Cognitive Psychology Flashcards
Define Duration, Capacity, Encoding
Encoding
Change information into a suitable format. Again, each store has a different method of encoding (changing) information and some have more than one.
Duration
How long something lasts- In terms of memory, this is how long information stays in a particular memory store before it is either transferred or lost (displaced or decays)
Capacity means ‘how much’ – In terms of memory, this means how much can be stored in each memory store. Each store has a different maximum capacity
Describe and Evaluate Multi-Store Model (1968)
Multi-store Model Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
* Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968 suggested that memory was split into three, unitary stores, sensory memory, short-term memory, long-term memory.
* Sensory memory encodes stimuli using all senses, taste, smell, hepatic, iconic, echoic and has a limited duration (1/10th second) and capacity. Sperling (1960) whole-or-patrial report technique involved using visual arrays of letters for 1/10th of a second and having participants recall them, he found that, when there was a longer delay before instructing ppts to recall, the recall was less accurate, which supports limited duration as ppts forgot. Sperling supports limited capacity as ppts on average recalled 4.32 letters.
* Attended sensory memory is transferred to short-term memory which visually registers info but acoustically encodes it, has limited capacity (5-9 items) and duration (15-18 seconds). Peterson and Peterson (1959) trigrams with 3-18 second interference task supports limited duration as, when interference task exceeded 15 seconds, participant recall of trigrams dropped due to them beginning to forget. Miller supports limited capacity as participants could confidently recall 7 items but struggled after 9.
* Rehearsed STM info is transferred into long-term memory, which encodes semantically and acoustically, has a potentially unlimited capacity and potentially lifetime duration. Bradley (1975) supports unlimited capacity as he showed participants 2,500 objects over course of 5.5 hours and asked them to identify them next to other objects, when next to different object, ppts identification was 92%, when next to similar object it was 88%, when next to similar object and original object at different angle it was 87%, supports idea many images can be stored in LTM. Clive Wearing objects unitary nature of LTM as Antegrade and retrograde amnesia he couldn’t remember events in his life but could still play piano and remembered wife’s and kids names which suggests LTM must have more than one store.
* To conclude, MSM has strong, evidence-based foundation, however case studies such as Clive Wearing object the unitary natures of the stores.
Describe and Evaluate Working Memory Model (1974)
- Baddeley and Hitch 1974 suggested that short-term memory actively retains/works on information before it is transferred and/or decays, and it involves 3 components (non-unitary).
- Central executive controls two slave systems, it focuses, divides, and switches attention, limited capacity. Evidence for Central executive comes from Baddeley (1991) dual task on Alzheimer’s patients, where he found that they struggled (in comparison to control) on dual, visual, and verbal tasks due to impaired central executive.
- Phonological loop controls auditory info, contains the phonological store which stores heard words and struggles with acoustically similar words and the articulatory process which processes seen and heard words through maintenance rehearsal, however, struggles with longer words in lists (Word-length effect), phonological loop has limited capacity. Evidence for phonological loop arises from Baddeley, Thompson, Buchannan (1975) investigation on word-length effect, proposed that struggle with longer words arises due to them not accommodating for STM capacity by taking longer to say/pronounce, after this effect was proved, they conducted a test involving interference task, noticed that effect changes due to phonological loop being prevented from rehearsing. This study supports the existence of phonological loop.
- Visuo-spatial sketchpad processes visual+ spatial (Directional) info and retrieves such info from images + Long-term memory, however, still has limited capacity. Baddeley and Hitch (1976) conducted dual-task, found that participants struggled with dual, visual tasks due to competition over visuo-spatial sketchpad in comparison to visual + verbal.
- Baddeley 2000 proposed episodic buffer, which encodes information from all areas including LTM and is a more general store, encoding visual and auditory info, however still having limited capacity.
- To conclude, the idea does have credible experimental evidence, however, suffers due to not detailing effect of individual differences on components and their duration.
