memory Flashcards
outline and evaluate the multi-store model AO1
intro (who, what)
-possible to damage one without affecting the other
-info enters sensory register (duration, capacity, coding) via -body’s senses
-STM > maintenance rehearsal
- LTM
- LTM > STM
passive model
outline and evaluate the multi-store model AO3
+ glanzer and cunitz (1966) info at the beginning of presentation > must be separate and unitary stores for LTM and STM
+ Peterson and Peterson and Bahrick - series of trigrams and classmates > STM and LTM have different durations so must be separate and unitary as the model predicts
- more than one type of STM Shallice and Warrington KF > may not fully explain memory, may be better explained by WMM
- Craick and Watkins two types of rehearsal > MSM is limited as it doesn’t explain this type
discuss research into long term memory AO1
Tulving 1985 said there were 3 types
episodic (what they are, e.g., associations + forgetting)
semantic (what, e.g., recall)
procedural (what, e.g., explaining)
discuss research into long term memory AO3
+ studies of different parts of the brain - Tulving (1994) > different types of LTM physically represented in different parts of the brain so must be separate types
+ case studies of HM and clive wearing - episodic v semantic > supports view of different memory stores in LTM but nature of case studies & lack of control over variables
+ practical applications Belleville (2006) episodic memories improvement in older people with mild cognitive impairment > highlights benefit of ..
- two types of LTM Cohen and Squire - episodic and semantic are declarative but.. > suggests only 2 main types of LTM, not 3
outline and evaluate the working memory model AO1
central executive (responsible for, attention system as, code, capacity)
phonological loop (processes, coding + capacity, splits to..)
visuo-spattial sketchpad (processes, codes + capacity, splits to, inner scribe)
episodic buffer (limited storage device that, temporary store, links..)
outline and evaluate the working memory model AO3
+ Logie’s dual task study > supports as suggests STM has different systems which MSM doesn’t explain
+ Shallice and Warrington’s KF > two separate stores for visual info and auditory info but evidence from brain-damaged patients…
+ existence of central executive Braver et al - brain scans whilst giving tasks involving central executive found .. > suggests as demands on central executive increases.. > provides evidence for physical area
- lack of clarity over central executive - cognitive psychologists > WMM not fully explained
discuss explanations for forgetting AO1
interference (forgetting as one blocks another)
pro-active (older interfere with new)
retro-active (new interferes with old)
context-dependent forgetting (absence of external cues)
state-dependent forgetting (absence of internal cues)
Encoding specificity principle (most likely to remember when cues are similar to which were present when we first learnt info)
discuss explanations for forgetting AO3
- interference effects may be overcome using cues Tulving and Psotka five lists of 24 words > suggests words were stored in LTM but interference had prevented access to them. Giving a cue..
+ context related cues have useful real life applications e.g., forgetting what you wanted upstairs, going downstairs and remembering when going back > basic principle of cognitive interview to get EWs to recall more info (context reinstatement)
- problem with ESP - cue leads to recall, we assume cue was encoded at time of learning + opposite > just assumptions and no way to test whether or not cue has been coded
outline and evaluate research into misleading information AO1
loftus and palmer - film of car crash + critical question
- different verbs, smashed + contacted
- LQ biased EW recall
- 1 minute film of car driving through countryside then 4s multiple traffic accident
- how fast were they going when they hit/smashed + control
- did you see broken glass 1 week later + results
change in critical verb altered memory of clip
2 explanations:
- response bias explanation (wording of questions has no effect on memories but can influence answer)
- substitution explanation (wording affects memory, interferes with original memory, distorting accuracy)
Gabbert (2003) - effect of PED
- 60 aberdeen uni, 60 older adults vid of girl stealing wallet
- pairs, believed same vid but diff perspectives
- 71% recalled info not seen, 60% guilty despite..
- control > no recall errors
- shows discussion contaminated memories
- witnesses go along with each other to win social approval/ other witnesses are right (memory conformity)
outline and evaluate research into misleading information AO3
+ (LP) real life applications for police and investigators when interviewing witnesses as LQ can distort memory > research into EWT makes a real difference to our lives e.g. improving legal system
- (LP) used artificial material, lowering ecological validity > films lack emotion associated with witnessing traumatic event - Yuille and Cutshall witnesses to traumatic robbery had great recall 4 months later
+ (G) high control over extraneous variable as lab experiments > can be certain misleading info led to difference in judgements not other factors
- many studies lack external validity so cant be generalised - Foster info you remember as EW important consequences in real world so more effort to recall info> not same in research studies so accuracy of EWT may be greater in real world due to seriousness with with EW undertake their role
outline and evaluate research into anxiety AO1
Johnson and Scott
- in waiting area, 2 conditions
- no-weapon (low anxiety) > argument, man with pen with grease on his hand
- weapon (high anxiety) > argument, breaking glass, paper knife covered in blood
identify man from 50 photos -
- no= 40% few describe pen
- w= 33%, most describe letter opener
- tunnel of memory - attention narrows to focus on weapon as source of danger and anxiety
- weapons focus effect where focus attention on weapon and unable to recall anything else
christianson and Hubinette
- stress of witnessing crime/accident creates psychological arousal; fight or flight response triggered which increases alertness and improves memory as we are more aware of cues in situation
- 58 witnessed 22 robberies between them, 4-15 months after
- working behind counter or bystanders
good recall with 75% accurate recall
- high anxiety = more accurate recall
- yerkes-dodson curve
- deffenbacher applied to EWT
outline and evaluate research into anxiety AO3
- (JS) may test surprise not anxiety as may focus on weapon due to surprise not because they’re scared, Pickel w/ scissors, raw chicken, wallet, gun > weapons focus effect is due to unusualness rather than anxiety
- Explanation by Yerkes-dodson too simplistic as anxiety is difficult to define and is made up of many elements but assumes only 1 > explanation fails to take into account other factors
- psychological harm > ethical issues don’t challenge findings of study but they do raise questions as to the need for such research to take place
- demand characteristics affect laboratory studies - most studies show participants a filmed and staged crime > affects internal validity as it means accuracy of EWT is not being measured
outline and evaluate the cognitive interview AO1
context reinstatement (asked to mentally recreate context of cues)
- cue to put them in same context
change the order (recall events in a different order)
- verifies accuracy
report everything (describe all details)
- reduces chances of info being ignored
change perspective (recall from perspective of another witness)
- thinks about event as a whole
compared to standard interview
- encouraged to speak slow + open ended questions
outline and evaluate the cognitive interview AO3
+ Gieselman more effective than standard, 89 shown vid of crime, 41 v 29
+ Kohnken meta-analysis of 50, enhanced CI consistently provided more accurate info > highlights practical benefits to police
- time-consuming, Kebbell and Wagstaff use of CI requires specialist training many police forces aren’t able to provide more than a few hours > unlikely proper version used
- produces more inaccurate info, Kohnken 81% increase in correct but 61% increase in incorrect v standard > police should continue to use CI but treat all info collected w caution
