Memory

Question 1

Outline research into coding

Answer 1

Coding - process of converting info from one form to another.

Baddeley (1966) gave 4 groups of ppts different lists of words to remember.
Group 1: acoustically similar words
Group 2: acoustically dissimilar words
Group 3: semantically similar words
Group 4: semantically dissimilar words

Pps shown their list of words + asked to recall them in correct order. When asked to recall words immediately after hearing them (STM recall) they tended to do worse with acoustically similar words.

Question 2

Evaluate research into coding (1-)

Answer 2

_
Use of artificial stimuli
Word lists had no personal meaning to pps - should be cautious about generalising findings to different kinds of memory tasks - when processing more meaningful info ppl may use their semantic coding even if task involves using the STM
Findings have a limited application.

Question 3

Outline research into duration

Answer 3

Duration - length of time info can be held in the memory.

Peterson + Peterson (1959) 24 undergrad students took part in 8 trials. Student given trigram + 3-digit number to remember. Then asked to count backwards from 3-digit number to prevent any mental rehearsal of trigram which could increase their memory of it. On each trial they were told to stop counting backwards at different time (3,6,9… 18 seconds.)

Findings showed that STM has very short duration of 18-30 seconds unless we conduct verbal rehearsal.

Question 4

Evaluate research into duration (1-)

Answer 4

_
Peterson + Peterson’s research used artificial materials
Trying to memorise a trigram does not reflect most real-life memory activities where we try to remember something meaningful - one may argue that study lacks external validity + real life application
Others argue that study isn’t completely irrelevant as ppl do try to remember some fairly meaningless things e.g. phone numbers - findings are applicable in some specific cases.

Question 5

Outline research into capacity

Answer 5

Capacity - how much info STM can hold at any one time.

Jacobs (1887) developed technique to measure digit span - ppt given number of digits (e.g. 4) + asked to recall in correct order out loud. If correct, researcher reads out 5 digits, then 6 etc. until ppt can no longer recall order correctly.

Mean span across all pps was 9.3 items + mean span for letters was 7.3.

Miller (1956) researched into ‘chunking’ by making observations of everyday practice - noticed many things come in sevens e.g. 7 deadly sins, 7 notes on musical scale etc. Suggests capacity of STM is about 7 items (plus / minus 2).

Question 6

Evaluate research into capacity (1-)

Answer 6

_
Conducted many years ago so may have lacked adequate control.
E.g. some pps may have been distracted while they were being tested + so didn’t perform as well.
So results gathered from study may not be as valid as once thought as there may be confounding variables that were not controlled.
Doesn’t completely rid validity of study as results have been confirmed in other research.

Question 7

Encoding, Duration, Capacity for STM + LTM

Answer 7

STM
Encoding: acoustic
Duration: 18 - 30 sec
Capacity: 5 - 9 items (7+/-2)

LTM
Encoding: semantic
Duration: lifetime
Capacity: unlimited

Question 8

Outline the multistore memory model

Answer 8

1) Environmental stimuli to sensory register
2) Sensory register process through ionic / echoic store
3) Sensory register to STM through attention
4) Info stays in STM with rehearsal loop but can decay
5) Info transferred to LTM through maintenance rehearsal
6) LTM can also decay but back to STM through retrieval

Question 9

Evaluate the MSM (1+)

Answer 9

+
Research support
Case study of HM - went through surgery to remove his epilepsy - resulted in Hippocampus removed from both sides of brain
Surgery’s results meant HM’s immediate memory span was normal but he was unable to form new + explicit memories for events that had occurred
So LTM affected but his STM was still intact
Major strength of MSM - supporting evidence of the idea of two distinct + separate stores for STM + LTM.

