Memory Flashcards
Outline Baddeley’s acoustic and semantic coding study
- Participants given list of acoustically similar words (e.g. cat, cab, can) others given dissimilar words (e.g. pit, few, cow)
- Participants given list of semantically similar words (e.g. great, large, big) others given dissimilar words (e.g. good, huge, hot)
- Immediate recall worse with acoustically similar words, so STM is acoustic
- Recall after 20 minutes worse with semantically similar words, so LTM is semantic
Outline Jacobs’ testing digit span capacity study
- Researcher reads four digits and increases until the participant can’t recall the order correctly
- Final number = digit span
- On average, participants could repeat back 9.3 numbers and 7.3 letters in the correct order immediately after they were presented
Outline Miller’s magic number 7 +/- 2 capacity study
- Miller noted that everyday things come in 7s (e.g. 7 days of the week / 7 deadly sins, etc.)
- Span of STM is about 7 items (plus or minus 2) but is increased by CHUNKING - grouping sets of digits into meaningful units
Outline Peterson and Peterson’s duration of STM study (consonant syllables)
- 24 students given consonant syllable (e.g. YCG) to recall and a 3 digit number to count backwards from to avoid rehearsal
- After 3 seconds, average recall was 80%, after 18 seconds, iy was about 3%
- STM duration = up to 18 seconds
Outline Bahrick’s LTM duration study (yearbook photos)
- 392 Americans aged 17 - 74
- Recognition test - 50 photos from high school yearbooks
- Free recall test - participants listed names of their graduating class
- Recognition test - 90% accuracy after 15 years, 70% after 48 years
- Free recall test - 60% accuracy after 15 years, 30% after 48 years
- LTM duration = up to a lifetime
Baddeley identified two memory stores. How is this a strength of coding of memory?
- Later research showed there are exceptions to Baddeley’s findings
- STM is mostly acoustic and LTM is mostly semantic
- This led to the development of the MULTI-STORE MODEL
Baddeley used artificial stimuli for his study. How is this a weakness?
- Words had no personal meaning to participants, so tells us little about coding for everyday memory tasks
- When processing more meaningful information, people use SEMANTIC coding, even for STM
- This suggests that the findings from Baddeley’s study have limited application
Jacobs’ study has been replicated. How is this a strength of STM capacity?
- Study may have lacked adequate controls (confounding variables, e.g. participants being distracted) due to the study being old
- HOWEVER, Jacobs’ findings have been confirmed in later studies (Bopp and Verhaegen)
- This shows that Jacobs’ study is a valid measure of STM digit span
Miller may have overestimated STM capacity. How is this a weakness?
- Cowan reviewed other research and concluded that the capacity for STM was only about 4 (plus or minus 1) chunks
- This suggests that the lower end of Miller’s estimate (5 items) is more appropriate than 7 items
Peterson and Peterson used meaningless stimuli. How is this a weakness of duration of STM?
- Recall of consonant syllables does not reflect meaningful everyday memory tasks
- Therefore, the study lacked EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Bahrick’s study has high external validity. How is this a strength of duration of LTM?
- Everyday meaningful memories (names and faces) were studied
- Shepard found that when lab studies were done with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates were lower
- This means that Bahrick’s findings reflect a more “real” estimate of LTM duration
Sketch the multi-store model of memory
Outline the sensory register from the multi-store model
- All environmental stimuli pass into the sensory register. This part of memory has 5 stores for each of the senses
- CODING - depends on the sense (visual in iconic, acoustic in echoic, etc.)
