memory

Question 1

Draw out the Multi-store Model (MSM)

Answer 1

Refer to printed out sheet

Question 2

Draw out the Working Memory Model (WMM)

Answer 2

Refer to printed out sheet

Question 3

Evaluation of the MSM

Answer 3

Strengths:
- Supporting evidence as there has been controlled lab studies on capacity, duration and coding by using brain scans. Have found there is a difference between STM and LTM
- The model, even though it is simplistic and was created in the late 60s, has not been changed or redesigned
Limitations:
- The model is too simplistic as it splits the STM and LTM into singular groups when there are actually more types within each group

Question 4

Evaluation of the WMM

Answer 4

Strengths:
- Explains the ability of the dual task; showing how you can perform both visual and auditory tasks at the same time
Limitations:
- Only involves the STM so is therefore not a comprehensive model for memory

Question 5

List the 3 types of LTM and what do they do?

Answer 5

1. Episodic (hippocampus & frontal lobe):
   personal memories, times, places and people involved, context and emotion
2. Semantic (hippocampus & temporal lobe):
   knowledge about the world that is shared by everyone
3. Procedural (cerebellum):
   knowing how to do something, like a skill

Question 6

What is interference?

Answer 6

An explanation for forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another. Most likely to occur when memories are similar

Question 7

What is Proactive Interference?

Answer 7

Is when past information interferes with the new information

Question 8

What did Benton Underwood do in relation to PI?

Answer 8

Said that if participants memorised 10 lists, after 24h they would only be able to recall 20%. Whereas if they learnt only 1 list they would be able to recall over 70%

Question 9

What is Retroactive Interference?

Answer 9

Is when new information interferes with the past information

Question 10

What did Georg Muller do in relation to RI?

Answer 10

He gave participants a list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 minutes and then after a retention interval, asked them to recall the list. He found performance decreased if given an intervening task between the learning and recall

Question 11

Evaluation of interference?

Answer 11

Strengths:
There are real-world applications done by Baddeley and Hitch that support interference

Limitations:
It only explains some situations for forgetting, as in order for it to be the case, the two memories have to be similar - showing that the amount we forget can’t be putdown to just interference

Question 12

What real-world study did Baddeley and Hitch do support interference?

Answer 12

They got rugby players to recall the names of the teams they have played against over the season. Some of the players played in all the games, whereas some missed games due to things like injury. Time interval (start-end) was the same for all players but the number of intervening games was different.
- Decay theory: all players should recall a similar % of games played
- Interference theory: players who played most games should forget proportionately more - which is what they found

Question 13

What is retrieval failure?

Answer 13

An explanation of forgetting where information is stored in the long-term memory but is unable to be accesses due to the lack of cues

Question 14

What is a cue?

Answer 14

Something that acts as a reminder

Question 15

What is context-dependent forgetting?

Answer 15

When the environment in which you recall is different from the environment you learnt in

Question 16

What did Godden and Baddeley do in regards to context-dependent forgetting?

Answer 16

Recruited scuba-divers to learn a set of words either on land or in water, then they were asked to recall either on land or in water. The highest recall was when the initial context was the same as the recall, e.g. learn on land, recall on land

Question 17

What is state-dependent forgetting?

Answer 17

When the state in which you recall is different from the state you learnt in. State for example, being physical or metal

Question 18

What did Goodwin et al do in regards to state-dependent forgetting?

Answer 18

Got male volunteers to remember a list of words either drunk or sober, then asked them to recall the words 24hours later either drunk or sober. Found the information learnt is more available when in the same state later

Question 19

Evaluation of retrieval failure?

Answer 19

Strengths:
There’s lots of research that support it, including lab, field and natural experiments as well as anecdotal evidence
Limitations:
Retrieval cues don’t always work - outshining hypothesis: a cues effectiveness is reduced by the presence of better cues

Question 20

What are the 3 categories within eyewitness testimony (EWT)?

Answer 20

1. Misleading information
2. Anxiety
3. Cognitive Interview

Question 21

What are the two studies done by Loftus and Palmer in regards to misleading information (EWT)?

Answer 21

Car study:
- 45 participants were shown 7 films of car accidents, they were then given a questionnaire with one critical question and specific work: “How fast were the cars going when they (hit, bumped, smashed, collided, contacted)?”
- Each group was given the same question with a different key word:
“smashed” = 40.8mph
“collided” = 39.3mph
“bumped” = 38.1mph
“hit” = 34.0mph
“contacted” = 31.8mph
- 3 different groups watched car videos and then a week later asked if they remembered seeing smashed glass (no glass was smashed in the videos) when asked the same question with either the word “smashed” or “hit”, with the 3rd group being a control group.
- Those who answered yes to the glass:
“smashed” = 16
“hit” = 7
control = 6
- Those who answered no to the glass:
“smashed” = 34
“hit” = 43
control = 44

Disneyland study:
- College students who visited Disneyland as a child were asked to evaluate ads for the amusement park, however, they involved misleading information including Bugs Bunny (not Disney) and Ariel (a character not created when they would have visited)
- Participants assigned to the experimental group reported shaking hands with those two characters than the control group who had no misleading information

Question 22

What is the effect on post-event discussion in regards to misleading information (EWT)?

Answer 22

Memory can be contaminated by discussing the event with others/being questioned too many times

Question 23

What did Gabbert (2003) find in regards to post-event discussion (EWT)?

Answer 23

Participants were paired and given a video separately of the same event. Pairs in one condition were probed to discuss, resulting in 71% mistaken recall

Question 24

What did Johnson and Scott find in regards to anxiety (EWT)?

Answer 24

Weapon Focus Effect; participants sat in a waiting room when they heard an argument and then someone emerged with either a greasy pen (low anxiety condition) or a bloody knife (high anxiety condition)
When asked to identify the man in each condition:
pen condition: 49%
knife condition: 33%

Question 25

What did Pickle find in regards to anxiety (EWT)?

Answer 25

Criticises the WFE as reduced accuracy of identification is due to surprise and not anxiety. She had 4 conditions which took place in a hairdressers where participants would witness a thief enter with either:
1. Scissors (high threat, low surprise)
2. Handgun (high threat, high surprise)
3. Wallet (low threat, low surprise)
4. Raw chicken (low threat, how surprise)
Found that the least accurate recalls were in the high surprise conditions

Question 26

What did Christianson and Hubinette find in regards to anxiety (EWT)?

Answer 26

A study involving 58 real people of a ban robbery, either victims (bank tellers) or bystanders (employee/customer). Interviews were conducted 4-15 moths after the incident and recall was found to be better than 75%

Question 27

What are the 4 parts to the Cognitive Interview in regards to anxiety?

Answer 27

1. Report everything
2. Change order
3. Change perspective
4. Mental reinstatement of original context