Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > Cognitive > Flashcards

Cognitive Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Memory

A

The process by which we retain info about events that have happened in the past

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

STM Capacity

A

Very limited capacity 7 +/- 2 - Miller’s magic 7

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

LTM Capacity

A

Potentially unlimited = hard to measure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Millers Magic 7

A

Tested capacity of STM & found = 7 +/- 2 meaning in every day life we may only remember 7 numbers / letters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Digit Span Test

A

Jacob’s 1887
Given number of digits & Ptp asked to remember in order - inc by 1 digit each time until can no longer remember in order
= 443 females (8-19) North London collegiate school - mean digit span = 9.3 & letter span = 7.3

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Strengths of Miller’s Magic 7

A

Theory is based on & supported by research e.g., Jacob’s
J’s research = based on systematic & replicable procedure - Digit span shown as reliable & valid by others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Weaknesses of Miller’s Magic 7

A

J’s research done in 1800s may not = well controlled - could be affected by confounding variables
M’s theory that ppl can remember as many chunks as letters = disproved - shorter span for longer chunks - Simon 1974
Cowan 2001 reviewed a variety of studies into STM & concluded it is likely to be limited to about 4 chunks
Some researchers have looked at STM capacity for visual info & 4 items = limit
M’s work based on others work may have made mistakes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Strengths of Jacob’s Study

A

Based on systematic & replicable procedure - shown to be r & v by others
In controlled environment & large num of ptps = gen to large group of ppl
Created objectifiable method

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Weaknesses of Jacob’s study

A

May = IDs
Cannot be gen to rest of society only = young girls
May not have been well controlled like today - confounding variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

STM Duration

A

Limited 18-30 seconds
Most ppl keep info longer by rehearsing- repeating keeps memory active

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

LTM Duration

A

Unlimited theoretically whole life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Peterson & Peterson 1959 Procedure

A

Investigated probability of recalling info when rehearsal = prevented
Lab exper Repeated Measures 24 intro psych students at Indiana Uni
Ptp given a 3 letter trigram & a number to count back from in 3s / 4s when red light appeared recall = 3-18s

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Peterson & Peterson 1959 Findings

A

As delay inc recall ability decreased
Verbal repetition prevents rehearsal from taking place so items being learnt = lost - lasted approx 18 secs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Peterson & Peterson 1959 Criticisms

A

Nonsense trigrams in a lab = low eco val
Relates to 1 aspect of memory & may not apply to all aspects (semantic, episodic & procedural)
Students aren’t like everyone else - clever & younger
Psych students may try to guess the aim may change behav - DCs
Single blind & double blind can combat

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Research into STM Duration

A

STM = short duration - P&P suped by Sebrechts (1989) - Ptps asked to unexpectedly recall 3 words did well if recall = immediate after 4 = almost 0 - sups limited duration w/o rehearsal / processing
M recent research shows STM duration is not as P&P thought - Naire (1999) thinks can = 96 secs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Research into STM Duration Criticisms

A

In Naire’s study ptps were asked to recall the same items across trials earlier studies used dif items could lead to interference dec recall
Info remains in STM for quite a while unless overwritten / replaced

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Bahrick Procedure

A

Aimed to investigate VLTM in a natural setting w/ personal significance - comp verbal & visual
Sample - 400 Ptp 17-74 various tests - year book used to ensure accuracy
1. Free recall names in grad class 2. Photo Rec 50 photos from their class 3. Name Rec x school friends

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Bahrick Findings

A

Tested w/in 15 yrs = approx 90% accurate faces & names
After 48 = 80% for name & 70% for face
Free recall less good 15 yrs = 60% 48 = 30% - LTM lasts longer if visual than verbal as older free recall dec = harder to retrieve w/o stimulus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Bahrick Conclusions

A

Evidence of VLTM - some loss - verbal almost as good as visual - recog better than recall - need stimulating

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Bahrick Criticisms

A

Could have looked at yearbook recently - could recall m info - may have met friends recently
Some may know m / some old have mem probs
Eco val not lab exper

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Encoding

A

Initial learning of info = how info from sensory input is changed into a form it can be stored
E.g., a word seen may be stored is encoded into a sound / meaning
1st stage of process of memory involves processing info not same in LTM & STM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Visual Encoding

A

Images

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Elaborative Encoding

A

Relating to prior knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Tactile Encoding

