Cognitive Flashcards
MSM - A01
- C = 7(+/-2)
- D = 18s-30s
- Enc. = STM (acous) - maint. / LTM (semant.) - elab.
- STM = display / displacement - LTM retrieval failure
MSM - A02
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
MSM - A03
GOOD
- KF case study - damaged ST - LTM fine
- Supp. research - reliable
BAD
- simplistic - WMM better
- Deterministic
- Machine reductionism
Encoding Capacity and Duration - A01
D: time info not available
Capacity: how much info stored
Encoding: info changed to be processed
- STM = phonetically = acoustically rehearsed
- LTM = semantically = elaboratively rehearsed
Encoding Capacity and Duration - A02
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
Encoding Capacity and Duration - A03
GOOD
Lab experiments - causal
Replicable - reliable
BAD
Lacks ecological validity - Apart from Bahrick
limited sample sizes - sample bias
Types of LTM - A01
Procedural = automatic / unconscious
Declarative (Sematic - info / Episodic - context)
- BRAIN AREAS - scans show LTM distinct when accessed
- temp lobe / semantic // cerebellum(MC) = procedural
Types of LTM - A02
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
Types of LTM - A03
GOOD
ecological validity
control - only seen in brain scans
BAD
Use of Case Studies = problematic
Sample bias
Poor causal validity
lacks gen.
Oversimplified
WWM - A01
CE / PL (PS + AL) / VSS (VC + IS) / EB
- slave systems with sub functions allocated
- worse perf. when 2 tasks = 1 store
WMM - A02
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
WMM - A03
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
Forgetting (Interference) - A01
- Retro = new int old info
- Pro = old int new info
Forgetting (Interference) - A02
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%
Forgetting (Interference) - A03
GOOD
- Eco valid - Danaher et al - advertising
- also practical appl. for business
BAD
- not all lab based - DC
- Kane and Engle - ID
Forgetting (Retrieval Failure) - A01
ESP = info enc. - context/ env. / emote/ state
Forgetting (Retrieval Failure) - A02
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
Forgetting (Retrieval Failure) - A03
GOOD
Supp evidence
Controlled env.
Ecologically Valid
BAD
Limited exp.
Alt Exp (outshining hyp.)
ESP not falsifiable
EWT - Misleading Info (A01)
Devlin rep. = 75% EWT for conviction
EWT skewed by others
- Post event discussion // Conformity
Repeat interview
EWT - Misleading Info (A02)
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
EWT - Misleading Info (A03)
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
EWT Anxiety - A01
Yerkes Dodson effect = too little poor recall / opt amount / too much P R
Weapons focus effect
Catastrophe theory
EWT Anxiety - A02
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
EWT Anxiety - A03
GOOD
lab = cause / effect / replicable
better real life appl.
BAD
deterministic
ignores mental rather than physical anxiety
research no eco validity
