Memory

Question 1

Definition of Short term memory.

Answer 1

Information that we process
and recall straight away is
stored in our STM. It stores the information we are currently aware of -
conscious.

Question 2

Definition of Long term memory.

Answer 2

Continual storage of information which is outside of our awareness, but can be
recalled when needed - unconscious.

Question 3

Definition of capacity.

Answer 3

the amount of information that can be held in a memory store

Question 4

Definition of duration.

Answer 4

the length of time a memory can be held in a store

Question 5

Definition of coding.

Answer 5

the way that the info is held in that store (acoustically/semantically)

Question 6

Describe capacity in STM. (include studies)

Answer 6

7 +/- 2 items

-digit span test (Jacob 1887)
ptp’s given list of words/letters to recall in order, gradually increased. letters recall = 7.3 & words recall = 9.3 hence 7+/-2

-magic number & chunking (Miller 1956)
- stm chunks information into smaller pieces sp easier to remember (like a phone number, -077- -177- etc, rather than 11 individual numbers)

Question 7

Describe capacity in LTM.

Answer 7

unlimited (not been tested)

Question 8

Describe duration in STM. (include studies)

Answer 8

• 18-30 secs (without rehearsal)
• Lloyd and Margret Peterson- 8 trials, consonant syllable and numbers (THX 512) asked to recall after timed intervals- during intervals they had to count backwards from their number (distraction preventing rehearsal)

Question 9

Describe duration in LTM. (include studies)

Answer 9

• lifetime
• Bahrick (1975) year book photos- free recall & facial recognition - 90% accurate after 15 years- 30% after 48 years

Question 10

Describe coding in STM (include studies)

Answer 10

• acoustically; remember acoustically dissimilar words (cat/pub)

Baddeley (1966)- 4 conditions acoustically similar, acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar, semantically dissimilar)
- ptps asked to recall list either immediately or 20 mins later.

Question 11

Describe coding in LTM (include studies)

Answer 11

• semantically; remember semantically dissimilar

Baddeley (1966)- 4 conditions acoustically similar, acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar, semantically dissimilar)
- ptps asked to recall list either immediately or 20 mins later.

Question 12

Evaluate STM & LTM (coding/cap/duration)

Answer 12

strength; use of lab experiments- Baddeley, Bahrick etc. High levels of control, strong validity. Replicable- good reliability

limitation; lacking ecological validity (lab experiments), artificial stimuli- lacking mundane realism (Bahrick- yearbook photos). Could experience demand characteristics because of lab.

(can be applicable for ALL (coding/capacity/duration) - all studies that conclude are conducted in a lab.

Question 13

Explain multi-store model. (Atkinson & Shriffin,1968)

Answer 13

It is a linear model made of 3 unitary stores. Research suggests that STM codes acoustically, duration of 18-30 secs and a capacity of 7 +/- 2 items. LTM has unlimited capacity and a lifetime duration- it codes semantically. Info (env stimuli) arrives at sensory reg, if attention is paid, info transferred to STM store, if not, the info will decay rapidly. Rehearsing this info transfers it to your LTM, if not rehearsed well the info is forgotten. To retrieve this info it must be recalled from the LTM.

Question 14

Explain the serial position effect. (Glancer & Cunitz, 1966)

Answer 14

primary effect; remembering the first few words in a list- they are the best rehearsed so are transferred to LTM

recency effect; last words presented in the list well-remembered - fresh in the STM so able to be recalled

(supports the importance of STM and rehearsal)

Question 15

Evaluation of MSM.

Answer 15

strength; research support- Glancer & Cunitz (1966)- Serial position effect (primary effect/recency effect- recalling of first words and last words)- supports rehearsal of words and duration of STM which is supported by MSM- validating the MSM.

strength; case study support HM- STM fine but LTM damaged after having hippocampus removed because of seizures. Supports that there are different stores as suggested by MSM -adds validity

limitation; MSM too simplistic, there is a better explanation- WMM. STM and LTM have different stores each- does not fully explain process of memory or the different aspects of it, limiting our understanding of the process of memory. Decreasing validity.

limitation; research into STM has low eco validity- Peterson & Peterson (nonsense syllables and consonants). Uses artificial stimuli due to being lab experiments- mundane realism, lacks validity (research into MSM)

Question 16

Describe the Working memory model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)

Answer 16

• focuses on different types of STM and being transferred to the LTM
• First level; central executive
  limited cap, determines where info goes (organiser), reasoning and decision making
• Second level; Episodic buffer, Phonological loop, Visuospatial sketchpad. (phonological loop made form articulatory control system and phonological store- inner ear)
  epo- extra info, integrating info
  phono- limited cap, auditory info
  visuo- visual/spatial info, limited cap (3/4 items)
• Third level; Long term memory
• believed that STM not a unitary store like MSM suggested

Question 17

Evaluate the WMM.

