Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A Level Psychology AQA > Memory > Flashcards

Memory Flashcards

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

Coding

A

Format in which information is stored in the various memory stores

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

Research on coding

A

“Baddeley (1966) Word lists: acoustically/semantically similar or dissimilar, Asked to recall in correct order
Immediate recall: worse with acoustically similar words, After 20 minutes: worse with semantically similar words. STM acoustic, LTM semantic”

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

Acoustically similar

A

Sound similar

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

Semantically similar

A

Similar meaning

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

Research on coding - artificial stimuli (Evaluation)

A
  1. Words had no personal meaning. 2. Cautious about generalising. 3. Meaningful tasks: may use semantic even for STM. 4. Limited application
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Capacity

A

Amount of information that can be held in a memory store

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

Research on capacity - digit span

A

“Jacobs (1887) Researched reads 4 digits and increases until ppt cannot recall order correctly
Mean span: 9.3 numbers, 7.3 letters”

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

Research on capacity - digit span (Jacob’s, lacks validity)

A
  1. Conducted a long time ago 2. Early research lacked adequate control of extraneous variables. 3. Ppts may have been distracted. 4. Results may not be valid - confounding variables not controlled
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Results confirmed in other research, supporting validity (miller) Research on capacity - span of memory and chunking.

A
  1. Things often come in 7s (weekdays, deadly sins, musical notes). 2. Suggests capacity of STM is 7+/-2 items
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

People can recall 5 words as well as they can 5 letters

A

Chunking: grouping sets of digits/letters into meaningful chunks

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

Research on capacity - span of memory and chunking (overestimated capacity)

A

Cowan (2001) reviewed other research. 1. Capacity of STM only around 4 chunks. 2.Lower end of Miller’s estimate (5 items) more appropriate than 7

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

Duration

A

Length of time information can be held in memory

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

Research on duration - STM

A

Peterson & Peterson (1959). 24 students given consonant syllable (e.g. YCG) to remember and 3 digit number to count backwards from. Counting backwards prevented rehearsal. Retention interval: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 seconds. 3s: recalled 80% syllables correctly. 18s: only 3%. STM without rehearsal: 18-30s

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

Research on duration - STM (Evaluation, artificial stimuli)

A

Does not resemble real-life memory activities (meaningful) Lacked external validity. Do sometimes try to remember meaningless things e.g. phone numbers, not totally irrelevant

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

Research on duration - LTM

A

Bahrick et al (1975) 392 Americans 17-74 yrs. Recognition test: 50 photos from high school yearbook. Free recall: names of graduating class. Free recall: 15 yrs: 60% 48 yrs: 30%. Photo recognition: 15 yrs after graduation: 90% accurate 48 yrs: 80% accurate. LTM lasts a very long time

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

Research on duration - LTM (Research support + Evaluations)

A

Real-life meaningful memories. Lab studies with meaningless pictures: recall much lower (Shepard 1967). Confounding variables not controlled (looked at yearbooks and rehearsed memories over the years)

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

Multi-store model of memory (MSM)

A

Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)- How info flows through memory system. 3 stores linked by processing

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

MSM - 1: sensory register

A

Stimulus from environment passes into SR along with lots of other sights/sounds e.t.c. 5 stores (each sense), main iconic (visual) and echoic (auditory). Duration: less than half a second. Capacity: high (over 100 million cells in each eye storing data). Coding: depends on sense. Needs attention to transfer to STM

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

MSM - 2: STM store

A

Limited capacity/duration Coding: acoustic. Capacity: 7+/-2 items (5-9). Duration: 18-30 seconds without rehearsal. Maintenance rehearsal: repeat to ourselves. Keep in STM with rehearsal. Rehearse long enough: passes into LTM

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

MSM - 3: LTM store

A

Permanent memory store. Coding: semantic. Capacity: unlimited. Duration: up to a lifetime. Recall: must be transferred back to STM by retrieval

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

MSM - supporting evidence

A

Baddeley: mix up acoustically similar words in STM and semantically similar in LTM Coding: STM acoustic, LTM semantic. Supports MSM view that stores are separate/independent