- DURATION - very brief, less than half a second
- CAPACITY - very high, e.g. over 100 million cells in one eye, each storing data
Outline the transfer from sensory register to STM in the multi-store model
Information passes further into memory only if attention is paid to it (ATTENTION is the key process)
Outline short term memory in the multi-store model
- Limited capacity store of temporary duration
- Coding = acoustic
- Duration = about 18 seconds unless information is rehearsed
- Capacity = between 5 and 9 (7+/-2) items before some forgetting occurs
Outline the transfer from STM to LTM in the multi-store model
- Maintenance rehearsal occurs when we rehearse material
- We can keep information in STM as long as we rehearse it
- If we rehearse it long enough, it passes into LTM
Outline long term memory in the multi-store model
- Permanent memory store
- Coding = semantic
- Duration = up to a lifetime
- Capacity = potentially unlimited
Outline retrieval from LTM in the multi-store model
When we want to recall information stored in LTM, it has to be transferred back to STM by a process called RETRIEVAL
There is evidence from Baddeley showing STM and LTM are different. How is this a strength of the multi-store model?
- Baddeley found that we tend to mix up words that sound similar when using our STMs (so STM coding is acoustic)
- But we mix up words that have similar meanings when we use our LTMs (which shows LTM coding is semantic)
- This supports the multi-store model’s view that these two memory stores are separate and independent
Jacobs and Peterson and Peterson’s studies show that the multi-store model may not be a valid model of how memory works in everyday life. How is this a weakness?
- The studies tend not to use everyday information (e.g. faces or names)
- They use digits/letters (Jacobs) or meaningless consonant syllables (Peterson and Peterson)
- Therefore, the multi-store model may not be a valid model of how memory works in everyday life where memory tends to involve meaningful information
Shallice and Warrington found there may be more than one STM store. How is this a weakness of the multi-store model?
- Shallice and Warrington - KF had amnesia. STM recall for digits was poor when he heard them, but was much better when he read them
- Other studies confirm there may also be a separate STM store for non-verbal sounds (e.g. noises)
- Therefore, the MSM is wrong to claim there is just 1 STM store, processing different types of information
According to Craik and Watkins, prolonged rehearsal is not needed for STM → LTM transfer. How is this a weakness of the multi-store model?
- Craik and Watkins argue there are 2 types of rehearsal called maintenance and elaborative rehearsal
- MAINTENANCE (amount of rehearsal) is the one described in the multi-store model
- ELABORATIVE is needed for long term storage. This occurs when you link information to your existing knowledge, or think about its meaning
- This suggests the MSM doesn’t fully explain how long-term storage is achieved
The multi-store model is a bygone model. How is this a weakness?
- The MSM was useful at explaining a lot of evidence at the time (e.g. differences between STM and LTM)
- HOWEVER, it’s become clear that the MSM can’t account for many research findings (e.g. amnesia) and oversimplifies the nature of STM, LTM and rehearsal
- Therefore, the MSM was a good starting point for developing more valid models of memory that explain the research evidence better
Outline episodic memory
- Stores events from our lives
- Likened to a diary of daily personal experiences
- Time stamped - you remember when things happened
- Conscious effort to be recalled
Outline semantic memory
- Stores knowledge of the world
- Combination of an encyclopedia and a dictionary
- Not time-stamped
- Less personal and more about knowledge we all share
Outline procedural memory
- Stores memories for actions and skills
- How we do things
- Become automatic with practice
- Explaining the step-by-step process is hard because you do it without conscious recall
There is case study evidence (HM and Clive Wearing) for different types of long term memory. How is this a strength?
- Clinical studies of amnesia (HM and Clive Wearing) showed both had difficulty recalling past events (EPISODIC MEMORY)
- But, their SEMANTIC MEMORIES were unaffected (HM did not need the concept of “dog” explained to him)
- PROCEUDRAL MEMORIES were also intact (Clive Wearing could still play piano)
- This supports the view that there are different memory stories in LTM because one store can be damaged but other stores are unaffected
Researchers lack control in clinical case studies. How is this a weakness of types of long term memory?
- Researchers lack control in clinical case studies - they don’t know anything about the person’s memory before brain damage
- Therefore, clinical case studies are limited in what they can tell us about different types of LTM
How is conflicting findings about types of LTM and brain areas a weakness of types of long term memory?