Describe and Evaluate Types of Long-term memory (1972)
- Tulving (1972) suggested that long-term memory consisted of two types (Episodic and semantic)
- Episodic memory is like a mental diary, it uses continuous spatial referencing (Continuously inputting events into timeframe to be references) and time referencing (Relating/referencing events into time which had occurred) and uses cued, context-dependent recall. Episodic memory can suffer transformation (Filling in gaps in knowledge using false ideas) which can change the memory. KC(1951-2014) case study provides support for episodic memory as he suffered brain damage from motorcycle accident, but could still perform tasks and recall facts, however, couldn’t recall events, supports distinction of stores.
- Semantic memory is like a mental encyclopaedia, independent of time-referencing and context-dependent and cued recall, however uses fragmentary spatial referencing (Combines small ideas from timeframe to make one big concept). Ostergaard (1987) case study, conducted cognitive tests on 10-year old boy after he suffered anoxia (lack of oxygen to brain) found that boy could recall words and definitions and made academic progress, however couldn’t recall events/ experiences due to impaired episodic memory but unimpaired semantic memory, provides evidence for semantic LTM.
- The stores are somewhat interrelated, with episodic memory using semantic memory to assist in recall (names, faces, objects), however semantic memory works alone. The interrelation of stores is a limitation as it suggests that individual differences and the stores in general cannot be researched separately, so effects of impairments such as learning disability cannot be researched.
- To conclude, Tulving (1972) idea and the distinctions of LTM stores has credible, research and case study evidence from the likes of KC, Ostergaard, however evidence from case studies criticises the nature of the stores, KC could still perform tasks and Clive Wearing could still play piano, which can suggest existence of another LTM store for tasks and actions, Tulving (1985) accommodated for this by creating procedural store (Type of semantic LTM for tasks).
Describe and Evaluate Reconstructive Memory (1932)
Reconstructive Memory
* Bartlett (1932) suggests that memory is an active reconstruction of events using prior-knowledge and existing (true) memory, in his inkblot tests he noticed that ppts described the images based on prior interest and experiences, which can suggest that perception is an active reconstruction of events using prior knowledge and true experience. what we see using prior knowledge/ Schemas to guide our judgements.
* In his War Of The Ghosts study, Bartlett found that, in recall, participants simplified (shortened), rationalised (Described unusual events), distorted (changed order of story) and transformed (Changed story itself) story, which supports idea memory is active reconstruction of events using prior knowledge. Study was strong in the fact that it used standardised procedures (Same story) and was replicable, when replicated, same results were found which enhances credibility of study. The study has limitations, study used culturally unusual story in terms of storytelling, Bartletts research had low internal validity due to lack of standardised procedures, control in the fact that participants had different experiences. The research also had low mundane realism due to the fact that the story was not culturally equal to how we tell stories.
* Schema’s were mental constructs of concepts and ideas which develop with age, they contain fixed and variable (Changeable) information. A child’s schema of a dog may be that it has 4 legs and a tail, when a child sees a horse and is told that the horse is not a dog, child may accommodate (Change or create new schema) schema and either create new schema about horse, or change dog schema to idea that if a dog is of a certain size, it isn’t actually a dog, if a child learns more about a dog, i.e. sees sharp teeth, it will assimilate (Add new info) schema, in case of dog, will add that dog has sharp teeth, four legs and tail. Bartlett suggested that schemas are used in reconstruction of memory events however many others suggested schemas are used in interpreting event as it happens.
* To conclude, Bartlett’s theory has high application value – can be applied to our judicial system as the use of eyewitness testimony has be questioned. According to Bartlett, memory is unreliable and any recall of events will be influenced by schemas and perception.
