Memory Flashcards
Multi store model of memory AO1
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) - 3 separate memory stores: Sensory register, Short term memory and Long term memory
Sensory Register - stimulus passes in - has 5 stores one for each sense, duration: very brief - less than half a second, capacity: high, coding depends on sense
SR to STM - little passes through needs attention to be paid to it
STM - Duration: about 18 to 30 seconds unless info is rehearsed, capacity between 5 and 9 items before forgetting occurs, coding is acoustic (sounds)
STM to LTM - Maintenance rehearsal when we repeat material to ourselves and kept in stm, prolonged rehearsal if rehearsed enough passes into ltm
LTM -permanent, when we want to recall material in ltm it is transferred back to stm through retrieval, duration can be up to lifetime, capacity can be unlimited, coding tends to be semantic (meaning)
Multi store model of memory AO3
+research support shows stm and ltm different - baddeley - mix up words that sound similar when using stm and words that mean the same when using our ltm showing stm is acoustic ltm semnatic, supports that these two stores are separate and independent
-oversimplifies ltm - research that ltm isnt unitary, one ltm for semantic memories (facts) and one for episodic (riding bike) - doesnt reflect diff types of ltm
-research studies supporting msm use artificial tasks - pps asked to recall things like digits and letters which are meaningless, in everyday life we form memories of faces, places so msm lacks external validity, meaningless lab tasks dont reflect everyday life
-only explains one type of rehearsal - craik and watkins argued there is maintenance and elaborative rehearsal elaborative need for long term memory need to link information to previous knowledge serious limitation cuz it cant be explained by msm
Types of long term memory AO1
Episodic memory - stores events from our life, complex, conscious effort to recall as they are time stamped and include several elements
Semantic - knowledge of the world, not time stamped, less personal
Procedural - actions and skills, how we do things, recall without effort - hard to explain to someone as its mainly things we do without conscious awareness
Types of long term memory AO3
+ real life applications - psychologists can target certain type of memory, belleville et al episodic memories improved in old ppl through training, distinguishing between diff ltm stores helps specific treatment
+research support - clinical studies of amnesia (clive wearing) showed difficulty in recalling past but semantic was unaffected - supports view of diff ltm stores one can be damaged but other fine
-problems with research support - lack of control of variables like personality in clinical studies - hard to generalise these to find exact nature of ltm
+ brain scan studies show diff ltm stores - in another study pps perform various tasks while brain scanned and semantic in left and episodic memories in right of pre frontal cortex, supports validity of diff ltm stores as studies shows physical reality to it
The working memory model AO1
Baddeley and Hitch (1974) - model of stm
Central executive at top - monitors incoming data and allocates slave systems to tasks - limited storage
Phonological loop on the right - auditory - phonological store - stores words u hear, articulatory process - maintenance rehearsal to keep sounds in wmm
Visuo-spatial sketchpad on the left - stores visual and spatial info, logie (1995) divided it into visual cache - stores visual data and inner scribe - arrangements of objects
Episodic buffer in the middle - temporary storage links to ltm at bottom integrates visual spatial and verbal info and maintains time sequencing
The working memory model AO3
- lack of clarity of central executive - cognitive psychologists suggest ce doesnt explain anything should be more than just attention and has separate components - wmm doesnt explain it properly
+ research support from brain scanning studies - in another study pps activity seen in prefrontal cortex when doing tasks with central executive - activity increased in this area as task got harder which is true cos when demand on ce increases it works harder - supports validity of ce as this study shows physical reality to it
+ word length effect supports phonological loop - baddeley found ppl find difficult to remember long words cos limited space for rehearsal in articulatory process - this effect disappears when given repetitive task bringing articulatory process into play
Explanations for forgetting: Interference AO1
Interference theory - two pieces of info in conflict, worse when memories are similar
proactive interference - older memory disrupts newer
Retroactive interference - newer memory disrupts older
McGeoch and McDonald (1931) effects of similarity - pps asked to learn a list of words then given new list, most similar material between to list produced worst recall - interference strongest when memories are similar
Explanations for forgetting: Interference AO3
+lab studies demonstrates interference - lab experiments such as mcgeoch and mcdonalds on effects of similarity show both types of interference cause forgetting and it is valid as lab experiments control extraneous variables
+real life studies demonstrates interference - baddeley and hitch - rugby players to recall names of teams they played, accurate recall depended on the no of games played in the meantime not how long ago - interference can apply to atleast some everyday situations
-artificial materials - word lists diff from what we remember in everyday life e.g. faces places so lacks external validity as they dont reflect everyday situations and its more likely in meaningless lab scenarios
-time between learning - short learn and recall times in lab studies - not reflective of info we learn and recall in everyday - lacks external validity cant be generalised outside lab - role of interference may be overexaggerated
Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval Failure AO1
Retrieval failures due to absence of cues - need cues at time of recall and coding to access memories
Encoding specificity - tulving (1983) said the more closer the retrieval cue to original cue the better it works
Cues have meaning linked to memory
Godden and Baddeley (1975) context dependent forgetting - cue were the env learning and recall took place, accurate recall 40% lower when environmental contexts didn’t match, information wasnt accessible, cues werent matched
Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval Failure AO3
+research support - e.g. baddeley and godden research of deep sea divers, eysenck goes as far to argue retrieval failure is main reason for forgetting in ltm - supporting evidence increases validity especially in real life situation and lab situation like these
- context effects not very strong irl - baddeley argued that diff contexts have to be very different, environments need to be diff enough e.g. learning in one room and recalling in another is unlikely to cause much forgetting - real life applications of retrieval failure due to cues doesnt really explain forgetting
- context effects only occurs when memory tested in certain way, goddon and baddeley replicated underwater experiment with recognition test instead of recall recall was same even if context was matched or not - limits retreival failure as explaining forgetting as context dependent forgetting only occurs when testing recall
Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading information AO1
Leading questions -
response bias explanation - wording has no effect on eyewitnesses memory but influences answer.