A

Touch

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Organisational Encoding

A

Categorising

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Acoustic Encoding

A

Sound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Semantic Encoding

A

By meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Baddeley 1966

A

Aim: asses coding in STM (mainly acoustic) & LTM (mainly semantic)
Tested affects of acoustic & semantic similarity recall on 75 Ptp
4 groups given word list - either similar / dissimilar a / s
At recall found ptps had difficulty in remembering acoustically similar words in STM but not LTM
Semantically similar words easy for STM not LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Baddeley 1966 Strengths

A

Had controls to prevent extraneous variables from confounding results
Poor hearing could have affected - given hearing test only perfect = used
Took place under controlled conditions in lab = internal val

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Baddeley 1966 Weaknesses

A

Used meaningless tasks & stimuli lacked eco val
Some experiments have also shown visual codes used in STM - Brandimore (1992) ptps used visual coding in STM if given visual tasks & prevented from rehearsal b4 recall
Normally we translate visual images into verbal codes but when rehearsal = prevented found to have used visual codes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

MSM Forgetting

A

STM has a capacity of 7+/-2 units of info if = full info will become displaced (leads to forgetting)
STM has limited duration b4 it needs to be transferred to LTM if runs our info will decay (leads to forgetting)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Sensory Store

A

Iconic store - visual input - what we see
Echoic store - for auditory - what we hear
Haptic store - tactile input - what we touch

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Baddeley 1988

A

Purpose of visual store is to allow us to integrate visual info we exper to = a smooth continuous visual exper
Have to hold SM info from 1 image during a few mili-sec it takes b4 next image is presented
Another func = sift incoming sensory info to avoid overload
SM holds image for a few seconds whilst scanned to decide when attention should go & passed for process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Sperling 1960

A

Ptps asked to stare at cross on screen - shown word grid for 50 milk seconds - asked to recall as many as possible could recall 4-5 aware of m
Change technique = 3 tones 1 for each row show grid & tone played immediately after - average recall = 3 - could have been any row but memory fades too quickly
While thing = 5 recalled (42%) but 1 row = 3 recalled (75%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Sperling 1960 Evaluation

A

= reliable high control levels
May lack validity doesn’t reflect everyday memory use
Ethical issues = limited right to w/d & debrief = NB due to potential bad performance perception

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)

A

Condition 1 immediate recall
Condition 2 distractor task

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Serial Position Effect

A

Words better recalled from start - primary effect - words = rehearsed & transferred to LTM
Words better recalled from end - recency effect - in STM at start if recall
Middle = less recall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) Condition 2

A

distractor task disrupted recency effect - words from last part not recalled well = displaced in STM but earlier words not affected as rehearsal meant they had gone into LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Central Executive

A

Has overall control - sets task goals - Directs attention to task
Monitors & corrects errors
Starts rehearsal process
Determines how resources are allocated
Limited capacity = key component

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Slave Systems

A

Support CE - can be used as storage systems
frees up CE capacity for m demanding tasks
Have separate responsibilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Phonological Loop

A

Sometimes called inner voice - deals w/ auditory info & preserves word order - limited capacity
Baddeley (1986) subdivided into articulatory process (holds words heard / seen & silently repeats) & phonological store (inner ear holds words heard)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Visuo-spatial Sketchpad

A

Used when planning spatial tasks = limited capacity
Visual / spatial info stored
Subdivided - Logie (1995) passive visual store & visual cache
linked to inner scribe = rehearsal mechanism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Episodic Buffer

A

Baddeley added 2000 realised model needed general store - slave systems deal w/ specific info type
CE has no storage capacity = extra storage & integrates info from other areas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Baddeley & Hitch (1974) Positive Evaluation

A

M detail than MSM - dual task expert = used - struggled to complete 2 verbsl / visual tasks = limited capacity - when 1 verbal & 1 visual could complete = 2 stores
Brain damaged patients KF had visual STM X verbal capacity - suggests = 2 stores nut = unique & individualistic not gen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Baddeley & Hitch (1974) Negative Evaluation

A

Doesn’t describe LTM link - Cowan (1998) suggested that to explain abilities e.g., text comprehension WMM should have LTM activation - need LTM to understand STM
Some areas = vague & inaccurate some psychs = CE = too vague & doesn’t explain anything probs sev components (Shah & Miyake)
Doesn’t take into account other STM forms - Berz (1995) X musical memory - can listen to instrumental w/o impairing performance on other acoustic tasks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Types of LTM

A

Tulving (1985) = 1st to realise = 3 types & MSM = too simplistic & inflexible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Procedural LTM