Question 10

Evaluate the MSM (2-)

Answer 10

_
MSM suggests there is only one type of STM
Shalice + Warrington (1970) studied patient with amnesia named KF - STM for numerical digits was poor when they were read out loud to him but recall was better when he had chance to read digits himself
Results show that there must be one STM store that processes visual info + a separate STM store that processes auditory info
Limitation for MSM - can be criticised for being reductionist

Question 11

Evaluate the MSM (3-)

Answer 11

_
MSM ignores possibility of more than one type of rehearsal existing
Craik + Watkins (1973) investigated this + found that the type of rehearsal involved in transferring info to LTM is not maintenance rehearsal as proposed by the MSM but is actually elaborative rehearsal that does this job
MSM too simplistic - does not take into account any other types criticised for being reductionist

Question 12

Origins of types of LTM

Answer 12

Tulving (1985) realised the MSM’s view of LTM was too simplistic + inflexible
Proposed 3 types of LTM stores

Question 13

Types of LTM: episodic memory

Answer 13

Events in life or episodes
Behaviours, people, objects, environment
Right hemisphere of prefrontal cortex
Takes conscious effort to retrieve

Question 14

Types of LTM: semantic memory

Answer 14

Knowledge of world
Facts in broadest sense e.g. meanings of words, concepts etc
Left hemisphere of prefrontal cortex
Time stamped
Less personal
Constantly being added to

Question 15

Types of LTM: procedural memory

Answer 15

Memory for actions / skills / how we do things
Can recall without conscious effort
E.g. driving a car + changing gears without having to recall how
Might find hard to explain / describe to others

Question 16

Evaluate the types of LTM (1+)

Answer 16

+
Clinical evidence
Clive Wearing + amnesia - episodic memory severely damaged
So difficult recalling events in past but semantic + procedural intact (didn’t need meanings of words explained + could still sing, play piano, read music)
Supports Tulving - different memory stores in LTM + in different parts of brain

Question 17

Evaluate the types of LTM (2+)

Answer 17

+
Neuroimaging evidence
Tulving (1994) had pps have brain scans (PET) while performing various memory tasks
Episodic + semantic both recalled from the prefrontal cortex (right hemisphere for episodic + left hemisphere for semantic)
Supports that there is a physical reality to different types of LTM within the brain - confirmed also many times in later studies - supports validity

Question 18

Evaluate the types of LTM (3-)

Answer 18

_
Lack of control + ability to generalise
Clinical studies mentioned are not perfect - too many variables that are not controlled
Difficult to generalise to whole population + Wearing’s case was rare - can’t apply to all
Also there is no way to test memory of these people before brain damage
Weakens support of types of LTM

Question 19

Outline the WMM of the STM

Answer 19

Central Executive
monitors data + makes decisions with info that processes through it
can process info in any form then distributes to one of the slave systems,

Visual Spatial Sketchpad (VSS) (slave system)
Limited capacity storage which in in itself has two components – the visual cache (responsible for visual data e.g. colour) + the inner scribe (responsible for recording arrangements of objects)

Phonological Loop (PL) (slave system)
Limited capacity for acoustically / speech coded items.
2 sub-components – Articulatory Control System (ACS) which allows for maintenance rehearsal to occur (inner voice) + Phonological Store which processes auditory info (inner ear).

Episodic Buffer – slave system added later to original model in 2000 + mainly responsible for time-sequencing info.

Question 20

Evaluate the WMM (1+)

Answer 20

+
Research support
Baddeley - pps completed dual task performance
Possible to use 2 different parts of WMM to successfully complete task but difficult when using same slave system e.g. tracking laser + describing letter F
Results due to limited capacity each slave system has - trying to do 2 tasks at once with same system is overwhelming
Major strength of WMM - better model than MSM - offers more comprehensive explanation

Question 21

Evaluate the WMM (2+)

Answer 21

+
Clinical evidence to support the WMM
Shalice + Warrington (1970) studied patient with amnesia named KF - STM for numerical digits was poor when they were read out loud to him but recall was better when he had chance to read digits himself
Suggests PL had been damaged but other areas of the memory were still intact
Another strength of WMM explanation - supports existence of separate visual + acoustic stores - VSS + PL must be in different parts of brain if one was affected + not the other.

Question 22

Evaluate the WMM (3-)

Answer 22

_
Baddeley and Hitch criticised the MSM as the STM described by the model is not unitary
But it could be possible that CE is not unitary either + may be more than one system or even more than one component in each system, the same way as the PL + VSS have other subcomponents / how the EB discovered only recently.
Limitation of the WMM - implies that we may have not fully understood the model + so its influence is limited due to possibility of other components having yet to be discovered.