Describe and Evaluate Laboratory Experiment
- Laboratory experiment- IV effect on DV measured in controlled environment
This experiment has strengths in that it can control Extraneous variables and Independent and dependent variable, meaning that cause-and-effect relationship between IV and DV can be easily proved, higher internal validity. Laboratory experiments are highly controlled and involve standardised procedures, which heighten replicability and allow for study to be tested for reliability. Laboratory experiments have the weaknesses of being conducted in an artificial environment, which can lower external validity of results as environment is not representative of real-life experience. Laboratory experiments can decrease internal validity as there is a higher chance of demand characteristics due to ppts being aware of experimental participation.
Describe and Evaluate Field Experiments
- Field experiment- Measuring effect of IV on DV in natural environment,
This has strengths of having high external validity as study was conducted in natural environment, it also has the benefit of high internal validity as ppts may be unaware of experimental participation so may act more naturally. Extraneous variables and individual differences are uncontrolled which lowers internal validity. Ppts may not give informed consent to participate in experiment, so therefore ethical issues may be a problem.
Describe and Evaluate Natural Experiments
Natural experiment- Measuring effect of naturally occurring IV on DV, this has the strengths of avoiding ethical issues and making it easier to measure unique and unorthodox ideas such as effects of drug addiction, still will be conducted in
*(+) High ecological validity since the research is taking place in a natural setting and therefore is reflective of real-life natural behaviour. (+) Low chance of demand characteristics.
* (-) Differences between groups may be increased due to individual differences than the effect of the IV.
* (-) Less or no control over extraneous or confounding variables
* (-) Cause and effect is more difficult to establish
Describe and Evaluate All Experimental Control
- Standardised procedure- Using Same procedure for all ppts , avoids experimenter effects, experimenter bias, increases replicability and controls situational extraneous variables.
- Single blind- Ppts don’t know experimental participation and/or allocation to conditions, controls demand characteristics as ppts act more naturally.
- Double Blind- Ppts and experimenter may be unaware of allocation to conditions, experimenter may use researchers to work under them, reduces experimenter effects and experimenter bias, demand characteristics, and increases validity of results.
- Counterbalancing- Ppts will either do condition A and then do condition B, or the other way round, reduces order effects fewer ppts needed.
- Randomisation- Ppts randomly allocated to conditions, reduced individual differences and experimenter bias.
Describe and Evaluate all experimental designs
- Independent groups- Participants allocated to only condition A and/or condition B , this reduces order effects (Fatigue and practice) and demand characteristics leading to a higher internal validity of results, however more participants may be needed and gathering them can be time consuming, individual differences
- Repeated Measures- Ppts go through both experimental conditions, this is strong in the fact it reduces individual differences and lower sample amount is needed, however order effects (Fatigue and practice) and demand characteristics is more likely.
- Matched Pairs- Ppts matched on characteristics relevant to experiment , this has the strengths of reduced demand characteristics and reduced order effects (Fatigue, practice),however larger sample is needed, which may be time-consuming to collect, and some participants may be excluded from experiment due to being unable to be matched
What is Level of Significance?
What is Type 1 and 2 Errors?
Level of significance- Percentage of results being due to chance
A type 1 error means you have incorrectly concluded that alternative hypothesis is correct when results lacked significance, meaning that null hypothesis should be accepted. May occur due to level of significance being higher than 0.05 and therefore experimenter may conclude/ support alternative hypothesis. For example- Level of significance may be 0.1 which is too lenient, leads to 10% of error/chance. Normally it’s 5% error/chance
* A type 2 error means you have incorrectly concluded that alternative hypothesis isn’t correct, accepted null hypothesis. If result of a test is equal to or less than 0.01, probability of chance should be accepted as it’s highly significant, if we set 0.01 as accepted level of significance, a number of alternative hypotheses will be rejected when there was real effect.
* May occur due to level of significance being lower than 0.05 (Stricter level of significance) and therefore experimenter may support null hypothesis and reject alternative.
* For example- Level of significance is 0.02 which is stricter, leads to 2% chance of error/chance. Normally it’s 5% error/chance
Describe how to do Wilcoxon Test
What it is used for?