A

non - declarative - knowing how
memory for task performance
e.g., walking

48
Q

Semantic LTM

A

declarative - knowing that
memories for meaning, understanding & knowledge

49
Q

Episodic LTM

A

declarative - knowing that
memory for events in individuals life
e.g., birthdays

50
Q

Clive Wearing

A

had procedural & some semantic LTM
could play piano & had knowledge of edu system - no episodic
supports Tulving

51
Q

Types of LTM Evaluation: Clive Wearing

A

clinical evidence - episodic LTM = greatly impaired as consequence of amnesia - had great dif past event but semantic = rela in tact - knew word meanings - procedural = intact could play piano etc

52
Q

Types of LTM Evaluation: Corkin (1968)

A

studied HM - severe anterograde amnesia as result of op = unable to store new LTM but = taught new skill - initially performance = v poor gradually improv - tested sev days later & = able to perform as well - no knowledge of it
could make new procedural memories

53
Q

Types of LTM Evaluation: Brain scan Evidence

A

Tulving (1989) injected self w/ radio active gold - tracked w/ scanner - historical facts blood flow inc at back but childhood expers blood flow at front
but = one person not gen shows dif forms = sep

54
Q

Types of LTM Evaluation: Tulving (1994)

A

got ptps to perform dif tasks & scanned brain w/ PET scan - found episodic = right PFC & semantic in left PFC procedural = cerebellum & basal ganglia
= m gen inc pop val = m specific but semantic found in dif place - no DCs

55
Q

Types of LTM Evaluation: Cohen & Squire (1980)

A

argue only 2 types of LTM - accept procedural as 1 type but argue semantic & episodic = stored together in declarative memory = consciously recalled & procedural = non declarative & unconsciously recalled T sup w/ PET scan

56
Q

Trace Decay (STM)

A

idea info = physically reped as memory trace = fragile & disintegrates if not constantly refreshed after about 20s decayed completely & recall not pos

57
Q

Displacement (STM)

A

STM = lim cap if full then some existing info = pushed out / overwritten

58
Q

Interference

A

1 memory disturbs the ability to recall another - can result in forgetting / distorting a memory 1 / both likely if similar

59
Q

Pro-Active Interference

A

previously learnt info interferes w/ new info you = trying to store e.g., new class names muddled w/ old

60
Q

Retro-Active Interference

A

new memory interferes w/ older ones e.g., can’t remember old class names only new ones

61
Q

Research Into Affects of Similarity

A

McGeoch & McDonald (1931) studied retro active by changing amount of sim between 2 sets of materials - learnt list of 10 words until 100% accuracy then = new list = 6 groups: 1. synonyms 2. antonyms 3. unrelated to OG 4. consonant syllables 5. 3 digit nums 6. control

62
Q

McGeoch & McDonald (1931) Findings

A

when asked to recall OG list most sim - syns = worst recall - interference when = sim

63
Q

Evaluation of Interference: Baddeley & Hitch (1977)

A

asked rugby players to recall names of teams had played - all played same time interval nut some num of intervening games varied due to injury - m games = poorest recall = high val

64
Q

Evaluation of Interference: Limitation of B&H

A

interference can = temp can be overcome by cues
Tulving & Psotka (1977) gave ptps list of words in categories 1 at time not told categories - recall = 70% 1st list but = worse as add new list (pro I) but when given categories (cues) recall inc 70% = temp - not in theory

65
Q

Evaluation of Interference: Lab Studies

A

m sup evidence = lab studies good control of EVs = replicable & reliable but = artificial material = meaningless doesn’t rep everyday life - B&H
not same motivation to remember stimuli in exper recall may dec and effects seem stronger

66
Q

Evaluation of Interference: Cesaro (1967)

A

if tested again (24hrs later) = dig recovery may = temp

67
Q

Tulving’s Encoding Specificity Principle

A

reviewed research into retrieval failure & discovered a consistent pattern - ESP = if cue = helpful must = present at encoding & retrieval if dif may forget

68
Q

Cue Dependent Forgetting

A

forgetting due to lack of cues
context & state

69
Q

Context Depending Forgetting

A

Golden & Baddeley (1975) divers learnt list of words underwater / on land & then asked to recall on land / underwater = 4 conditions - 40% lower recall in non matching conditions

70
Q

Context Depending Forgetting Evaluation:

A

limited eco val = familiar environ X task = artificial
groups in dif environ = disrupted could have influ
= controlled - reliability = testable
dif to disprove - circular arg
doesn’t consider meaning / motivation
used to improv eye witness testimony