Answer 17

strength; research support, Baddeley & Hitch dual task- performance slow. TMB it supports STM has different components. If we do 2 tasks that require the same component, we will struggle more than if we do 2 tasks using different components. Thus validating WMM

strength (counter); research support from case studies, KF had brain damage- difficultly recalling auditory info but not visual. Supports different stores in STM as one can be damaged and the other intact. Validity.
However, case studies cannot be generalised, KF being a unique case. TMB not representative of typical behaviour. Limiting value of evidence supporting the WMM.

limitation; evidence of central executive limited. EVR was a patient with a brain tumour, done well in reasoning tasks but not in decision masking. TMB the WMM claims that reasoning and decision making skills are done by the CE, but evidence suggests that the CE should be split into further sub-components, as these skills are
separate from each other. WMM incomplete description of STM.

limitation; not fully explained, WMM doesn’t explain changes in processing ability as a result of practice over time. This limits as it doesn’t explain how we can improve- for example with revision, thus limiting validity.

Question 18

Describe the different types of LTM (Tulving, 1985)

Answer 18

• Episodic- personal experiences
  time-stamped, emotion, people
  conscious effort to recall info
• Semantic- meaningful memories but not personal
  not time-stamped, info about things and how they work conscious effort to recall
• Procedural- ‘how to’ memory
  actions and skills, unconscious recall (like how to ride a bike- muscle memory)automatic actions

Question 19

What are the two different types of long term memories? (Cohen) (not procedural etc)

Answer 19

-Explicit memory- ‘knowing that’ - semantic and episodic that are consciously recalled

-Implicit memory- ‘knowing how’ - procedural and unconsciously recalled

Question 20

Evaluation for different types of LTM.

Answer 20

strength; research support- brain scans shows that we use different areas of the brain for different memories (episodic using hippocampus) TMB shows that diff areas of the brain are used for diff parts of LTM- thus adding validity.

strength; support from case studies- HM - had hippocampus removed to prevent seizures- damaged to LTM, only episodic not semantic & procedural. Evidenced by the star-task, believed every time he done it, it was the first time he had completed it however with practice and time he improved. TMB it supports different LTM’s- even though one part is damaged (episodic) his other parts still remain intact. Thus adding validity.

strength; practical applications, Belleville (2006) possible to improve episodic memories in older people, gave them tasks, and completed a test which found that their episodic memory had improved. TMB it highlights the benefit of distinguishing diff types of LTM, allowing specific treatment to develop.

limitation; unique nature of case studies, for example HM having hippocampus removed- rare case. Although findings useful in supporting different stores in LTM, the case itself is rare, and therefore lacks generalisability to a wider population. Thus limiting the validity.

Question 21

What is interference?

Answer 21

the idea that one memory disturbs the ability to recall another, may result in forgetting or distorting one or both.

Question 22

What is proactive interference?
& the study

Answer 22

previously learnt info interferes with storing a new memory

Benton Underwood (1957)
- conducted meta-analysis
- concluded that ptps recall earlier words from early lists better than new ones

Question 23

What is retroactive interference?
& the study

Answer 23

new info interferes with old memories

Georg Muller (1900)
- ptps list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 mins
- after retention interval, asked to recall the list
- performance of recall was worse when given a task during retention interval

Question 24

Explain the study that supports interference in real world, (Baddeley & Hitch, 1977) - rugby players

Answer 24

• asked rugby players to recall all the names of the teams that they had played all season
  -some players had missed games due to injury
• they found that those who had missed games had better recall of names than players who had played every game
  -supports retroactive interference in real life

Question 25

Evaluation for interference as an explanation of forgetting.

Answer 25

strength; support from real-life research, Baddeley & Hitch- rugby players (explain study), TMB it shows interference is a valid explanation for forgetting in a real life situation, therefore increases validity

limitation; lacks external validity, Muller used an artificial stimuli to test retroactive interference (nonsense syllables) TMB it lacks eco validity- means may not reflect real life, limiting interference as an explanation of forgetting.

limitation; better explanations, for example Anderson (2000) retrieval failure, in particular when info is not similar to each other. TMB suggests there are other attributes to forgetting, thus limiting interference as an explanation.

limitation; individual differences- Kane & Engle (2000). Working memory spans effects interference levels. TMB shows that interference isn’t a stand alone concept but depends on our working memory (STM) which varies for everyone, limiting interference.

Question 26

Explain what retrieval failure is.

Answer 26

when we encode a new memory we also encode the info that is around it too (cues). At recall, if we cannot remember the info it is because there is a lack of cues and the situation that we’re in isn’t the same.
the memory is still available- we are just not able to access it- cue dependent forgetting.

