace decays and as a consequence more information is forgotten.

Evaluation - Trace Decay Theory

Strengths

• There is research that supports the trace decay theory.

• Peterson & Peterson (1959) found that when rehearsal is prevented, information in short-term memory fades rapidly as time passes by, which supports the idea of a decaying memory trace.

 

Limitations

• It’s hard to control what happens between learning and recall.

• The time gap between learning and recall is always filled with other events, so we can’t be sure forgetting is due to decay rather than interference from those events.

• You can’t create a true “empty” interval after learning.

• If participants can rehearse, decay won’t occur; if you block rehearsal with a distractor task, you introduce interference instead.

• Decay theory also struggles to explain how people can clearly remember events from years ago, even without thinking about them in the meantime.

Displacement Theory - Forgetting in STM

• Because of its limited capacity, suggested by Miller to be 7±2 items, STM can only hold small amounts of information.

• When STM is “full”, new information displaces or “pushes out’ old information and takes its place

• The old information which is displaced is forgotten (displacement).

• It was also assumed that the information that had been in STM the longest was the first to be displaced by new information.

Evaluation - Displacement Theory

Strengths:

• Free-recall studies (hearing a list of words, then recalling them in any order) consistently show the primacy effect—better recall of words at the start of the list—and the recency effect—better recall of words at the end of the list.

• Displacement theory explains the recency effect: the last few words are still in STM and haven’t been displaced, so they’re easy to recall.

• The primacy effect is explained by the MSM (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968): early words receive more rehearsal because there is little competition in STM and are therefore more likely to transfer to LTM.

 

Limitations:

• Forgetting from STM can occur due to displacement or due to decay, but it is often very difficult to tell which one it is.

Interference (theory) - Forgetting in LTM

• interference - when 2 pieces of information disrupt eachother

• forgetting in LTM occurs because we can’t get access to memories even though they are available

Interference is worse when memories are similar:

• in PI, previously stored information makes new information more difficult to store

• in RI, new information overwrites previous memories which are similar

Definition - Proactive Interference (PI)

• PI occurs when an older memory disrupts a newer one (old interferes with new)

• Example - teacher learns many names in the past and can’t remember names of her current class

Definition - Retroactive Interference (RI)

• RI occurs when a newer memory disrupts an older one (new interferes with old)

• Example - teacher learns many new names this year and can’t remember the names of her previous students

Support for Interference - McGeoch + McDonald (1931)

Effects of Similarity - experiment

• Ppts were asked to learn a list of words to 100% accuracy

• Then they were given a new list to learn - the new material varied in the degree to which it was similar to the old:

• Group 1 - synonyms

• Group 2 - antonyms

• Group 3 - unrelated words

• Group 4 - consonant syllables

• Group 5 - 3 digit numbers

• Group 6 - no new list (ppts rested - control condition)

• performance depended on the nature of the second list - the group with synonyms produced the worst recall

• this shows that interference is strongest when the memories are similar

Evaluation - McGeoch + McDonald (1931)

Strengths:

• Retro-active interference is the strongest when we have similar pieces of information

• Interference exists due to retro-active results

Limitations:

• limited ecological validity

• low mundane realism - ppts were asked to memorise + recall trivial, meaningless words, lists, numbers

• artificiality

• demand characteristics

Support for Interference - Underwood (1957)

• Underwood (1957) showed that pro-active interference could be significant

• The more lists a participant has to learn, the worse their overall recall

• This is explained by pro-active interference because each list makes it harder to learn subsequent lists

Evaluation - Interference theory

Strengths:

• Baddeley and Hitch (1977) - examined rugby union players who had played every match in the season and those who had missed some games (injuries) - The players were asked to recall the names of the teams they had previously played against earlier in the season

• Players who had played the most games forgot more games than those who had played fewer games - These results support the idea of retroactive interference as the learning of new information (new team names) interfered with the memory of old information (earlier team names)

• Support from drug studies

• Material learned just before taking diazepam recalled better than a placebo group one week later - retrograde facilitation

• the drug stopped new info from reaching brain areas that process memories - it could not retroactively interfere with stored information

• this shows that the forgetting is due to interference - reducing the interference reduced the forgetting

• Ceraso (1967) - if a memory was tested again after 24hrs, recognition (accessibility) showed spontaneous recovery, but recall (availability) remained the same

• This suggests that interference occurs because memories are temporarily inaccessible rather than disappearing altogether which reinforces the ideas of the interference theory

Limitations:

• Tulving and Psotka (1971) - gave ppts lists of words organised into categories (not told what they were)

• recall of first list was 70% but fell with each new list (interference)

• when given a cued recall test/ names of categories, recall rose again to 70%

• this shows that interference causes just a temporary loss of access to material still in LTM - not predicted by theory