Substitution explanation - wording does affect original eyewitness memory
e.g. loftus and palmer 45 students split into 5 groups given diff verbs in the critical question how fast cars were going after watching clips of car accidents, verb biased eyewitness recall - smashed was faster speed than contacted.
Post event discussion -
Memory contamination - when co witnesses discuss crime they mix info from other witnesses
Memory conformity - witnesses go along with each other for social approval or believe the other is right
e.g. gabbert et al paired pps watched video of same crime but they could see elements that other pps couldnt, 71% mistakenly recalled what they didnt see cos they picked it up in post event discussion, no mistake in control group tho
Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading information AO3
+ research into misleading info has real life applications - important practical uses for police - loftus claimed police offers need to be careful when phrasing question during eyewitness testimony due to the distorting effect it can have - research into this area can make a real difference to many situations
- loftus and palmers used artificial materials - pps watched clips less stressful, cutshall et al found witnesses of traumatic real robbery had accurate recall even after 4 months - cant be applied to real life incidents
- individual differences - rhodes et al found older ppl less accurate in giving ewt and all age groups more accurate in identifying ppl of their own age group - own age bias - some age groups may seem less accurate but not the case
- demand characteristics - pps want to be helpful and might guess even if they dk challenges validity of ewt research - answers might not accurately reflect memories in eyewitness testimonies
Eyewitness Testimony: Anxiety AO1
Cutshall et al - Anxiety has positive effect - real life crime - gun shop owner shot a thief dead, pps interviewed 4 months after compared to original police interviews and witness rated how stressed they felt at the time of incident - little change after 5 months - pps who reported they were most stressed were more accurate 88% compared to 75%
Inverted U theory - Yerks and Dodson argue relationship between performance and stress is curvilinear
Deffenbacher found lower levels of anxiety also produced lower levels of recall accuracy - but drastic decrease in accuracy is due to stress above optimal
Eyewitness Testimony: Anxiety AO3
- Field studies lack control of variables - many things happen to witness after event that researcher cant control e.g. they discuss w each other/post event discussions - extraneous variables like these responsible for inaccuracy not anxiety - hard to isolate these variables
-ethical issues - creating anxiety - psychological harm - no need to create anxiety in real life situations which is more beneficial - they dont challenge findings but raise questions about the conduction of research
-inverted u too simplistic - anxiety difficult to define and measure has many elements - assumes one element is linked to poor performance - fails to account for other factors e,g, emotional side of witnessing crime on accuracy of recall
-demand characteristics - most pps in lab studies aware theyre watching a filmed crime which is to do with study, may work out they will be asked questions and give helpful answers instead - reduces validity of research into investigating how anxiety affects accuracy of ewt
Eyewitness Testimony: Cognitive Interview AO1
Fisher et al tried to increase accuracy of recall through cognitive interviews
1. report everything - include every detail as it could trigger other things
2. reinstate context - return to original crime scene, imagine environment and their emotions - (context dependent)
3. reverse order - recall events in diff chronological order - prevents dishonesty and ppls expectation of how event must have happened than actual
4. change perspective - recall incident from other ppls perspective - prevents schema and expectations of how event must have happened
5. enhanced cognitive interview - fisher et al e.g. reducing anxiety, speaking slowly, open ended questions etc