- Buckner and Petersen reviewed research findings and concluded that SEMANTIC memory is in the LEFT prefrontal cortex and EPISODIC with the RIGHT prefrontal cortex
- But other studies (Tulving) found SEMANTIC memory was associated with the RIGHT prefrontal cortex and the reverse for episodic memory
- This challenges any neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory as there is poor agreement on where each type may be located
Types of long term memory can help people with memory problems. How is this a strength?
- Memory loss in old age is specific to EPISODIC memory - it is harder to recall memories of recent experiences although past episodic memories are intact
- Belleville devised an intervention for older people targeting episodic memory, which improved their memory, compared to a control group
- This suggests that distinguishing between types of LTM enables specific treatment to be developed
Sketch the working memory model
Outline the central executive from the working memory model
- Supervisory role - monitors incoming data, directs attention and allocates slave systems to tasks
- Very limited storage capacity
Outline the phonological loop from the working memory model
- Deals with auditory information and preserves the order in which the information arrives. It is subdivided into :
- PHONOLOGICAL STORE - stores the words you hear
- ARTICULATORY PROCESS - allows maintenance rehearsal
Outline the visuo-spatial sketchpad from the working memory model
- Stores visual and/or spatial information when required
- Logie divided the VSS into :
- VISUAL CACHE - stores visual data
- INNER SCRIBE - records arrangements of objects in visual field
Outline the episodic buffer from the working memory model
- Temporary store for information
- Integrates visual, spatial and verbal information from other stores
- Maintains sense of time-sequencing - recording events that are happening
- Links to LTM
There is support from clinical studies (KF) for the working memory model. How is this a strength?
- Shallice and Warrington studied KF who had a brain injury
- His STM for AUDITORY information was poor (damaged PL) but he could process VISUAL information normally (intact VSS)
- This supports the WMM view that there are separate visual and acoustic memory stores
How does KF challenge evidence from clinical studies of brain injury?
- KF may have had other impairments which explained poor memory performance, apart from damage to his PL
- This challenged evidence from clinical studies of brain injury
Baddeley’s dual task performance studies support the VSS. How is this a strength of the working memory model?
- Baddeley’s participants found it harder to carry out two visual tasks at the same time than a verbal and a visual task together (same for two visual tasks)
- This is because both visual tasks compete for the same subsystem (VSS). There is no competition with a visual and verbal task
- Therefore, there must be a separate slave system that processes visual input (VSS) and also a separate system for verbal processes (PL)
According to Baddeley, there is a lack of clarity over the central executive. How is this a weakness of the working memory model?
- Baddeley said the CE was the most important but the least understood component of working memory
- There must be more to the CE than just being “attention”, e.g. it is made up of separate subcomponents
- Therefore, the CE is an unsatisfactory component and this challenges the integrity of the model
Dual task studies challenge the validity of the working memory model. How is this a weakness?
- Dual task studies support the WMM because they show that there must be separate components processing visual (VSS) and verbal information (PL)
- HOWEVER, these studies are highly controlled and use tasks that are unlike everyday working memory tasks (e.g. recalling random sequences of letters)
- This challenges the validity of the model because it’s uncertain that working memory operates this way in everyday life
Outline interference
Interference : when two pieces of information disrupt each other. Forgetting occurs in LTM because we can’t access the memories even though they’re available
Outline proactive interference
Proactive interference : old memories interfere with new memories. EXAMPLE - a teacher learns many names in the past and can’t remember names of her current class
Outline retroactive interference
Retroactive interference : new memories interfere with old memories. EXAMPLE : a teacher learns many new names this year and can’t remember the names of her previous students
Explain why interference is worse when memories are similar
This may be because :
- In proactive interference, previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store
- In retroactive interference, new info overwrites previous memories which are similar
Outline McGeoch’s and McDonald’s effects of similarity on interference study
- Participants were asked to learn a list of words to 100% accuracy
- Then they were given a new list to learn
- GROUP 1 - SYNONYMS
- GROUP 2 - ANTONYMS
- GROUP 3 - UNRELATED WORDS
- GROUP 4 - CONSONANT SYLLABLES
- GROUP 5 - 3 DIGIT NUMBERS
- GROUP 6 - NO NEW LIST (control group)
- Performance depended on nature of the second list
- SYNONYMS produced worst recall
- Shows interference is strongest when memories are similar
There is support for interference in real-world situations (Baddeley and Hitch). How is this a strength of interference?
- Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they’d played against during a season
- Players did not play same number of games due to injuries, those who played most (more interference) had worst recall
- This shows that interference operates in some everyday situations, increasing the validity of the theory
Everyday forgetting may be better explained by retrieval failure than interference. How is this a weakness of interference?
- Interference in everyday situations is unusual because the necessary conditions are relatively rare, e.g. similarity of memories doesn’t occur often
- Therefore, most everyday forgetting may be better explained by other theories (e.g. retrieval failure due to lack of cues)
Tulving and Psotka found the interference effect may be overcome using cues, which was not predicted by the theory. How is this a weakness of interference?
- Tulving and Psotka gave participants lists of words organised into categories
- Recall of the first list was 70% but fell with each new list (PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE)
- When given a cued recall test (names of categories), recall rose again to 70%
- Suggests that interference causes just a temporary loss of access to material still in LTM - not predicted by interference theory
Coenen and van Luijtelaar provide support from drug studies for interference theory. How is this a strength?
- Material learned just before taking DIAZEPAM recalled better than a PLACEBO group one week later - this is RETROGRADE FACILITATION (Coenen and van Luijtelaar)
- The drug stopped new information reaching brain areas that process memories, so it could not retroactively interfere with stored information
- This suggests that the forgetting is due to interference - reducing the interference reduced the forgetting
Interference theory has validity issues. How is this a weakness?
- Lab studies of interference have tight control of confounding variables (e.g. time), so there is a clear link between interference and forgetting
- HOWEVER, most research is unlike everyday forgetting. In everyday life, we often learn something and recall it much later (e.g. revising for exams)
- This means that because research is mostly lab-based, it may overestimate the importance of interference as a cause of forgetting
Describe how lack of cues can cause retrieval failure
- When info is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time
- If the cues are not available at the time of retrieval, you might not access memories that are actually there
Outline Tulving’ Encoding Specificity Principle
- Cues help retrieval if the same ones are present both at encoding (when we learn material) and retrieval
- If the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different or absent, there will be some forgetting
Outline context-dependent forgetting and state-dependent forgetting
- Context-dependent forgetting - recall depends on EXTERNAL cue (e.g. weather or place)
- State-dependent forgetting - recall depends on INTERNAL cue (e.g. feeling upset or being drunk)
Outline Godden and Baddeley’s context-dependent forgetting study
- Deep-sea divers learned word lists and were later asked to recall them :
- CONDITION 1 - learn on land, recall on land
- CONDITION 2 - learn on land, recall underwater
- CONDITION 3 - learn underwater, recall on land
- CONDITION 4 - learn underwater, recall underwater
- Accurate recall was 40% lower in mismatched contexts
- Retrieval failure was due to absence of encoded context cues at time of recall - material was not accessible, so forgotten
Outline Carter and Cassaday’s state-dependent forgetting study
- Participants learned lists of words and later recalled them :
- CONDITION 1 - learn on drug, recall on drug
- CONDITION 2 - learn on drug, recall not on drug
- CONDITION 3 - learn not on drug, recall on drug
- CONDITION 4 - learn not on drug, recall not on drug
- Recall significantly worse in mismatched cues
- When cues at encoding are absent at retrieval, then there is more forgetting
Retrieval cues have real-world application. How is this a strength of retrieval failure?
- People often go to another room to get an item but forgot what they wanted, but they remember when they go back to the original room
- When we have trouble remembering something, it’s worth making the effort to recall the environment in which you learned it first
- Shows how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall
How is range of supporting evidence (Godden and Baddeley, and Carter and Cassaday) a strength of retrieval failure?
- Godden and Baddeley (divers) and Carter and Cassaday (drugs) show that lack of cues at recall leads to everyday forgetting
- Eysenck and Keane argue that retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting in LTM
- This evidence shows that retrieval failure due to lack of cues occurs in everyday life as well as in highly-controlled labs
According to Baddeley, contexts have to be very different for it to have an effect. How is this a weakness of retrieval failure?
- Baddeley argues that different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen (e.g. on land vs underwater)
- Learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because the environments aren’t different enough
- This means that retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not explain much everyday forgetting
Godden and Baddeley found that context effects vary in recall and recognition in the replication of their underwater study. How is this a weakness of retrieval failure?
- Godden and Baddeley replicated their underwater study, using a RECOGNITION test instead of recall
- There was no context-dependent effect. Findings were the same in all four conditions whether the contexts for learning and recall matched or not
- Suggests retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies when a person has to recall information rather than recognise it
There are problems with Tulving’s ESP. How is this a weakness of retrieval failure?
- Retrieval failure theory is supported by research showing that forgetting occurs when there is a mismatch or absence of cues - the Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP)
- HOWEVER, we cannot independently establish whether a cue has really been encoded or not - so the argument for the role of cues is circular
- Therefore, the ESP is not scientifically testable, so we can’t be certain that forgetting is due to retrieval failure
Outline Loftus and Palmer’s leading questions study
- 45 participants watched clips of car accidents and answered questions about speed
- CRITICAL QUESTION : “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
- 5 groups of participants, each given a different verb in the critical question : hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
- The verb “CONTACTED” produced a mean estimated speed of 31.8mph, for “SMASHED”, the mean was 40.5mph
- The leading question biased eyewitness recall of an event. The verb “smashed” suggested a faster speed of the car than “contacted”
What are the two reasons as to why leading questions affect eyewitness testimony?
- RESPONSE-BIAS EXPLANATION - wording of a question has no enduring effect on an eyewitness’ memory of an event, but influences the kind of answer given
- SUBSTITUTION EXPLANATION - wording of a question does affect eyewitness memory, it interferes with the original memory, distorting its accuracy
Outline Gabbert et al.’s post-event discussion study
- Paired participants watched a video of the same crime, but filmed so each participant could see elements in the event that the other could not
- Both participants discussed what they had seen on the video, before individually completing a test of recall
- 71% of participants wrongly recalled aspects of the event they didn’t see in the video but had heard in the discussion
- CONTROL GROUP - there was no discussion and no subsequent errors
- This was evidence of MEMORY CONFORMITY
What are the two reasons for post-event information affecting eyewitness testimony?
- MEMORY CONTAMINATION - when co-witnesses discuss a crime, they mix (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories
- MEMORY CONFORMITY - witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right
There are real world applications in the criminal justice system. How is this a strength of misleading information in eyewitness testimony?
- The consequences of EWT are serious. Loftus argues police officers should be careful in phrasing questions to witnesses because of distorting effects
- Psychologists are sometimes expert witnesses in trials and explain limits of EWT to juries
- Therefore, psychologists can improve how the legal system works and protect the innocent from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT
Researchers may be too pessimistic about the effects of misleading information. How is this a weakness of misleading information in eyewitness testimony?
- Loftus and Palmer showed film clips - a different experience from a real event (less stress)
- Participants are also less concerned about the effect of their responses in a lab study (Foster et al.)
- Therefore, researchers may be too pessimistic about the effects of misleading information - EWT may be more reliable than studies suggest
Sutherland and Hayne’s central details study challenges substitution explanation. How is this a weakness of the substitution explanation for misleading information in eyewitness testimony?
- Sutherland and Hayne found their participants recalled central details of an event better than peripheral ones, even when asked misleading questions
- This is because their attention was focussed on the central features and these memories were relatively resistant to misleading information
- Therefore, the original memory of an event survived and was not distorted, which is not predicted by the substitution explanation
Evidence from Skagerberg and Wright does not support memory conformity. How is this a weakness of misleading information in eyewitness testimony?
- Skagerberg and Wright’s participants discussed film clips they had seen (in one version, the mugger had dark brown hair, and light brown in the other)
- The participants recalled a “blend” of what they had seen and what they heard from their co-witness, rather than one or the other (e.g. said hair was medium brown instead of dark or light)
- This suggests that the memory itself is distorted through contamination by post-event discussion and is not the result of memory conformity
Why are demand characteristics a weakness of lab studies investigating the effects of misleading information in eyewitness testimony?
- Lab studies give researchers high control over variables (high internal validity), so they can demonstrate that misleading post-event information causes inaccurate EWT
- HOWEVER, lab experiments suffer from demand characteristics - participants want to help so they guess when they can’t answer a question (low internal validity)
- Therefore, to maximise internal validity, researchers should reduce demand characteristics by removing the cues that participants use to work out the hypothesis
Outline Johnson and Scott’s study into anxiety having a negative effect on eyewitness testimony
- Participants sat in a waiting room believing they were going to be taking part in a lab study
- LOW ANXIETY CONDITION - participants heard a casual conversation then saw a man walk through the waiting room carrying a pen with grease on his hands
- HIGH ANXIETY CONDITION - heated argument was accompanied by the sound of breaking glass. A man walked through the room holding a paper knife covered in blood (creates anxiety and “weapon focus”)
- Participants later asked to pick the man from a set of 50 photographs
- 49% participants in the LOW ANXIETY CONDITION, and 33% from the HIGH ANXIETY CONDITION were able to identify the man
- The TUNNEL THEORY OF MEMORY argues that people have enhanced memory for central events. Weapon focus as a result of anxiety can have this effect
Outline Yuille and Cutshall’s study into anxiety having a positive effect on eyewitness testimony
- In an actual crime, a gun shop owner shot a thief dead. There were 21 witnesses, 13 agreed to participate in the study
- Participants were interviewed 4-5 months after the incident. The information recalled was compared to the police interviews at the time of the shooting
- Witnesses rated how stressed they felt at the time of the incident
- Witnesses were very accurate in what they recalled and there was little change after 5 months. Some details were less accurate, e.g. age/weight/height
- Participants who reported highest levels of stress were most accurate (88% compared to 75% for the less-stressed group)
- Anxiety does not appear to reduce the accuracy of EWT for a real-world event and may enhance it
Outline Yerkes and Dodson’s inverted U theory to explain differences in findings from research into the effect of anxiety on eyewitness testimony
- Yerkes and Dodson argue that the relationship between performance and stress is an inverted U
- Deffenbacher reviewed 21 studies of EWT with contradictory findings on the effect of anxiety on recall
- He suggested the Yerkes-Dodson effect could explain this - both low and high levels of anxiety produce poor recall whereas optimum levels can lead to very good recall
Anxiety may not be relevant to weapon focus. How is this a weakness of the effects of anxiety on eyewitness testimony?
- Johnson and Scott’s participants may have been focussed on the weapon, not out of anxiety, but surprise
- Pickel found accuracy in identifying the “criminal” was poorest when the object in their hand was unexpected (e.g. a raw chicken and a gun in a hairdressers)
- This suggests the weapons effect is due to unusualness rather than anxiety and so tells us nothing about the specific effect of anxiety on recall
Valentine and Mesout have supporting evidence for negative effects of anxiety on eyewitness testimony. How is this a strength?
- Valentine and Mesout used heart rate (objective measure) to divide visitors to the London Dungeon’s Labyrinth into low and high anxiety groups
- High anxiety participants were less accurate than low anxiety in describing and identifying a target person
- This supports the claim that anxiety has a negative effect on immediate eyewitness recall of a stressful event
Christianson and Hubinette have supporting evidence for positive effects of anxiety on eyewitness testimony. How is this a strength?
- Christianson and Hubinette interviewed actual witnesses to bank robberies - some were direct victims (high anxiety) and others were bystanders (low anxiety)
- They found more than 75% accurate recall across all witnesses. Direct victims (most anxious) were even more accurate
- This suggests that anxiety does not affect the accuracy of eyewitness recall and may even enhance it
Lack of control over confounding variables may be responsible for (in)accuracy of recall, instead of anxiety. How is this a weakness of the effects of anxiety on eyewitness testimony?
- Christianson and Hubinette interviewed witnesses long after the event
- Many things happened that the researchers couldn’t control (e.g. post-event discussions)
- Therefore, lack of control over confounding variables may be responsible for the (in)accuracy of recall, not anxiety
There are problems with the inverted U theory. How is this a weakness of the effects of anxiety on eyewitness testimony?
- The inverted U theory appears to be a reasonable explanation of the contradictory finding linking anxiety with both increased and decreased eyewitness recall
- HOWEVER, it only focusses on physical elements, and ignores other elements, including COGNITIVE (how we think about stressful events affects what we recall)
- Therefore, the inverted U theory is too simplistic to be useful, e.g. anxious thoughts may not always lead to symptoms of anxiety but may block memory
Describe the “report everything” technique from the cognitive interview
- Witnesses are encouraged to include every detail of an event, even if it seems irrelevant or the witness is not confident about it
- Seemingly trivial details could be important and may trigger other memories
Describe the “reinstate the context” technique from the cognitive interview
- The witness returns to the crime scene in their mind and imagines the environment (e.g. the weather, what they could see, etc.) and their emotions
- This is based on context-dependent forgetting - cues from the context may trigger recall
Describe the “reverse the order” technique from the cognitive interview
- Events are recalled in a different order (e.g. from end to beginning)
- This prevents people basing their descriptions on expectations of how the event must have happened rather than the actual events
- It also prevents dishonesty (harder to lie if the account is reversed)
- Witnesses recall the event from other people’s perspectives (how it would’ve appeared to another witness or to the perpetrator)
- This prevents the influence of expectations and schema on recall
- Schema are packages of information developed through experiences. They generate a framework for interpreting incoming information
Outline the Enhanced Cognitive Interview
- Fisher et al. developed additional elements of the CI
- This includes a focus on the social dynamics of the interaction (e.g. knowing when to establish and relinquish eye contact)
- The ECI also includes ideas such as reducing the witness’ anxiety, minimising distractions, getting the witness to speak slowly and asking open-ended questions
Kohnken’s meta-analysis has research support for the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview. How is this a strength?
- A meta-analysis by Kohnken et al. combined data from 55 studies comparing CI and ECI with the standard police interview
- The CI produced an average of 41% more correct information than the standard interview. Only 4 studies showed no difference
- This shows that the CI is effective in helping witnesses recall information that is available but not accessible
Kohnken found an increase in inaccurate information in the Enhanced Cognitive Interview. How is this a weakness?
- Kohnken also found increases in the amount of inaccurate information, especially in the ECI (quantity over quality)
- Therefore, police officers need to be very careful about how they treat eyewitness evidence from CIs / ECIs
Milne and Bull found that some elements of the Cognitive Interview are more useful than others. How is this a weakness of the Cognitive Interview?
- Milne and Bull found that each individual technique of the CI alone produced more information than the standard police interview
- But they also found combining REPORT EVERYTHING and REINSTATE THE CONTEXT produced better recall than any other technique individually or combined
- This casts doubt on the credibility of the overall CI because some of the techniques are less effective than the others
The Cognitive Interview is time-consuming. How is this a weakness?
- Police are reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time than the standard police interview (e.g. to establish rapport and allow the witness to relax)
- The CI also requires special training but many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours’ training (Kebbell and Wagstaff)
- This suggests that the complete CI is not realistic for police officers to use and it might be better to focus on just a few key elements
Police use variations of the Cognitive Interview. How is this a strength?
- Police forces take a “pick and mix” approach in practice which makes it hard to compare effectiveness in studies
- HOWEVER, this approach make the CI more FLEXIBLE because the police forces (or individuals) evolve their own approaches depending on what they think works best
- This variation is a benefit of the CI because it can be adapted to different situations, increasing its credibility for officers, though not for empirical research