• Counterargument to Baddeley Rugby - Interference in everyday situations is unusual because the necessary conditions are relatively rare - therefore most everyday forgetting may be better explained by other theories (e.g. retrieval failure due to lack of cues)

• research into interference theory is artificial - e.g. remembering lists of words (lacks mundane realism)

Retrieval Failure - explanation of forgetting

• lack of cues can cause retrieval failure

• when information is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time

• if the cues are not available at the time of retrieval, you might not access memories that are actually there

Retrieval cues serve as a reminder and can trigger a memory and they are either:

• Context dependent - recall dependent on external cue (e.g. environmental factors)

• State dependent - recall depends on internal cue (e.g. physical/psychological state)

Encoding Specificity Principle - Tulving (1973)

• cues help retrieval if the same ones are present both (1) at encoding (when we learn the material) and (2) at retrieval (when we are recalling it)

• if the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different (or if cues are entirely absent) there will be some forgetting

Support for Retrieval Failure - Godden & Baddeley (1975)

Context-dependent forgetting:

Deep-sea divers learned word lists and were later asked to recall them:

• Condition 1: learn on land - recall on land

• Condition 2: learn on land - recall underwater

• Condition 3: learn underwater - recall on land

• Condition 4: learn underwater - recall underwater

Findings:

• accurate recall was 40% lower in conditions 2+3 (mismatched contexts) than in conditions 1+4 matched contexts)

• Retrieval failure was due to absence of encoded context clues at time of recall - material was not accessible (i.e. forgotten)

Support for Retrieval Failure - Goodwin et al. (1969)

• Investigated the effect of alcohol on state-dependent retrieval

• They found that when people encoded information when drunk, they were more likely to recall it in the same state

• For example, when they hid money and alcohol when drunk, they were unlikely to find them when sober, however, when they were drunk again, they often discovered the hiding place

• Other studies found similar state-dependent effects when participants were given drugs such as marijuana

Support for Retrieval Failure - Carter & Cassady (1998)

State-dependent forgetting

• Investigated the impact of antihistamine drugs (which make you drowsy) on learning words and passages of prose\in conditions where there was a mismatch between the internal state when learning and the internal state when recalling what had been learnt, the performance on the memory test was significantly worse.

Evaluation - Retrieval Failure

Strengths:

• real world application - e.g. people often go to another room to get an item but forget what they wanted, but then when they return to the original room they remember again

• impressive range of supporting evidence (Godden + Baddeley, Carter + Cassady, Goodwin et al., Eysenck + Keane)

Limitations:

• One limitation is that retrieval cues do not always work - this theory would suggest that being in the same place, or in the same mental state would lead to improved exam performance, for example - evidently this is not always an effective strategy and information must be learnt meaningfully

• One limitation is that retrieval failure only explains one type of forgetting, and only some situations of forgetting - forgetting would be best explained using a combination of these theories

• While retrieval failure effects do occur in everyday life, they don't explain all instances of forgetting - this therefore disregards other types of forgetting, such as interference theory, decay and displacement

• context effects vary in recall + recollection - Godden + Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment using a recognition test instead of recall

• there was no context-dependent effect - findings were the same in all 4 conditions whether the contexts for learning and recall matched or not

• this suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting - only applies when a person has to recall info rather than recognise it

Definition - Eye Witness Testimony (EWT)

Legal term that refers to the use of EWT (or ear witnesses) to give evidence in court concerning the identity of someone who has committed a crime and other crime-related details

EWT - Misleading information

• the accuracy of EWT can be affected by misleading information

• misleading information refers to incorrect information given to an eyewitness after the event/crime

• it can take many forms: leading questions, post-event discussion - between co-witnesses and/or other people

Why do leading questions affect EWT?

• Response bias - wording of question has no enduring effect on an eyewitnesses’ memory of an event, but influences the kind of answer given

• Substitution explanation - wording of a question does affect eyewitness memory, it interferes with the original memory, distorting its accuracy

Why does post-event discussion affect EWT?

• memory contamination - eye-witness testimonies become altered or distorted because witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories

• memory conformity - witnesses usually go along with one another to win social approval or because they believe other witnesses are right and they are wrong, unlike with memory contamination the actual memory is unchanged

Eyewitness testimony - Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Leading questions

• 45 participants (students) watched film clips of car accidents and then answered questions about speed. Critical question: ‘Roughly how fast were the cars going when they hit eachother?’

• 5 groups of ppts, each given a different verb in the critical question: hit, contacted, bumped, collided or smashed

• the verb ‘contacted’ produced a mean estimated speed of 31.8mph. For the verb ‘smashed’ suggested a faster speed of the car than ‘contacted’