Evaluation Flashcards
Two studies that critique the capacity of short term memory
Cowan 2001 - suggests that the STM is limited to about 4 chunks
Vogue et al 2001 - also found that the STM limited to 4 chunks with visual info
Does the size of the chunk matter
Simon (1974) - found that people had a shorter memory span for larger chunks such as eight word phrases
What are individual differences in STM capacity
Jacobs also found that digital span recollection increased with age. May be due to changes in the brain capacity or the development of strategies such as chunking
What is a critique of research investigating the duration of STM
Studies like Peterson and Peterson (1959) are very artificial and does not reflect most everyday memory activities. However we do remember meaningless phrases or numbers so it does have some relevance.
What is another critique of Petersons’ study
Counting back from the number may displace the consonant syllable
STM may not be purely acoustic. Describe a study that supports this
Brandimote et Al 1992 - found participants used visual coding in STM if given a visual task and prevented from doing any verbal rehearsal.
Other research also showed that STM could be semantic (Wickens et Al 1976)
LTM may not be purely semantic. Name two studies that support this.
Frost 1992 - long term recall was related to visual as well as semantic categories
Nelson and Robert 1972 - found evidence for acoustic coding in LTM
How can we critique Baddeley’s methodology
As he only waited 20 mins before recall of the list with semantically similar words is he really waiting long enough for that to be considered long term memory
Describe two studies that support the difference of LTM and STM
Beardsley (1997) - found that the prefrontal cortex is active during STM but not long term tasks
Squire et Al (1992) - found that the hippocampus is active when LMT is engaged
What is a study that supports different areas of the brain being for LTM and STM
Scoville and Milner (1957) - patient (referred to as HM) had the hippocampus removed from both sides of his brain to reduce his epilepsy. He could no longer make new LTMs but could remember LTMs from before the surgery
Why is MSM too simple ?
Research supports that the working memory is divided into qualitatively different stores. Same for LTM. E.g maintenance rehearsal can explain LTMs for knowledge but not episodic memory (memories of events)
Why can we critique msm for its emphasis on maintenance rehearsal
Craik and Lockhart (1972) - suggests that the enduring memories are dependant on the depth of processing not amount of repetition
Craik and Tulving (1975) - gave participants a word and asked a question involving deep or shallow processing - shallow may be asking if a word is printed in caps but deep may ask if the word fitted in a sentence.
How separate is LTM and STM - name two studies that cover this
Logie 1999 - said that the STM relies on the LTM
Ruchkin et Al 2003 - asked to recall a set of words then a set of pseudo words. Much more brain activity was detected when recalling real words, indicating involvement of LTM.
Who did studies on the capacity of stm
Jacobs 1887 - digit span - 9.3 for numbers and 7.3 for letter
Miller 1956 - 7+- 2
Who did studies of the duration of memory
Stm - Peterson and Peterson 1959 - consonant syllable an 3 digit number. Count back from number and after certain time recall the syllable - 90% correct after 3 sec and 2% correct after 18 sec
LTM - bahrick et al - photo recognition test - 15 years after 90% correct 48 years 70%. Free recall - 15 yr 60%, 48 yr 30%
Who studies coding
Baddley 1966 - harder to remember acoustically similar in STM but not LTM - opposite for semantically similar
What did muller and pilzecker suggest
Recall was impaired when doing an intervening task (interference)
What did underwood do ?
Meta analysis and suggested that the more lists learnt the lower percentage of recall
Explain McGoech and McDonald
Study of similarity in interference - word list + list of synonyms = 12% recall, list of words + list of digits = 37% recall
Describe the baddeley and hitch interference study
Rugby players - recall teams they played against. Those who played more forgot proportionally more than those who played less
What did tulving and pearlstone study
Retrieval failure - when a list of words had a title (eg fruits) recall was 60% when without title 40%
What did Goodwin study
State dependant forgetting - drunk vs sober
What did Loftus and Palmer study in EWT
Leading questions - car crash video then asked people how hard did the car hit, bump, smash etc the other car. More aggressive verb = faster speed
What did Gabbert et Al study
The conformity effect in post event discussions. Those who have a post event discussion will more likely agree they saw somthing they didn’t if others say.