Question 23

Explanations for forgetting: define Interference

Answer 23

Forgetting because one memory blocks another, causing one or both memories to be distorted / forgotten

Proactive interference (PI) - forgetting occurs when older, already stored memories disrupt the recall of newer memories
Retroactive interference (RI) - forgetting occurs when newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories

In both, degree of forgetting is greater when memories are similar

Question 24

Research on effects of similarity in Interference

Answer 24

McGeoh + McDonald - pps learn 10 words until they remember with 100% accuracy then learn second different list

G1: learn synonyms
G2: learn antonyms
G3: learn words unrelated to original list of words
G4: learn consonant syllables
G5: learn 3-digit numbers
G6: no new list - pps rested

Synonyms group produced worst recall - shows interference is strongest when memories are similar

Question 25

Evaluate Interference as an explanation of forgetting (1+)

Answer 25

+
Lab studies evidence
Interfering in memory is one of most consistently demonstrated findings with 1000’s of lab studies carried out supporting the findings
Most of these studies showed that proactive interference and retroactive interference are common ways we forget info from LTM + lab exps control effects of extraneous influences
Gives us confidence that interference is a valid explanation

Question 26

Evaluate Interference as an explanation of forgetting (2-)

Answer 26

_
Artificial materials
Demotes the credibility of the interference explanation - learning a list of words is far from things people try to remember in everyday life e.g. faces, ingredients
Makes interference much more likely in a lab environment but perhaps it is not a likely explanation for forgetting in real life
Limited applicability as a valid explanation

Question 27

Evaluate Interference as an explanation of forgetting (3+)

Answer 27

+
Evidence of interference explanation’s validity in real life situations
Baddeley + Hitch - better field experiment asking rugby players to remember names of teams they played so far in that season, week by week
Many players had missed some games - last game they played was 2-3 weeks ago
But results showed that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches were, rather the number of games played in between
E.g. a players recall of a team played against 3 weeks ago was better if they played no matches since then
So interference explanation can apply to at least some everyday situations.

Question 28

Explanations for forgetting: define Retrieval Failure

Answer 28

Form of forgetting when we dont have necessary cues to access a memory
Memory available but not accessible unless suitable cue provided

Encoding specificity principle ESP: Tulving - cues help us recall info but has to be present at encoding + retrieval

Context dependant forgetting: when environment during recall different from environment during encoding e.g. divers forgetting word list learnt on land when recalling underwater

State dependant forgetting: when physiological state during recall different to state during encoding e.g. drunk person trying to remember address they learnt when sober

Question 29

Research into Retrieval Failure - context dependant forgetting

Answer 29

Godden + Baddeley (1975) - sea divers learn word list

Learn on land + recall on land
Learn on land + recall underwater
Learn underwater + recall underwater
Learn underwater + recall on land

Accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditions - external cues available at learning different from ones at recall - retrieval failure

Question 30

Research into Retrieval Failure - state dependant forgetting

Answer 30

Carter + Cassaday (1998) - gave pps anti-histamine drugs (to treat hay-fever)
Drugs made pps slightly drowsy + not fully alert
Pps learn list of words + passages of prose

Learn on drug + recall on drug
Learn on drug + recall not on drug
Learn not on drug + recall not on drug
Learn not on drug + recall on drug

Performance was significantly worse in mismatched conditions - when cues were absent there is more forgetting

Question 31

Evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting (1-)

Answer 31

_
Questioning context effects
Baddeley - not actually that strong in real life as contexts must have huge differences between them before effects are seen
Learning in one room + recall in in another unlikely to result in much forgetting as environment not different enough compared to e.g. underwater + land
Real life application of retrieval failure due to contextual cues doesn’t really explain much forgetting

Question 32

Evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting (2-)

Answer 32

_
Context effect may be related to kind of memory being tested
Godden + Baddeley replicated underwater test with recognition test instead of recall - pps say whether they recognised word read to them from list instead of retrieving it themselves
No context dependant effect + performances same in all 4 conditions
Suggests presence / absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in certain way

