Cognitive

Question 1

MSM - A01

Answer 1

• C = 7(+/-2)
• D = 18s-30s
• Enc. = STM (acous) - maint. / LTM (semant.) - elab.
• STM = display / displacement - LTM retrieval failure

Question 2

MSM - A02

Answer 2

Craik and Lockheart: more rep does not = longer lasting memories – need semantic

Glanzer et al: recall word lists – earlier / later words = primacy / recency effect = 1st words are LT / 2nd are ST – 10 second delay = LT affected – shows unitary stores

Peterson and Peterson: Items can only stay in ST for a short period of time

Question 3

MSM - A03

Answer 3

GOOD
- KF case study - damaged ST - LTM fine
- Supp. research - reliable
BAD
- simplistic - WMM better
- Deterministic
- Machine reductionism

Question 4

Encoding Capacity and Duration - A01

Answer 4

D: time info not available
Capacity: how much info stored
Encoding: info changed to be processed
- STM = phonetically = acoustically rehearsed
- LTM = semantically = elaboratively rehearsed

Question 5

Encoding Capacity and Duration - A02

Answer 5

STD = Peterson and Peterson: nonsense trigrams = count back from three – 85% recall trigram 3 sec – 10% 18sec.

LTD = Bahrick et al: 392 graduates shown photos from school – free recall – photo rec/ name rec = free always worse / rec better = cues.

STC = Miller: items capacity in ST = 7(+/-2)

LTE = Conrad: pps struggle recall words with similar meaning

Question 6

Encoding Capacity and Duration - A03

Answer 6

GOOD
Lab experiments - causal
Replicable - reliable
BAD
Lacks ecological validity - Apart from Bahrick
limited sample sizes - sample bias

Question 7

Types of LTM - A01

Answer 7

Procedural = automatic / unconscious
Declarative (Sematic - info / Episodic - context)
- BRAIN AREAS - scans show LTM distinct when accessed
- temp lobe / semantic // cerebellum(MC) = procedural

Question 8

Types of LTM - A02

Answer 8

Hodges and Patterson: Alzheimer patients can retain new episodic nit semantic

Irish Et al: found that same as H/P

HM (Milner): could not form semantic / episodic but could retain procedural

Question 9

Types of LTM - A03

Answer 9

GOOD
ecological validity
control - only seen in brain scans
BAD
Use of Case Studies = problematic
Sample bias
Poor causal validity
lacks gen.
Oversimplified

Question 10

WWM - A01

Answer 10

CE / PL (PS + AL) / VSS (VC + IS) / EB
- slave systems with sub functions allocated
- worse perf. when 2 tasks = 1 store

Question 11

WMM - A02

Answer 11

Baddeley: C1 follow light / describe angles vs C2 light + verbal task
- C2 better at task – resources allocated evenly

KF (Shallice and Warrington): damage to ST = more difficulty in auditory vs visual info

LH (Farah et al): better at visual tasks than spatial tasks

Question 12

WMM - A03

Answer 12

GOOD
- Eco valid - CS
- Causal - Lab
- modern paradigm - use of brain scanning VSS = diff PL
BAD
- Limited sample size
- CE = non-falsifiable = model as a whole = questioned

Question 13

Forgetting (Interference) - A01

Answer 13

• Retro = new int old info
• Pro = old int new info

Question 14

Forgetting (Interference) - A02

Answer 14

A – Muller and Pilzecker: nonsense words + retention time (C2 had an intervening task) C1 better recall of word list

B – Underwood: MA of studies – pps learn word list + 10 more = 20% recall after 24hrs – 1 list = 70% recall

McGeough and McDonald: learn two lists – different content = similar content = 12% recall vs differed 26%

Question 15

Forgetting (Interference) - A03

Answer 15

GOOD
- Eco valid - Danaher et al - advertising
- also practical appl. for business
BAD
- not all lab based - DC
- Kane and Engle - ID

Question 16

Forgetting (Retrieval Failure) - A01

Answer 16

ESP = info enc. - context/ env. / emote/ state

Question 17

Forgetting (Retrieval Failure) - A02

Answer 17

Tulving and Pearlstone: 48 words (12 categories) – C1 free recall vs C2 cue recall – C2 better retrieval (60%)

Abernethy: 4 conditions – same room same tutor etc. (combinations) – same room / tutor similar / both same = best performance.

Goodwin et al: learned sober recalled drunk etc.
- best recall = sober , sober yet similar to drunk drunk – sober drunk etc. = poorest

Question 18

Forgetting (Retrieval Failure) - A03

Answer 18

GOOD
Supp evidence
Controlled env.
Ecologically Valid
BAD
Limited exp.
Alt Exp (outshining hyp.)
ESP not falsifiable

Question 19

EWT - Misleading Info (A01)

Answer 19

Devlin rep. = 75% EWT for conviction
EWT skewed by others
- Post event discussion // Conformity
Repeat interview

Question 20

EWT - Misleading Info (A02)

Answer 20

Loftus and Palmer: 45 students – traffic crash videos guess speed – went up as the intensity of the verb used went up e.g. = smashed 40.8mph

Loftus and Palmer (2): same prospect 150 = verb changed – more intense verb – more people said they saw broken glass a week later

Gabbert et al: 71% acquired extra wrong info post discussion

Question 21

EWT - Misleading Info (A03)

Answer 21

GOOD
controlled lab
test / retest
good appl. / implications
BAD
- Contradictory = Yuille and Cutshall: real crime – saw shop owner gun down crim – 4m later witness under misleading Qs = consistent
Poor ecological validity EWT not in lab

Question 22

EWT Anxiety - A01

Answer 22

Yerkes Dodson effect = too little poor recall / opt amount / too much P R
Weapons focus effect
Catastrophe theory

Question 23

EWT Anxiety - A02

Answer 23

Yuille and Cutshall
Loftus and Burns: pps. watch simulated armed robbery – C1 high A = lower recall

Peters: inoculation visit – met nurse HA = low recall vs investigator = higher recall

Johnson and Scott: walk out of room with pen = 49% // knife = 33%

Pickel: thief enters hair salon with gun = high threat / surprise = recall worst due to surprise

Question 24

EWT Anxiety - A03

Answer 24

GOOD
lab = cause / effect / replicable
better real life appl.
BAD
deterministic
ignores mental rather than physical anxiety
research no eco validity

Question 25

Cognitive Interview A01

Answer 25

RE + CR / CO + CP
+ Enhanced cognitive interview

Question 26

Cognitive Interview A02

Answer 26

Kohnken et al: MA 32 studies 34% avg. increase in recall when CI used – 81% in ECI
- also saw 61% in incorrect info – quantity overall

Geiselman: pps. sim crime – CI produced best recall

Bekerian and Dennet: 27 studies reviewed = most effective overall

Question 27

Cognitive Interview A03

Answer 27

GOOD
supp research
broad sampling
effective PA
BAD
only some aspects = effective - overall not wholly useful
not consistently accurate - not precise to aspects of crime