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

MSM - more than one type of STM

A

Shallice & Warrington: study of KF (amnesia patient). Poor STM recall for digits when read out loud. Recall much better when read digits himself. MSM states only one STM store. KF: one STM to process visual info and another for auditory. Working memory model better explains (includes separate stores)

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

MSM - more than one type of rehearsal

A

Craik & Watkins: two types of rehearsal - maintenance and elaborate. Maintenance described in MSM. Elaborate needed for long term storage. Occurs when you link info to existing knowledge/process it. Type of rehearsal matters, not amount. Research findings cannot be explained by model

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

Who Came up with Types of LTM

A

Tulving (1985) MSM view of LTM too simplistic. 3 LTM stores, different kinds of info: Episodic, semantic, procedural memory

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

Types of LTM - episodic

A

Stores events from our lives. Complex memories: time-stamped (when they happened) and contain several elements (people, places, objects, behaviours). Conscious effort to recall

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

Types of LTM - semantic

A

Knowledge of the world. Includes facts/what words & concepts mean. Not time-stamped. Less personal - knowledge that we all share. Also usually need to be deliberately recalled

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

Types of LTM - procedural

A

Stores memories for how we do things (actions/skills). Hard to explain to others - recall without conscious awareness/effort

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

Types of LTM - episodic supported by case study evidence

A

Clinical studies of amnesia (HM, Clive Wearing): both had difficulty recalling events from past. Semantic memories unaffected (HM did not remember stroking a dog but did not need concept explained). Procedural memories also intact. Support for multiple LTM stores. One store can be damaged but others left unaffected

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

Types of LTM - brain scan studies

A

Tulving et al: ppts perform memory tasks during PET scan. Prefrontal cortex: semantic (L) episodic (R). Physical reality of different types. Supports validity

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

Types of LTM - problems with clinical evidence

A

Based on what happens when memory is damaged. Lack of control of variables (precise location of damage/personality). Difficult to generalise to determine exact nature of LTM

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

Working memory model (WMM)

A

Baddeley & Hitch (1974) How one aspect of STM is organised/functions. Concerned with part of mind active when temporarily storing/manipulating information e.g. playing chess

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

WMM - 1: central executive

A

Attentional process. Monitors incoming data/makes decisions/allocates slave systems to tasks. Co-ordinates activities/allocates processing resources to 3 subsystems. Coding: flexible. Capacity: very limited

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

WMM - 2: phonological loop

A

Deals with auditory information. Preserves order in which info arrives. Subdivided into phonological store and articulatory process

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

WMM - phonological loop (phonological store)

A

Stores words you hear

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

WMM - phonological loop (articulatory process)

A

Allows maintenance rehearsal (repeating to keep in WMM while needed). Capacity: 2s worth of what you can say

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

WMM - 4: visuo-spatial sketchpad

A

Stores visual/spatial information. Coding: visual. Capacity: limited, 3-4 objects (Baddeley). Subdivided into visual cache & inner scribe

37
Q

WMM - visuo-spatial sketchpad (visual cache)

A

Stores visual data

38
Q

WMM - visuo-spatial sketchpad (inner scribe)

A

Records arrangement of objects in visual field

39
Q

WMM - 5: episodic buffer

A

Added by Baddeley (2000) - Temporary store. Integrates visual/spatial/verbal info from other stores. Maintains sense of time sequencing (recording events that are happening). Coding: flexible. Capacity: about 4 chunks. Links to LTM/other cognitive processes e.g. perception

40
Q

WMM - KF supports separate STM stores

A

Shallice & Warrington: case study of KF (brain damage) Poor STM ability for verbal info, could process visual info normally. Difficulty with sounds, could recall letters & digits. PL (Parietal Lobe) damaged, other areas intact. Separate visual/auditory stores

41
Q

Evidence from brain damaged patients may be unreliable and not generalised

A

Concerns unique cases/traumatic experiences

42
Q

WMM - dual task performance

A

Baddeley et al: ppts more difficulty doing two visual tasks (tracking light, describing letter F) than visual & verbal at same time. Greater difficulty: both compete for same limited resources. No competition with verbal/visual. Evidence for existence of VSS (MSM can’t explain)

43
Q

WMM - lack of clarity over CE

A

Cognitive psychologists: unsatisfactory, doesn’t explain anything. Baddeley: most important but least understood element. Should be more clearly specified than just ‘attention’. Some believe may consist of separate components. WMM hasn’t been fully explained

44
Q

Explanations for forgetting - interference

A

Two pieces of info conflict with each other. Resulting in forgetting of one/both or distortion of memory. LTM forgetting: can’t get access to memories even though they are available

45
Q

Explanations for forgetting - interference (1 - proactive)

A

Older memory interferes with a newer one. E.g. teacher learned so many names in past, have trouble remembering current class

46
Q

Explanations for forgetting - interference (2 - retroactive)

A

Newer memory interferes with older one. E.g. teacher learns so many new names this year, can’t remember last year’s students

47
Q

Explanations for forgetting - interference (3 - worse when similar)

A

PI: previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store. RI: new info overwrites older memories which are similar

48
Q

Explanations for forgetting - interference (4 - effects of similarity)

A

“McGeoch & McDonald (1931) - Ppts asked to learn word list to 100% accuracy. Then given new list to learn, varied in similarity. Synonyms, antonyms, unrelated, consonant syllables, 3 digit numbers, no new list (rest). Performance depended on second list
Synonyms: worst recall. Very different material: mean number of items recalled increased. Interference strongest when memories similar
Synonyms: blocked access to original/new list became confused with old”

49
Q

Explanations for forgetting - interference (lab study evidence)

A

Many lab experiments carried out on interference (e.g. McGeoch & McDonald). Most show both types very likely causes of LTM forgetting. Control effects of extraneous variables - confidence that interference is valid explanation

50
Q

Explanations for forgetting - interference (artificial materials)

A

Word lists often used. More realistic than consonant syllables, still differs from things we remember in everyday life. Everyday life: faces/birthdays/ingredients. Interference much more likely in lab - may not be likely cause of everyday forgetting

51
Q

Explanations for forgetting - interference (real life studies)

A

Baddeley & Hitch: rugby players recall team names played so far in season, week by week. Accuracy did not depend on how long ago match was, but number of games played in meantime. Interference can apply to at least some everyday situations

52
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure

A

Forgetting due to insufficient cues. Info initially placed in memory: associated cues stored at same time. Not available at recall: may not be able to access memories that are actually there

53
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (1 - encoding specificity principle)

A

Tulving (1983) - States cues help retrieval if same cue present at encoding and retrieval. Forgetting if cues different/absent at retrieval. Closer cue is to original, better it works

54
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (2 - some cues have meaningful link)

A

Some cues linked to material to be remembered in meaningful way E.g. STM may lead to recall of all sorts of info about short term memory

55
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (3 - some cues have no meaningful link)

A

Encoded at time of learning but not in meaningful way. Context-dependent: retrieval dependent on external/environmental cue. State-dependent: retrieval dependent on internal cue/state of mind

56
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (4 - context-dependent forgetting)

A

“Godden & Baddeley (1975): deep sea divers - Cues: contexts where learning took place (land(L)/underwater(U))
Learned word lists. Learn - recall. L - L, L - U, U - L, U - U. Environments did not match: accurate recall 40% lower than those that did. Different external cues led to retrieval failure due to lack of cues. Demonstrates context-dependent forgetting (info not accessible when contexts at encoding/retrieval did not match). Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (5 - state-dependent forgetting)”

57
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (5 - state-dependent forgetting)

A

“Carter & Cassiday (1998) - Gave anti-histamine drugs to ppts (mild sedation effect - slightly drowsy). Creates different internal physiological state. Learn word lists/passages of prose. Learn - recall, on - on, on - off, off - on, off - off. Mismatch of internal state: performance significantly worse
Internal cues absent = more forgetting”

58
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (supporting evidence)

A

Impressive range of research evidence e.g. Godden & Baddeley, Carter & Cassiday. Eysenck (2010): argues retrieval failure perhaps main reason for LTM forgetting. Increases validity of explanation (studies conducted in real-life conditions as well as highly controlled lab conditions)

59
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (context effects not as strong in real life)

A

Baddeley: contexts have to be very different before effect is seen (e.g. on land/underwater). Learning in one room and recalling in another unlikely to result in much forgetting (not different enough). May not explain much real-life forgetting

60
Q

Explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure (recall vs recognition)

A

Effect may be related to kind of memory being tested. Godden and Baddeley: replicated study, recognition test rather than recall. No context-dependent effect, performance same in all conditions. Limits explanation for forgetting: presence/absence of cues only affects memory when testing recall

61
Q

Eye witness testimony (EWT)

A

Ability of people to remember events (e.g. accidents/crimes) that they have observed. Affected by misleading information/anxiety

62
Q

Misleading information

A

Incorrect information given by the eyewitness after an event. Includes leading questions/post event discussion

63
Q

Leading questions

A

Question which suggests a certain answer due to they way it is worded. Incorrect information given by the eyewitness after an event. Includes leading questions/post event discussion

64
Q

Post-event discussion (PED)

A

Occurs when there is more than one eyewitness. May discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or other people. Can influence the accuracy of each witness’s recall of the event

65
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information - leading questions (1 - key study)

A

Loftus & Palmer (1974) - 45 students watched film clip of car accidents. Answered questions about speed. Critical question: about how fast were they going when they ___ each other? 5 groups, 5 verbs: hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed. Mean estimates: Collided: 31.8mph, Smashed: 40.5mph. Leading question biased recall. Smashed’ suggested faster speed

66
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information - leading questions (2 - response bias explanation)

A

Wording has no enduring effect on memory. Influences kind of answer given

67
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information - leading questions (3 - substitution explanation)

A

Wording does effect memory. Interferes with original memory, distorting accuracy. Loftus & Palmer: 2nd experiment. Ppts who heard ‘smashed’ more likely to recall seeing broken glass (there was none) than those who heard ‘hit’

68
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information - PED (1 - memory contamination)

A

Co-witnesses discuss crime: mix (mis)information from others with own memories

69
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information - PED (2 - memory conformity)

A

Go along with others to win social approval. Believe other witnesses are right

70
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information - PED (3 - key study)

A

Gabbert et al (2003) - Paired ppts watched videos of same crime. Filmed so each could see elements other could not. Both discussed video before individually completing recall test. 71% mistakingly recalled aspects they did not see (picked up in PED). Control group: no discussion, no errors

71
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information (real life applications) (Leading Questions)

A

Research led to important practical uses for police/investigators (consequences of EWT can be very serious). Loftus: leading questions can have such distorting influence police need to be careful about phrasing interview questions. Important difference to lives of real people (improving legal system)

72
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information (Loftus & Palmer - artificial materials) (Leading Questions)

A

Watched film clips, very different from witnessing real accidents (less stressful). Yullie & Cutshall: witnesses of real armed robbery had very accurate recall after 4 months. Tells us little about how leading questions affect EWT in real crimes

73
Q

Factors effecting EWT: misleading information (EWT studies lack external validity)

A

Foster et al (1994): what you remember as eyewitness has important real world consequences, not true in research studies. Search memory with more effort: testimony may lead to a successful conviction (or wrongful if inaccurate) - not true in research studies. EWT accuracy may be greater in real world (seriousness of role)

74
Q

Anxiety

A

State of emotional/physical arousal, Worried thoughts/feelings of tension

75
Q

Factors effecting EWT: anxiety (1 - negative effect on recall)

A

“Creates state of physiological arousal. Prevents us paying attention - recall is worse
Study effects of weapons on accuracy of EWT recall (creates anxiety). Johnson & Scott (1976) - Ppts sat in waiting room believing they were taking part in lab study. Heard argument in next room. Low-anxiety condition: man walked out holding pen/greasy hands. High-anxiety condition: breaking glass, man walked out holding paper knife covered in blood
Asked to pick man from set of 50 photos. Low-anxiety: 49% correctly identified. High-anxiety: 33%. Tunnel theory of memory: attention focused on weapon because it is a source of danger/anxiety”

76
Q

Factors effecting EWT: anxiety (2 - positive effect on recall)

A

Anxiety triggers fight or flight response (increases alertness/improves memory due to more awareness of cues in situation). Yullie & Cutshall (1986) - Gun shop owner shot thief dead. 21 witnesses, 13 participated in study. Interviewed 4-5 months after event. Accounts compared to police interview. Witnesses rated stress levels at time of incident. Very accurate: little change after 5 months. Some details less accurate e.g. colours/age/weight/height. Highest levels of stress most accurate (88% compared to 75% less-stressed)

77
Q

Factors effecting EWT: anxiety (3 - explaining contradictory findings)

A

Yerkes & Dodson (1908): relationship between emotional arousal/performance is inverted U shape. Deffenbacher applied law to EWT. Lower anxiety levels = lower recall accuracy. Accuracy increases with anxiety to optimal point, then drastically declines

78
Q

Factors effecting EWT: anxiety (weapon focused not due to anxiety)

A

Johnson & Scott may test surprise rather than anxiety - Ppts may focus on weapon because they are surprised rather than scared. Pickel (1998): scissors/handgun/wallet/raw chicken as hand-held item in hairdressing salon. Scissors = low anxiety, low unusualness. EWT accuracy poorer for high unusualness (chicken/handgun). Weapon focus due to unusualness rather than anxiety/threat. Tells nothing specifically about effects of anxiety on EWT

79
Q

Factors effecting EWT: anxiety (field studies lack control of variables)

A

Real-life witnesses interviewed sometime after event. Things happen in meantime that researchers cannot control. Discuss event with others, read/view media accounts (PED). Extraneous variables may be responsible for (in)accuracy of recall, not anxiety. Effect of anxiety may be overwhelmed/difficult to asses by time of interview

80
Q

Factors effecting EWT: anxiety (ethical issues)

A

Creating anxiety potentially unethical. May lead to psychological harm purely for research purposes. Real life studies beneficial - interview those already witnessed event, no need to create it. Don’t challenge findings but raise questions of conducting research. Do benefits outweigh costs

81
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview

A

Fisher & Gieselman (1992) - EWT improved if police use techniques based on psychological insights into how memory works. Cognitive interview = foundation in cognitive psychology. Rapport established with interviewer

82
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview (1 - report everything)

A

Include every detail (even if seems irrelevant/not confident). Trivial details could be important/trigger other memories

83
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview (2 - reinstate the context)

A

Return to crime scene in mind. Imagines environment e.g. weather/view/emotions. Based on concept of context dependent forgetting (cues from context may trigger recall)

84
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview (3 - reverse the order)

A

Recall in different chronological order. Prevents use of expectations rather than actual event. Also prevents dishonesty (harder to produce untruthful account if reversed)

85
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview (4 - change perspective)

A

Recall from other people’s perspective (another witness/perpetrator). Prevents use of expectations/schema. Schema: packages of information developed through experience, develop framework for incoming data. Create expectations for what would have happened rather than what actually happened

86
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview (enhanced cognitive interview)

A

Fisher et al: additional elements - Focus on social dynamics (when to establish/relinquish eye contact). Reducing anxiety, minimising distractions, getting witness to speak slowly, asking open ended questions

87
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview (time consuming)

A

Police reluctant to use - takes much longer than standard interview. More time needed to establish rapport/allow witness to relax. Also requires special training, most forces not been able to provide more than a few hours. Unlikely that proper version is actually used. May explained why police not that impressed by it

88
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview (some elements more valuable than others)

A

Milne & Bull: each element equally valuable - Also found combination of ‘report everything’ and ‘context reinstatement’ produced better recall than any of the other conditions. At least 2 elements should be used to improve police interviews (even if full CI isn’t used). Increases credibility among police officers

89
Q

Improving the accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview (support for ECI effectiveness)

A

Kohnken et al meta analysis: data from 50 studies - ECI consistently provided more correct info than standard police interview. Real practical benefits of using enhanced version of CI. Greater chance of catching/charging criminals = better for society as a whole

A Level Psychology AQA (11 decks)

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