Question 33

Evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting (3+)

Answer 33

+
Supporting evidence
Impressive range of research supports retrieval failure explanation - studies by Godden + Baddeley / Carter + Cassaday just 2 of many
Eystnck argues that retrieval failure is main + better reason for forgetting LTM (makes more sense than interference)
E.g. Baddeley still suggests that context related cues worth paying attention to as when having trouble remembering something its worth recalling environment in which you learnt it in first place
Basic principle of cognitive interview - gets eyewitnesses to recall more info
Supporting evidence shows retrieval failure occurs in real life as well as lab exps

Question 34

Factors affecting eyewitness testimonies: misleading info

Answer 34

Loftus + Palmer asked students in 5 groups to watch car accident film clips
Asked questions about it with critical (leading) question: “About how fast were the cars going when they hit / contacted / bumped / collided / smashed each other?”
Mean estim speed calculated for each group: contacted - 31.8mph / smashed - 40.5 mph
Leading question biased EW’s recall of events

Response bias explanation - wording of question has no real effect on pps’ memories but influences how they decide to answer e.g. smashed encourages higher speed answer

Loftus + Palmer 2nd study - supports substitution explanation: wording of question actually changes pps’s memory of film clip - pps who originally heard smashed more likely to report broken glass (there was none)

Question 35

Factors affecting eyewitness testimonies: post-witness discussion

Answer 35

May contaminate EWT’s as they combine misinformation from other witnesses with their own memories
Gabbert (2003) studied pps in pairs - each ppt watched video of same crime but filmed from different POV’s
Meant that each could see elements in event that other could not
Both pps then discussed what they saw before individually completing recall test

71% of pps mistakenly recalled aspects of events they didnt see in video but picked up in discussion
In control group where there was no discussion it was 0% - witnesses go along with each other to win social approval / believe others right / they’re wrong - memory conformity

Question 36

Evaluate misleading information and post-witness discussion (1+)

Answer 36

+
Useful real life application
Consequences of inaccurate EWT’s can be very serious
Leading questions can have distorting effects on memory - police must be carful with how they phrase their questions when interviewing
Research into EWT is area psychologists think they can make positive difference to real people’s lives e.g. improving workings of legal system / appearing in court trials

Question 37

Evaluate misleading information and post-witness discussion (2-)

Answer 37

_
Artificial task
Pps watched film clips - different experience from witnessing real car accident as emotions can have influence on memory
Using artificial tasks tell us little about how leading questions affect EWT in real cases
Loftus may be too pessimistic about accuracy of EWT - may be more reliable than the study suggested

Question 38

Evaluate misleading information and post-witness discussion (3-)

Answer 38

_
Demand characteristics
Zargosa + McCloskey (1989) - many answers pps gave in EWT lab studies due to demand characteristics
Pps usually dont want to let researcher down + want to appear helpful / attentive
Many may have answered based on what they thought the researcher wants
Studies may not be very ecologically valid / reflect real life results

Question 39

Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: Outline the negative effect anxiety has on recall

Answer 39

Tunnel Theory of Memory - witnesses attention narrows to focus on weapon as it is a source of anxiety

Johnson + Scott (1976)
Led pps believe they were participating in a lab study
While seated in waiting area pps heard an argument in the next room
Low anxiety condition: man then walked through waiting area carrying a pen with grease on his hands
High anxiety condition: also heard breaking glass sound. Man walks out of room holding paper knife covered in blood

Pps picked out man from set of 50 photos - 49% of low anxiety condition pps able to identify him whilst 33% of high anxiety condition pps able to identify him

Question 40

Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: Outline the positive effect anxiety has on recall

Answer 40

Fight / flight response is triggered which increases our alertness + improves our memory for the event - become more aware of the cues of the situation

Yuille + Cutshall (1986) conducted study of real-life shooting in gun shop in Vancouver, Canada - shop owner shot thief dead
21 witnesses to shooting, 13 agreed to take part
Interviews held 4-5 months after incident - compared with original police interview made at time of shooting
Accuracy determined by number of details reported in each account
EW’s also asked how stressed they has felt at time of incident using 7-point scale + asked if they has any emotional problems since event e.g. sleeplessness