71
Q

Context Depending Forgetting Evaluation: Abernathy (1940)

A

students perform better in tasks if in same room as material learnt & if same instructor

72
Q

State Depending Forgetting

A

when mood / physiological state during recall = dif from mood learnt in
Godwin et al (1969) 48 medical students ptped in 1 day training session & 2nd day test 4 groups = 1. S&S 2. A&A 3. S&A 4.A&S - A = 100 ml of alcohol in blood show signs of intox = 4 tasks 1. avoidance task 2. verbal rote learning 3. word assoc 4. pic recog m errors in AS & SA than AA & SS but not for pic SS = best

73
Q

State Depending Forgetting Evaluation:

A

limited eco val tasks = artificial
DCs dif to disprove - cir arg X meaning / motivation
high control can be replicated & reliably tested
used to improv EW testi

74
Q

State Depending Forgetting Evaluation: Overton (1964)

A

experimented on 2 groups of rates 1 given mild barbiturate & put in maze & taught to escape electric shock
when drug group not drugged couldn’t escape if given shocks could - not influ by DCs

75
Q

Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Eye Witness Testimony - Misleading Info

A

aim: investigating leading q affect on mem of event = lab experts & indepen g’s IV: verb DV: esti speed 45 students
7 dif films of traffic accident - given q had to describe & answer specific q’s - How fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/bumped/contacted/collided?
mean speed = smash: 40.8 col: 39.3 bump: 38.1 hit 34 con: 31.8

76
Q

Response Bias Explanation

A

? wording has no effect on meme just how they decide to answer - when get leading ? e.g., “smashed” encours higher esti

77
Q

Substitution Hypothesis

A

wording changes men - heard “smashed” later inc likelihood to say saw broken glass than if search hit - L&P

78
Q

Positives of Lab Experiments

A

high control results due to IV not CVs
cause & effect - IV affected DV ie dif words = dif recall

79
Q

Negatives of Lab Experiments

A

low eco val doesn’t have emo impact as real incident - know something is happening can pay attention
DCs - Zaragosa & MsCloskey (1989) argue many answers pops Gove in LS’s of EWT = result of DCs want to appear useful so guess

80
Q

Consequence of EWT

A

Foster et al (1994) what you remember as EW can have some v NB consequences not true in studies

81
Q

Further Research: EWT - Misleading Info

A

using red wallet exper Loftus concluded it = mainly peripheral info that = unreliable & can be tampered w/ paps = shown man stealing large red wallet - 98% correctly identified colour - late read brown - unlikely to change other things did

82
Q

Individual Differences: EWT - Misleading Info

A

evidence for older = less accurate e.g., Anastasi & Rhodes (2006) found ppl 18-25 & 35-45 = m accurate that 55-78 but all m accurate when identifying own age group (own age bias) research studies use younger ppl as target - may mean some age groups not less accurate

83
Q

Schemas

A

mental framework of beliefs & expectations that influ cognitive processing - developed from exper helps process info quickly

84
Q

Personal Schemas

A

about specific person e.g., my friend always bites her nails

85
Q

Social Schemas

A

how ppl behave in situs e.g., must queue at checkout

86
Q

Self Schemas

A

focused on knowledge of yourself e.g., I tend to talk to fast

87
Q

Event Schemas

A

focused on patterns of behaviour after specific event e.g., bell rings students pack up

88
Q

Post Event Discussion

A

when EWs discuss a crime they have witnessed testimonies become contaminated - combine info from own & others mem = m inaccurate

89
Q

Loftus & Pickrell (2003)

A

suggested to ptps that they had met Bugs Bunny at Disney yrs earlier = impossible

90
Q

Source Monitoring Theory

A

mems of event = genuinely distorted - EW can recall info about event (accurate & inaccurate) but can’t recall where came from - source confusion

91
Q

Conformity Theory

A

EW mems not actually distorted - only appears to change bc go along w/ account of co-witnesses for soc approval / think others = correct

92
Q

Gabbert et al (2003)

A

supports Post Event Discussion
ptps in pairs each watch video of crime on own = same crime but 2 dif POVs 1 could see elements other couldn’t then discuss
DV = recall of crime

93
Q

Gabbert et al (2003) Findings

A

showed 71% of ptps mistakenly recalled aspects of crime they couldn’t see but picked up from discussion
control group - no PED - recalled 0% of things they couldn’t see = mem conformity - ptp goes along w/ other witness