How did LeRooy et al study misleading information
Repeated interviews allows for the comments from the interviewer to become incorporated into the recalling - especially within children
What did Johnson and Scott study in relation to anxiety
Weapon focus reduced the recall of faces. Staged an argument in another room and man runs through with either a pen or knife. 49% accuracy of identification with pen and 33% with knife
Loftus et Al (anxiety study)!
Eye tracking and found that the weapon was a focus
What did Christiansen and Hubinette study (anxiety)
Found that high anxiety victims had a higher accuracy in remembering - they questioned real witnesses of a bank robbery - argument for anxiety being a positive in recollection
Deffenbecker et Al - explain
Meta analysis explains high vs low anxiety in relation to recollection - the Yerkes-Dodson effect (U curve)
Dual task performance evaluation
Baddeley and hitch Participants are slower during dual tasking. Task 1 uses Central Exec and task 2 involves the articulatory loop.
Brain damaged patients evaluation
Patient KF brain damaged - no problems with remembering audio but not visual - auditory issues were only with verbal material like letters and sounds but not meaningful sounds. Brain damage only impacted phonological loop
Problems with using case studies evaluation of WMM
Brain damage is traumatic so may change behaviour making people worse at certain tasks. Individuals may have other issues that make them underperform in certain tasks. Unique case studies can’t be generalised to the whole population
Evidence for the phonological loop and articulatory process
Baddleyes word length is evidence for the processes - longer words can’t be rehearsed as the don’t fit into the 2 seconds of the phonological loop - shorter words can and therefore can be remembered —> clear evidence
Vagueness of the central executive
Eslinger and Damasio - studied patient with tumour removed - performed wel in tests that required reason which suggests that his CE was intact but he had issues with decision making and couldn’t do that - suggesting that his CE was not fully intact
LTM Brain scan evaluation
The 3 types of LTM supported by scans - episodic = hippocampus and temporal lobe
Semantic = temporal lobe
Procedural = cerebellum and the motor cortex
Distinguishing procedural and declarative memories
Study of HM - had parts of his temporal lobe removed - he could form new procedural memories but not any LTMs - he could learn how to draw somthing but had no memory of learning how to.
Distinguishing episodic and semantic memories
Hodge and Patterson - studied Alzheimer’s patients and they would form new semantic memories but not episodic - could also be in reverse - separate areas for the two - evidence for existence
Research is artificial - interference evaluation
Most research was conducted with artificial word lists or pseudo words - not high ecological validity
Interference only explains some forms of forgetting
Interference requires special conditions and the memories need to be similar. Not relevant to everyday. - Anderson
Accessibility vs availability evaluation
Ceraso - memory tests after 24 hours recognition showed recovery and recall remained the same
Real world application
Danaher et al
Individual differences (interference)
Kane and Engle - those with greater working memory are less effected by proactive interference. Given 3 word lists to learn results show the statement
Real world application (retrieval failure)
Abernathy - learn in a room will recall better in same room
Retrieval failure explains interference
Tulving and pearlstone - interference are due to the absence of cues. Word lists - category or not. With category given recall improved
Cues do not always work
If info is complex or related to more many things. Not as effective. Outshining hypothesis- cues effects reduces when a better cue is there
Supporting evidence of misleading info
Loftus and Palmer - car crash vid
Individual differences in ETW
Elderly find it harder to recall information therefore more susceptible to misleading information- Schacter et Al
Crit of Loftus
Car crash vid may not be accurate due to lab settings not having the same emotional state for participants - not higher levels of anxiety or psychological arousal
Weapon focus could not be caused by anxiety
Weapon focus may be caused by surprise. Identifying was more accurate in high threat over high surprise
Individual differences in anxiety
Bothwell et al - people labels as neurotic accuracy decreased as they got more anxious but people labled as stable got more accurate with anxiety - high anxiety not always more accurate
