Memory

Question 1

Baddeley (1966)

Answer 1

Auoustically and sementically similar and dissimilar (4 groups). Acoustic was harder to remember in STM and semantic was harder in LTM. LTM is semantically coded, STM is acoustically coded. It also supports that the STM and LTM are in serperate stores.

Question 2

Jacobs (1887)

Answer 2

Digit span, giving patients a set od digits and adding a digit everytime it was recalled correctly untill they could no longer record it. Mean: digits 9.3 and letters 7.3. STM stores approx 7-9 pieces of information

Question 3

Miller (1956)

Answer 3

Used digit span, found that it is 7+-2 pieces of information not just digits/letters, words included. The capacity of the STM is larger than Jacobs found.

Question 4

Cowan (2001)

Answer 4

Found STM chunks is actually 4. Miller’s number is an overestimate.

Question 5

Peterson and Peterson (1959)

Answer 5

24 undergraduates were given a consonant syllable to remember, and then asked to count down from a given number to prevent rehearsal. They then asked the person to recall the syllable at different times 3 - 18 seconds. They found that less than 25% of participants could recall the syllable after 9 seconds. STM has a short capacity.

Question 6

Bahrick et al (1975)

Answer 6

392 Americans from 17-74 were testedon recall for people from their highschool. Below 15 yrs had a 90% accuracy, after 15 yrs is a 70% accuracy. LTM has a long duration.

Question 7

Shallice and Warrington (1970)

Answer 7

Case study of patient KF. KF was poor at recall from hearing but better when reading, suggesting the STM is not a unitary store like MSM suggests. this also suggests there is a seperate visual and verbal store (WMM)

Question 8

Craik and Watkins (1973)

Answer 8

Found maintenance rehearsal does not transfer information to the LTM and elaborative rehearsal is needed showing MSM isn’t a full explaination.

Question 9

Tulving et al (1985)

Answer 9

Using PET scans found left prefrontal cortex to be related to semantic memories and right to episodic. MSM is too simplistic however sample is very biased (6 people including tulving, his wife and a friend.)

Question 10

Clive Wearing Case Study

Answer 10

Man with severe brain damage and amnesis, has problems with episodic memory, completely wiped after a minute or so. However, he has no problems with semantic or procedural memory, being able to play and read music. Suggests different types and storage for LTM.

Question 11

HM Case Study

Answer 11

HM had his hippocampus removed as part of an epilepsy treatment which resulted in him not being able to form any new episodic memory, desipte havign fine semantic and procedural memory.

Question 12

Cohen and Squire (1980)

Answer 12

Suggested two types (delcarative and non) for which is consciously recalled and what is known. Alternate explaination.

Question 13

Baddeley et al (1975)

Answer 13

Participants struggled to do two visual tasks simultaneously, but was able to do a visual and verbal task simulateously much easier. Suggests differnt store for verbal and visual information.

Question 14

Baddeley and Hitch (1977)

Answer 14

Rugby players recalling games they’d played earlier in the season only struggled when they had played more games since, suggesting interference as an expliaination for forgetting.

Question 15

McGeoch and McDonald (1931)

Answer 15

Gave lists of words to participants until they could recall them completely. The recall was better when the two lists were semantically different, supporting interference for same store forgetting.

Question 16

Godden and Baddeley (1975)

Answer 16

Groups learning underwater vs on land and recalling either in the same or differnt places. Accuracy was 40% lower when the locations did not match. Supports cue dependent forgetting.

Question 17

Carter and Cassaday (1998)

Answer 17

When conditions were done with those recalling and learning either under antihistamines vs not found better recall when state for recall and learning is the same. Supports state-dependent forgetting

Question 18

Smith and Veela (2001)

Answer 18

Found that retrieval cues were irrelevant when information was meaningful.

Question 19

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Answer 19

Participants shown of video of a car crash then asked questions found a leading question where the word for the crash varied (contacted vs smashed) altered people’s memories of the incident and on more violent terms the speed was stated to be higher (31.8mph vs 40.5 mph). When more violent participants also recorded seeing broken glass when there was none. Suggests leading questions can effect EWT.

Question 20

Gabbert et al (2003)

Answer 20

Participants watched the same event from different angles and then discussed it. 71% recalled things that had not been in their video, suggesting post-event discussion has a significant effect on EWT

Question 21

Johnson and Scott (1976)

Answer 21

When participants watched a man leave a room after a percieved argument one with a bloody knife and one with a pen 33% vs 49% of people correctly identified the man, suggesting that anxiety (weapon focus) has a negative effect on recall in EWT

Question 22

Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

Answer 22

13 witnesses to a real shooting robbery in Canada. Those who reported high stress levels had more accurate accounts of events. Suggesting anxiety has a positive effect on recall in real life.

Question 23

Pickel (1998)

Answer 23

Similar to Johnson and Scott. Done with wallet, scissors, handgun and raw chicken. Accuracy was less for handgun and chicken. Suggests anxiety is not the factor, but where the focus is drawn to due to either unusualness or danger.

Question 24

Kohnken et al (1999)

Answer 24

A meta analysis of 50 studies showing cognitive interview consistently provides 81% more correct information that standard itnerviews. Effectiveness of CI. However, 61% increase in false information also, suggests extra informaiton overall not necessarily all correct information

Question 25

Milne and Bull (2002)

Answer 25

Found all aspects of CI are equally improtant, but that reinstating context and reporting everything produced better recall than other limited conditions, and so if these concepts are used together CI can be scaled down and ramain most of the benefits with less training, as these are the parts that require little if any training to implement.