Test of Difference, Ordinal data, Repeated Measures design
Step 1- Calculate difference between conditions B and A and rank them
Step 2- Calculate sum of ranks for positive differences and negative differences
Step 3- Use smaller value out of two and compare to critical values
It is That Simple!!!
Describe how to do Mann Whitney U Test
What is it used for?
It is used for Test of Difference, Ordinal data, Independent groups design
Rank Values
Then add up the rank sum for group A and the rank sum for group B
Then Input the Group A value into the formula and the Group B one
(N= Number of PPTS , the a and b refers to the condition they’re in and the ER a or b refers to the rank sum in that condition)
We then take the smallest value out of the two and compare to critical values
Larger/equal to value means alternative hypothesis accepted)
Describe Baddeley 1966b (Classic Study)
Baddeley (1996b)
* Aim- to investigate whether semantic similarity affects LTM learning and/or recall.
* Sample- 72 Cambridge University psychology panel students (Male + Female) (Opportunity)
* Method- Shown participants ¼ word lists (Independent groups design) visually (On board to avoid confounding variable of hearing found in experiment 1) which were matched on word frequency and commonness (Use in everyday life), participants had to recall word order, as words were shown in order on board, and then during recall words were shown in random order. The lists were recalled over 4 tests/trials with an interference task in between each, 20-minute, unrelated task done after trial 4 and then surprise retest done (trial 5).
* Lists
o List A- Acoustically similar words (Cat, Mat, Tab) done by 20 Participants.
o List B- Acoustically dissimilar control
o List C- Semantically similar words (Big, Large, Huge) done by 20 participants.
o List D- Semantically dissimilar control
* Results-
* In trial 1 and 2, recall of acoustically similar lists was significantly lower than acoustically dissimilar lists, (STM), in trial 4 and 5, recall of two lists had no significant difference (LTM)
* In trial 4 and 5, recall of semantically similar lists was significantly lower than recall of semantically dissimilar control (LTM), in trial 1 and 2, recall of two lists had no significant difference (STM)
* Conclusion- LTM encodes semantically, faces confusion of semantically similar words
* Justification- LTM faces confusion over word meanings
Evaluate Baddeley 1966b (Classic Study)
- Sample- 72 Male and Female Cambridge University students, The sample is strong in the fact that it reduces androcentrism by using male and female participants which increases generalisability of results regarding LTM encoding to men and women, however sample is small and only includes British Scholars, results regarding LTM encoding cannot be generalised to people of other cultures and/or educational levels, this is a limitation.
- Method 1- Baddeley’s study used standardised procedures (4 lists) which means that it can be easily replicated, the study was replicated 3 times, similar results were found and procedures were changed, this means study can be replicated and tested/approved for reliability, this is a strength.
- Method 2- Baddeley’s study was conducted in a controlled, laboratory environment, which increases internal validity as extraneous variables were controlled, however Baddeley’s study was conducted in artificial environment with unrealistic task (Recalling word lists) which decreases mundane realism of study and external/ecological validity of results as task and environment not representative of real-life.
- Results/Conclusions- Recall of acoustically similar list significantly lower than recall of acoustically dissimilar list in trial 1+2 (STM) in trial 4+5 no significant difference between recall of the lists (LTM). In trial 4+5, recall of semantically similar list significantly lower than recall of semantically dissimilar list (LTM), in trial 1+2, no significant difference between recall of lists (STM).
- LTM encodes semantically, faces confusion of semantically similar words.
- Justification-LTM faces confusion of word meanings.
- The results have application to revision, and using elaborative rehearsal (Looking for deeper detail/information) in order to avoid Semantic confusion and aid LTM.
- To conclude, the study’s results have high application value, and the results can be tested for reliability due to being replicable (Standardised procedure) however results are limited in generalisability as it only includes British Scholars and lowered external validity due to artificial environment and unrealistic task.