Question 27

Explain what the Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP) is.

Answer 27

greater the similarity between the encoding event and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling the original memory.

Question 28

What are the three types of cue dependent forgetting?

Answer 28

Context dependent forgetting- external, environmental cues (sights/sounds/smells)

State dependent forgetting- internal cues, like how we felt (emotions, alcohol, drugs, state of arousal)

Organisational dependent forgetting- categories, helps remember factual information

Question 29

Explain the study that supports retrieval failure (Godden & Baddeley, 1975) (context dependent forgetting)

Answer 29

• 4 different conditions, used counterbalancing as repeated measures used

CONDIT 1
During Learning- underwater
During Recall- underwater
% of words recalled- 32%

CONDIT 2
During Learning- underwater
During Recall- on land
% of words recalled- 23%

CONDIT 3
During Learning- on land
During Recall- on land
% of words recalled- 38%

CONDIT 4
During Learning- on land
During Recall- underwater
% of words recalled- 24%

• shows that we forget because the context at recall is diff to context in which learning took place in- context dependent forgetting.

Question 30

Explain the study that supports retrieval failure. (Godwin, 1975) (state-dependent forgetting)

Answer 30

• 48 male students, 4 different conditions, asked to recall list of words 24 hrs after learning.

GROUP 1
sober both days- BEST RECALL

GROUP 2
drunk both days- 2ND BEST

GROUP 3
sober day 1, drunk day 2- 3RD BEST

GROUP 4
drunk day 1, sober day 2- WORST RECALL

Question 31

Evaluation of retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting.

Answer 31

strength; real life applications- cognitive interviews, using mental reinstatements to help witnesses/victims recall event, eg questions like ‘what did you see?’ this triggers cues like context- dependent. Useful because it helps police to solve a crime, benefiting victims and helping criminals be prosecuted, thus adding validity.

strength; research support- Baker (2004), chewing gum when learning and recall, recall was better. Supports ESP, closer the recalling situation is to the learning situation, greater the recall. Adds validity to RF.

strength; better explanation for forgetting than interference. Tulving & Psotka found that the effects of interference disappeared when cues were provided. TMB it shows that RF can be used to explain both reasons for forgetting, and that the lack of cues is more key than interference, this shows that RF is more important explanation than interference for forgetting. Adding validity

limitation; ESP cannot be tested, Baddeley argued that ESP is a circular concept and that we cannot test something that isn’t there, like the lack of cues. TMB it means the absence of cues is only associated with RF rather than having empirical evidence it is the cause, could be other factors causing RF. Limiting validity.

Question 32

Explain what leading questions are. (effects of misleading info)

Answer 32

a question which suggests a desired answer or leads a witness to believe a desired answer (either by form or content)- usually closed questions & contain misleading info/wording

Question 33

Explain the studies of misleading info (AO1)- Loftus & Palmer.

Answer 33

EXPERIMENT 1
- 45 students shown 7 videos of car crashes, then they were asked questions about the speed the car was going after. Each question used a different verb (collided/bumped/smashed..)
- different verbs changed the speeds that were estimated (smashed= 40.8mph)

EXPERIMENT 2
- 150 students shown multi-vehicle car accident
- Group 1 asked ‘ how fast were the cars going when they HITinto …’
- Group 2 asked ‘ how fast were the cars going when they SMASHED into …’
- Group 3 asked nothing
- students returned a week later and was asked if they had seen any smashed glass in the video, students that had been asked using ‘SMASHED’ said that they did (there was no glass)

• shows power of misleading words in questions

Question 34

What is post-event discussion?

Answer 34

involves witnesses talking about the event after it has happened, this can lead to distortion and inaccuracies in memory

Question 35

Explain the study that supports post-event discussion- Gabbert, 2003

Answer 35

• 120 ptps (split into two groups)
• all watched an event, two groups watched it from different angles
• half of the ptps were given time after the even to talk to the other group about what they had seen (talking about the different angles)
• other half isolated
• 71% of the discussion group reported something that they hadn’t seen, 60% of these claimed the girl in the video was guilty of a crime they hadn’t seen
• evidences that post-even discussion can lead to distortion in memory

Question 36

What are the two types of distortion causes by post-event discusison?

Answer 36

memory contamination- After PED, memory is changed as new info becomes mixed with original memory (retroactive interference)

memory conformity- After PED, the memory has not actually changed but people change their recalling of events because of they are conforming to others for social approval (normative social influence)

Question 37

Evaluation of misleading information on eye witness testimonies.