EW’s very accurate in response - little change in accuracy after 5 months apart from details e.g. colour of items + age / height / weight estimates.
Pps who reported highest levels of stress were most accurate (81%) compared to 75% for less stressed group

Question 41

Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: anxiety - contradiction in results

Answer 41

Explaining the contradiction in results: Yerkes-Podson’s Inverted U Explanation

Specific point - till here anxiety has helped recall but after this point it will worsen it

Question 42

Evaluate the effect anxiety has on recall (1-)

Answer 42

_
Study may test surprise rather than anxiety
Pickel (1998) conducted exp using scissors (low anxiety / low unusualness), handgun, wallet or a raw chicken as hand-held items in a hairdressing salon video
EW accuracy was significantly poorer in high anxiety / unusualness conditions (chicken + handgun)
Weapon focus effect due to unusualness rather than anxiety / threat tells nothing about how anxiety effects EWT

Question 43

Evaluate the effect anxiety has on recall (2-)

Answer 43

_
Field studies sometimes lack control
Researchers usually interview real life EW’s sometime after event - many things will have happened to pps in meantime which researchers have no control over e.g. discussions with others about event / info read on media etc
These extraneous variables may be responsible for accuracy of recall
So effects of anxiety may be overwhelmed by these other factors + impossible to assess by the time pps are interviewed

Question 44

Evaluate the effect anxiety has on recall (3-)

Answer 44

_
Ethical issues
Creating anxiety in lab studies may cause psychological harm just for research purposes
This is why real-life studies are so beneficial - psychologists can interview ppl who have already witnessed event + felt anxiety so no need to create it
Issue does not challenge Johnson + Scott study but questions need for this research
Then again, comparing findings with less controlled field studies - the benefits may outweigh the issues

Question 45

Evaluate the inverted U explanation (4-)

Answer 45

_
Too simplistic
Anxiety is difficult to define + measure accurately - has many elements to it (cognitive, behavioural, emotional, physical)
Inverted U only takes into account physical arousal as the cause for poor performance
Not fully comprenhensive

Question 46

Outline the cognitive interview

Answer 46

Fisher + Geiselman (1992) - EWT could be improved if police used better interviewing techniques

1) Report everything
include every detail in event - even trivial details may be important + can trigger other memories

2) Context reinstatement
Trying to mentally recreate the situation + environment e.g. weather / what they could see + emotions at the time

3) Recall in reverse order
Events recalled in different chronological order to original sequence
Prevents people from reporting their expectations of an event + dishonesty (harder to lie when reversing account)

4) Recall from changed perspective
Witnesses recall incident from other people’s perspectives e.g. how event may have appeared for other witnesses / perpetrator
Disrupts effects of schema + expectations on recall - schema you have for particular setting generates expectations of what would have happened rather than actual event

Fisher (1987) - Enhanced Cognitive Interview
Added extra elements of CI to focus on social dynamic of interaction e.g. pausing / not interrupting / open-ended questions

Question 47

Evaluate the cognitive interview (1+)

Answer 47

+
Milne + Bull (2003) - each technique produced more than the standard interview
But using combination of report everything + context reinstatement produced better recall than any other condition
Suggests that at least 2 elements should be used to improve police interviewing - increases credibility of CI amongst police officers

Question 48

Evaluate the cognitive interview (2-)

Answer 48

_
CI is time consuming
More time needed to establish relationship with witnesses + have them relax
CI also needs special training - many forces may not be able to provide more than a few hours
Unlikely that proper version of CI is actually used - may explain why police have not been that interested with it

Question 49

Evaluate the cognitive interview (3-)

Answer 49

_
Not suitable for everyone
Geiselman (1999) - CI technique actually reduces recall in children under 6 compared to standard interview. Children 8 + over respond well to it
May be due to complexity of instructions e.g. reimagining situations / other witness perspectives
CI may be useful / beneficial for some groups but not others