94
Q

Positive Impact of Anxiety on Eye Witness Testimony

A

stress of witnessing crime creates anxiety through physiological arousal - triggers f/f inc alertness & ensuring we pay attention improving mem of event

95
Q

Positive Impact of Anxiety Evaluation

A

Yuille & Cutshall (1986) showed EWs of real life incident had remarkable accurate mem of stressful & anxious event involving weapons - recalled accurate, detailed info = corrob by others despite police’s leading questions - suggests anxiety can = detailed & accurate

96
Q

Weapon Focus Effect

A

anxiety caused by seeing a weapon focuses all attention on weapon as a source of danger

97
Q

Stress & Eye Witness Testimony

A

frightening situs may affect recall performance bc of stress

98
Q

Supporting Weapon Focus Effect

A

Loftus et al (1987) reported on study by Johnson & Scott (1976) ptps heard discussion in another room 1. ptps saw man emerge holding pen w/ greasy hands 2. knife & bloody hands (high anxiety) when asked to identify man from 50 photos found 1. = 49% & 2. = 33%
weapon may have distracted & Loftus found when tracked eye movement = drawn to weapon & away from person’s face

99
Q

Negative Impact of Anxiety Evaluation

A

Yuille & Cutshall (1986)
may be surprise not anxiety - Pickel (1998) in hairdressers = 1. scissors 2. wallet 3. raw chicken 4. hand gun accuracy = lower for chicken & gun = high unusualness - not specifically about anxiety

100
Q

Stress & EWT Evaluation

A

Peters (1988) tested ptp who were attending local health clinic for injection met researcher & nurse for equal amount of time & week later asked to identify both recalled researcher better - anxiety impacted mem

Clifford & Scott (1978) found ppl who saw violent film attack remembered fewer of 40 items than control group who saw less violent version - X affect on recall

101
Q

Explaining Contradicting Influence

A

Yerkes-Dodson Curve / Law (1908) performance (mem/recall) = best in mod arousing (stressful) conditions e.g., taking part in an exper - too little not enough attention to inc so can’t concentrate

102
Q

Yerkes-Dodson Curve / Law (1908)

A

Deffenbacher (1983) reviewed 21 studies & hypothesised stress & performance follow inverted U curve if have too much anxiety mem = adversely affected

103
Q

Fisher & Geiseln (1992)

A

reviewed mem lit - recall better w/ cues created cog interview - useful techniques

104
Q

Reverse Order (RO)

A

report episode in sev dif temporal orders backwards & forwards - prevents expectations & lying

105
Q

Changed Perspective (CP)

A

recall from sev POVs imagining how others would have seen crime - disrupts expectations, schemas & lying

106
Q

Report Everything (RE)

A

report every single detail even if trivial / unsure may = NB / trigger other mems

107
Q

Context Reinstatement (CR)

A

mentally recreate environment recall scene weather thoughts feelings & preceding events relates to context depen forgetting

108
Q

Enhanced Cognitive Interview

Fisher et al (1987)

A
  1. minimise distractions
  2. avoid interruption
  3. actively listen
  4. encourage imagery
  5. ask open ended questions
  6. adapt lang to EW
  7. pause after response
  8. avoid judgmental coms
109
Q

Kohnken et al (1999)

A

meta analysis of 53 studies found average of 34% inc in amount of correct info gen inc pop val (ma) but used samples of uni students dec pop val = lab exper dec eco val

110
Q

Milne & Bull (2002)

A

effectiveness of 4 components of CI in undergrads & children comp to control lab exper recall = sim across all 4 compos & no dif to control found RE & CR = best lacks eco val = lab

111
Q

Fisher et al (1990)

A

real police setting Miami trained POs in enhanced CI techniques w/ real EWs sig enhance amount of recall only 1 cul

112
Q

Stein & Memon (2006)

A

comp normal interview technique & CI in Brazil and CI inc amount & detail of info has val cross cut

113
Q

Kebbel et al (1999)

A

survey in UK of POs widespread use of CI but although found useful = concerned about amount of X info gen & time taken to interview use RE & CR but rarely CP & RO

114
Q

Cognitive Interview Evaluation: Time Consuming

A

time consuming to train & = costly Mermon et al detective who had brief training session (4hrs) did produce sig inc in info - Econ implication takes long training to = effective

115
Q

Cognitive Interview Evaluation: Controls

A

hard to evaluate many versions some p forces use some / all = dif to control all variables

Psychology (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions