Memory Flashcards
1
Q
Who did research on coding?
A
Baddeley 1966
2
Q
Research on coding - Baddeley 1966
A
- Group 1 = acoustically similar
- Group 2 = acoustically dissimilar
- Group 3 = semantically similar
- Group 4 = semantically dissimilar
- Results = STM recall worse acoustically similar - LTM recall worse semantically similar
- Suggests info = encoded semantically in LTM
3
Q
Limitations of research on coding
A
Limitation; artificial stimuli
- Artificial rather than meaningful - no personal meaning - take caution when generalising findings to diff mem tasks
4
Q
Who did research on capacity?
A
- Jacobs 1887; digit span
- Miller 1956; chunking
5
Q
Research on capacity - Jacobs 1887 & Miller 1956
A
- J; researcher reads out 4 digits & p’s recall out loud in correct order - if correct, adds 1 more dodger to list - indiciares individual’s digit span - mean span for digits = 9.3 items - means span for letters = 7.3
- M; observations of everyday practice - come in 7’s - capacity of STM = 7+/-2 items - chunking allows better recall
6
Q
Strength of research on capacity
A
- Jacobs’ study = replicated - may have been distracted during testing (confounding variable) - Bopp & Verbarghen 2005 confirmed findings - validity
7
Q
Limitation in research on capacity
A
- Cowan 2001 concluded capacity of STM only about 4+-1 chunks - suggests estimate of 5 = more appropriate
8
Q
Research on duration - Peterson & Peterson 1959 & Bahrick et al 1975
A
- STM - 24 students - 8 trials - student given consonant syllable & 3 digit number - counted back until told to stop to prevent mental rehearsal
- Each trial retention interval - 3s, 6s, 12s, 15s / 18s - findings = after 3s avr recall = 80%, after 18s = 3%
- Suggest STM duration = 18s unless rehearsed
9
Q
Research on duration - Bahrick et al 1975
A
- LTM - 392 Americans - 17-74yrs - high school yearbooks - recall1 = photo recognition = 50 photos from yearbooks - recall2 = free recall test = p’s recalled names of graduating class
- 15yrs of graduation = 90% accurate in photo recognition - after 48yrs recall declined to 70%
- 15yrs of graduation = 60% accurate in free recall - after 48 yes recall dropped to 30%
- LTM may lay to lifetime - free recall = less accurate than recognition
10
Q
Strength of research on coding
A
- Clear difference between 2 memory stores - later research shows STM = acoustic coding & LTM = semantic coding
11
Q
Strength of research on duration
A
- High external validity Bahrick’s study - researchers investigated meaningful memories - recall = lower with meaningless pictures (Shepard 1967)
- Suggests findings reflect more ‘real’ estimate of duration of LTM
12
Q
Limitation of research on duration
A
- Stimulus material = artificial - however we do sometimes recall meaningless info (phone numbers) - lacks external validity
13
Q
What does the multi-store model describe?
A
- Describes how info flows through memory system & suggests that memory = made up of 3 stores linked by processing
14
Q
What are the key features of the sensory register?
A
- Coding = depends on sense passing through - store coding for visual = iconic memory, acoustic = echoic memory + other senses
- Capacity = very high
- Duration = <0.5s
- Info passes further through system if you pay attention
15
Q
What are the key feature of short-term memory?
A
- Coding = acoustic
- Capacity = limited to 7+/-2
- Duration = 18s
- Maintenance rehearsal occurs when we repeat material over & over - can keep info in STMs if rehearsed & if long enough, into LTM
16
Q
What are the key feature of long-term memory?
A
- Coding = semantic
- Capacity = unlimited
- Duration = unlimited
- To recall into from LTM, it has to be transferred back into STM with process of retrieval
17
Q
What case study concerns the multi-store model?
A
- HM - brain surgery to relieve epilepsy - procedure wasn’t fully understood - hippocampus = removed from both sides of brain (central to memory function)
- Memory = assessed in 1955, thought it was 1953 - little recall of operation - couldn’t form new long-term memories e.g. read same magazines without remembering but performed well on test that measured STM
18
Q
Strengths of the multi-store model?
A
- Supporting evidence that STM & LTM = diff - Baddeley 1966; tend to mix up acoustic words when using STMs & semantic words when using LTM - clearly show they’re separate & independent memory stores
- Case study of HM proves existence of diff memory stores
19
Q
Limitations of the multi-store model
A
- Real life application - digits & letters (Jacobs) words (Baddeley) & consonant syllables (P&P) use meaningless materials but support MSM - not valid model for memory in everyday life
- Shallice & Warrington 1970; more than one STM store - KF = amnesia - STM for digits = poor when read to him - recall = better when read himself - MSM wrong claiming 1 STM store
- Craik & Watkins 1973; type of rehearsal = imp than amount - elaborative needed for LT storage - occurs when linking info with existing - info can be transferred to LTM without prolonged rehearsal
20
Q
Who suggested 3 LTM stores containing different types of information?
A
Tulving 1985 - realised MSM’s view of LTM = too simplistic & inflexible
21
Q
What is episodic memory?
A
- Refers to ability to recall events in our lives e.g. record of personal experiences
- Memories = complex
- Time-stamped - remember when & what happened
- Conscious effort to recall memories
22
Q
What is semantic memory?
A
- Shared knowledge of world e.g. facts - less personal
- Aren’t time-stamped - don’t remember when
- Contains immense collections of material that’s constantly being added to depending on experiences
23
Q
What is procedural memory?
A
- Refers to memory for actions / skills
- Can recall without conscious effort e.g. riding bike, driving - automatic through practice
- Hard to explain to others
24
Q
Strengths of the types of LTM
A
- Case studies of HM & Clive Wearing - e mem = impaired due to brain damage - s & p mem = unaffected - understood meaning of words & could walk & speak - W; musician could read read & sing music & play piano - diff mem stores in LTM
- Real world application - harder to recall e mem with age - Belleville et al 2006; improve e mem in older people - trained p’s = better on e mem test than control group - specific treatment
25
Q
Limitations of the types of LTM’s
A
- Lack of control of variables - brain injuries = unexpected - no way of controlling before & after injury - no knowledge of mem before damage - limits what clinical studies can tell us
- Buckner & Petersen 1996; reviewed evidence of location of s & e mem - concluded s mem = left prefrontal cortex & e = right - Tulving et al 1994; links left prefrontal cortex with encoding of e mem & right prefrontal cortex with e retrieval
26
Q
What is the working memory model?
A
- Baddeley & Hitch 1974; an explanation of how one aspect of memory (stm) = organised & how it functions
- Concerns mental space that’s active when we’re temporarily storing & manipulating info
27
Q
What are the key features of the central executive?
A
- Monitors incoming data, focuses & divides limited attention & allocates slave systems to tasks
- Capacity = very limited & doesn’t store info
28
Q
What are the key features of the phonological loop?
A
- Deals with auditory info (coding = acoustic) & preserves order which info arrives
29
Q
What is the phonological loop subdivided into?
A
- Phonological store - stores words you hear
- Articulatory process - allows maintenance rehearsal that lasts for 2s
30
Q
What are the key features of the visuo-spatial sketchpad?
A
- Stores visual &// info when needed
- Limited capacity of 3-4 objects
31
Q
What is the visuo-spatial sketchpad subdivided into? Logie 1995
A
- Visual cache - stores visual data
- Inner scribe - records arrangement of objects in visual field
32
Q
What are the key features of the episodic buffer?
A
- Added to model by B in 2000
- Temp store for info, integrates visual, spatial & verbal info processed by other stores & maintains sense of time sequencing
- Storage component to CE
- Limited capacity of around 4 chunks
- Links working memory to LTM & wider cognitive processes (perception)
33
Q
Strengths of the working memory model
A
- Support from S&W patient KF - had poor STM ability for auditory info but could process visual info - recall = better for digits & letters when read himself (v) than to him (a) - PL = damaged - VSS = intact - existence of separate visual & acoustic mem stores
- Dual task performance - B et al 1975; p’s visual & verbal task at same time - performance = similar when separate = both visual / verbal performance declined - both visual takss compete for same subsystem (VSS) - separate slave system that processes visual input & verbal processing
34
Q
Limitations of the working memory model
A
- Unclear if KF has other cognitive impairments from damage to PL that could’ve affected performance on mem tasks - challenged evidence from clinical studies of brain injuries that may affet diff systems
- B 2003; lack of clarity over nature of CE - ‘least understood component’ - some psychs believe CE may consist of separate subcomponents - challenged integrity of WMM
35
Q
What does the interference theory suggest as an explanation of forgetting in LTM?
A
- Interference occurs when 2 pieces of info disrupt each other resulting in forgetting of one / both
- Once info = reached LTM, it’s more / less permanent - any forgetting in LTMs = most likely because we can’t get access to them
36
Q
What are the types of interference?
A
- Proactive - when older memory interferes with new e.g. teacher learnt so many names that it;s hard to remember your classes’
- Retroactive - when newer memory interferes with old - teacher learnt so many names this year, she forgot names of students last year
37
Q
Research on interference - McGeoch & McDonald 1931
A
- Studied retroactive by changing similarity between 2 sets of materials
- P’s learn list of 10 words until 100% accurate, then learn new list
- Group 1 = synonyms, 2 = antonyms, 3 = unrelated to original, 4 = consonant syllables, 5 = 3 digit numbers, 6 = no new list
- Recall original list, synonyms = worst recall - shows interference = strongest when memories = similar
38
Q
What is the explanation of the effects of similarity?
A
- Reason similarity affects recall = PI = previously stored info makes new similar info more difficult to store - RI = new info overwrites previous similar memories because of similarity
39
Q
Strengths of interference as an explanations of forgetting
A
- Support - Baddeley & Hitch 1977; rugby players recall names of teams they played during season - some missed matches because of injury - players who played most = poorest recall because more interference - shows int can operate in some real world situations - validity of theory
- Coenen & Luijtelaar 1997; gave p’s list of words to later recall - when learned under drug diazepam, recall 1w later = poor compared to placebo control group - when learned before drug, later recall = better than placebo - drug improved recall before
40
Q
Limitations of interference as an explanation of forgetting
A
- Int = temp & can be overcome with cues - Tulving & Psotka 1971; gave p’s list of words in categories - recall avr 70% for first list but became worse each additional list (PI) - at end, given names of categories & recall rose to 70% - int causes temp loss of accessibility to material in LTM
- Validity - most studies supporting theory = lab based - researchers can control confounding variables - means studies show clear link between int & forg - but studies use artificial & unrealistic procedures
41
Q
What does retrieval failure suggest as an explanation of forgetting in LTM?
A
- People forget because of insufficient cues - when info = placed in mem, associated cues = stored at same time - if unavailable at time of recall = retrieval failure
42
Q
What is the encoding specificity principle?
A
- Tulving 1983; reviewed research into RF & discovered consistent pattern to findings - pattern = ESP - states that cue has to be both present at encoding & retrieval - if not = forgetting
43
Q
What are the 2 types of forgetting?
A
- Context dependent - depends on external cue (weather / place)
- State dependent - depends on internal cue (feelings / being drunk)
44
Q
Research on context-dependent forgetting - Godden & Baddeley 1975
A
- Studies divers who work underwater to see if training on land helped / hindered their work underwater
- Learn on land = recall on land - learn on land = recall underwater - learn underwater = recall on land - learn underwater = recall underwater
- Accurate recall = 40% lower than in non-matching conditions - concluded external cues available at learning = diff from ones at recall which led to RF
45
Q
Research on state-dependent forgetting - Carter & Cassaday 1998
A
- Gave antihistamine drugs (treating hay fever) to p’s - had mild sedative effect making p’s drowsy - created internal physiological state diff from ‘normal’ state of being awake - had to learn list of words & passages of prose & recall
- Learn on drug = recall when on drug - learn on drug = recall when not on drug - learn not on drug = recall when on drug - learn not on drug = recall when not on drug
- Mismatch between internal state at learning & recall performance on mem test = worse - when cues = absent, there’s more forgetting
46
Q
Strengths of retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting
A
- Real life application - B suggests cues = worth paying attention to - worth making effort to recall environment which you learned - shows research can remind us strategies in real world to improve recall
- Eyseneck & Keane 2010; RF = main reason for forgetting from LTM - evidence shows RF occurs in real world situations as well as highly controlled conditions of lab
47
Q
Limitations of retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting
A
- B 1997; context effects = not very strong in everyday life - diff contexts have to be very diff before effect = seen - hard to find environment as diff as land & water - RF due to lack of contextual cues may not explain everyday forgetting
- G & B 1980 replicated experiment using recognition test instead of recall - p’s say whether they recognise word read from list - when rec = tested, performance = same all 4 conditions - RF = limited explanation as it only applies when persona has to recall info rather than recognise
48
Q
What does misleading information as a factor affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony suggest?
A
- Suggests that wording of question has no real effect on p’s memories but influences how they decide to answer
- L & P’s second experiement supported substitution exp that proposes that wording of LQ changes p’s memory of clip - ‘smashed’ more likely to report seeing broken glass than ‘hit’
49
Q
Research on leading questions - Loftus & Palmer 1974
A
- 45 students to watch film of car accidents & asked questions about accident - in critical question, p’s = asked to describe how fast cars were travelling - 5 groups given diff verb - hit, contacted, bumped, collided & smashed
- Mean est speed = calculated for each group - ‘contacted’ = 31.8mph - ‘smashed’ = 40.5mph
50
Q
Research on post-event discussion - Gabbert et al 2003
A
- Studies p’s in pairs - each watched video of same crime from diff POV - mean each could see elements that other couldn’t - both then discussed what they’d seen before test of recall
- Found 71% mistakenly recalled aspects they didn’t see but picked up in discussion - control group where there was no discussion = 0% - evidence of mem conformity
51
Q
Why does post-event discussion affect EWT?
A
- Memory contamination - when co-witnesses discuss, their EWT may become distorted because they combine misinfo from other witnesses with own mem’s
- Memory conformity - G et al concluded witnesses go along to win social approval / they believe other = right & they are wrong
52
Q
Strengths of misleading information as a factor affecting eyewitness testimony
A
- Real world application - Loftus 1975 believed LQ’s police need to consider how they phrase questions when interviewing eyewitnesses - psychs = sometimes asked to act as expert eyewitness in court trials & explain limits of EWT to juries - psychs can help improve legal system by protecting innocent from faulty convictions
53
Q
Limitations of misleading information as a factor affecting eyewitness testimony
A
- L & P’s p’s watched film in lab - Foster et al 1994; what eyewitnesses remember = imp consequences in real world but p’s responses don’t matter in same way - suggests L = too pessimistic about effects of MI
- Zaragoza & McCloskey 1989; many answers by p’s in lab studies = due to demand characteristics
54
Q
Research on anxiety having a negative effect on recall (weapon focus) - Johnson & Scott 1976
A
- A created physiological arousal in body that prevents paying attention to imp cues so recall = worse
- P’s believed taking part in lab study - low-anxiety = heard casual convo in next room & saw man walk past carrying pen & grease on hands - high anxiety = other overheard heated argument with breaking glass & man walked out room holding knife covered in blood
- P’s picked man out from 5- photos - 49% who saw with pen were able to identify him - 33% who saw blood-covered were able to identify him
- Tunnel theory of mem; people have enhanced mem for central events
55
Q
Research on anxiety having a positive effect on recall - Yuille & Cutshall 1986
A
- Fight / floght response = triggered, increasing alertness which may improve mem
- Study of actual shooting in gun shop Canada - shop owner shot thief dead - 21 witnessed - 13 took part in study - interviewed 4-5m after - accuracy determine by number of details reported - also asked to rate stress they felt during incident on 7point scale & whether they had emotional problems since
- Witnesses very accurate & little chance of accuracy after 5m - highest levels of stress - most accurate - 88% compared to 75% for less stressed - suggests anxiety enhances accuracy / recall
56
Q
Contradictory findings of anxiety as factor of affecting eyewitness testimony - Deffenbacher 1983
A
- Yerkes & Dodson 1908; relation between emotional arousal & performance = inverted U
- D; reviewed 21 studies of EWT & noted contradictory findings on effects of anxiety - used Yerkes-Dodson Law to exp findings - when we witness crime we become emotionally & physiologically aroused - we experience anxiety as well as physiologial changes in body
- Lower levels on arousal produce lower levels of recall accuracy & mem becomes more accurate as level of arousal increases - however, to an extent - point of max accuracy - any more, recall suffers drastic decline
57
Q
Strengths of anxiety as a factor affecting EWT
A
- Supporting evidence - Valentine & Mesout 2009; used objective measure (heart rate) to divide p’s into high & low anxiety groups - anxiety clearly disrupted p’s ability to recall details about actor in London Dungeon’s Labyrinth - high level has negative effect on immediate eyewitness recall
- Christianson & Hubinette 1993; interviews 58 witnessed to bank robberies in Sweden - some directly involved & others indirectly - recall = more than 75% accurate across all witnessed - direct = more accurate
58
Q
Limitations of anxiety as a factor affecting EWT
A
- J & S may not have tested anxiety - Pickel 1998 conducted experiment using scissors, handgun, wallet / raw chicken as hand held items in hairdressing salon - scissors = high anxiety, low unusualness - EW accuracy = poorer in high unusualness conditions (chicken & handgun) - weapon focus effect = due to unusualness rather than threat
- C & H interviewed p’s 4-15m after event - researchers had no control over what happened between (post event discussion) - effects of A may have been overwhelmed by other factors - lack of control over confounding variables
59
Q
Who suggested the accuracy of EWT could be improved using cognitive interviews?
A
- Fisher & Geiselman 1992; techniques should be based on psychological insights into how mem works
60
Q
What techniques are used in the cognitive interview?
A
- Report everything - include all details even if they seem insignificant as they may trigger imp memories
- Reinstate the context - returning to the scene in their minds & imagining the environment (weather, what they could see) & their emotions - context dependent
- Reverse the order - recalling events in diff order from original sequence - to prevent reporting their expectations of how it must have happened rather than what did happen - also prevents dishonesty
- Change the perspective - recalling incident from other perspectives e.g. the victim - done to disrupts effect of expectations & schema on recall
61
Q
What is the enhanced cognitive interview?
A
- Fisher et al 1987 developed additional elements to CI to focus on social dynamics of interaction - interviewer needs to know when to make eye contact - minimising distractions, getting witness to speak slowly & asking open-ended questions
61
Q
Strengths of the cognitive interview
A
- Kohnken et al’s 1999 meta-analysis combined data from 55 studies comparing CI & ECI with standard police interview - CI = avr 41% increase in accurate info compared to standard - 4 studies showed no diff between types of interview - CI = effective in recalling available mem
62
Q
Limitations of the cognitive interview
A
- K found increase of inaccurate into recalled - ECI produced more incorrect details than CI
- Milne & Bull 2002 combo of report everything & reinstate contect produced better recall - confirms officers’ suspicions that some aspects of CI = more useful than others - casts doubts on credibility of CI
- Time consuming & expensive because of special training & resources needed - more time needed to establish rapport with witness & making them relaxed - CI isn’t realistic method for officers to use