Answer 37

strength; support from research, Brawn- Disneyland & Bugs Bunny (2002)- college students who had visited Disney as children asked to evaluate advertisements about Bugs Bunny (not a Disney character). People whom had reviewed this material reported shaking hands with Bugs than the control group who were giving no misleading info. TMB how powerful misleading info can be, creating a false or inaccurate memory, which supports substitution theory. Adding validity.

strength; practical and has real life applications. Recent DNA exoneration cases have confirmed the warnings of eyewitness identification researches, the biggest factor for the conviction of innocent people is faulty EWT’s. This shows the importance of the role of EWT research to ensure that innocent people are not convicted on the basis of a faulty EWT, thus suggesting we shouldn’t rely as heavily on EWT’s as we do. Increasing usefulness of research into the effects of misleading info on EWT.

limitation; contradictory evidence from real life research. Yuille & Cutshall (1986) found misleading info did not have any effect on memory of people whom had witnessed a real life armed robbery. TMB shows Loftus & Palmer research lacks eco validity as misleading info may have more of an influence in the lab than in a real life setting, limiting validity.

limitation; ignores importance of individual differences. Schacter (1991) found that elderly people have more difficultly remembering the sources of their info rather than the event itself compared to younger subjects. As a result they become more prone to the effect of misleading info than younger people. TMB shows misleading info may have a greater impact on elder people however most research investigating misleading info uses college students, so the findings may not be generalisable to different age groups. Limits the application of research of effects of misleading info on EWT.

Question 38

What is anxiety? (in terms of effects on EWT)

Answer 38

• unpleasant emotional state when we fear something bad is about to happen, often leads to physiological changes (state of arousal) such as increased heart rate, shallow breathing etc.
• research shows that anxiety decreases the accuracy of EWT

Question 39

What is the weapon-focus effect and explain the study that supports it?

Answer 39

Johnson & Scott (1976)

WFE- the idea that usually in violent crimes attention is drawn to more central details, such as a weapon rather than more peripheral details such as what the person looked like or what they were wearing.

• ptps sat in a waiting room, argument broke out in the office, a man walked out with a greasy pen (low anxiety condition) or a bloody knife (high anxiety condition)
• ptps then asked to identify the man from a set of photos
• mean accuracy in pen condit- 49%
• mean accuracy in knife condit- 33%

shows that anxiety focuses attention on central features

Question 40

Describe the Yerkes-Dodson curve (anxiety on EWT)

Answer 40

• low anxiety= very poor recall
• medium anxiety= very good recall
• high anxiety= very poor recall

Question 41

Evaluation of the effects of anxiety on eye-witness testimonies.

Answer 41

strength; research support for effect of anxiety on recall. Deffenbacher (2004)- lab research that supports anxiety reduces accuracy of EWT, and also has support from real-life studies. TMB it suggests that anxiety actually decreases the accuracy of EWT, and studies that shows different such as Hubinette may just be an exception and most real-life research shows that anxiety decreases the accuracy of EWT. Supporting the validity of lab research into the effect of anxiety on EWT.

limitation; WFE may not actually be caused by anxiety. Pickel (1998), ptps in a hair-dresser watched a thief walk into the shop on 4 separate occasions, each time holding something new, conditions consisted of- scissors (high threat, low surprise), handgun (high threat, high surprise), a wallet (low threat, low surprise) and a raw chicken (low threat, high surprise). He found that recall was at it’s worst in the high surprise conditions compared to the high threat. TMB shows WFE caused by surprise not by anxiety due to the context of the situation which means research may not be measuring the right thing. Limiting validity.

limitation; individual differences, Bothwell (1987) ptps labelled either ‘neurotic’ (tend to become anxious quickly) or ‘stable’ (less emotionally sensitive). Found that increased levels of stress on ‘stable’ group increased levels of accuracy compared to the ‘neurotic’ group. TMB suggests that anxiety effects witnesses differently depending on their personality type (this is an extraneous variable), the relationship between anxiety and accuracy of EWT’s is complex. Thus limiting our understanding of the effect of anxiety on EWT.

limitation; real-life studies suggest that there is no simple conclusion of the effect on anxiety on EWT’s. Halford & Milne (2005) found that victims of violent crimes were more accurate in their recall of events. TMB as it shows it’s not just anxiety that has effects on EWT’s but the nature of the crime committed, and there could be many more factors. Thus limiting our understanding of the effects of anxiety on EWT’s.

Question 42

What is a cognitive interview?

Answer 42

police technique for interviewing witnesses to a crime, they aim to recreate the original context in order to increase the accessibility of the stored info.

Question 43

What are the 4 techniques of the interview?

Answer 43

Report Everything (free recall)- told to recall everything they can remember in any order ‘tell me everything you can remember from the event from start to finish in your own words’

Reinstatement of Context- mentally replace the scenario ‘close your eyes and place yourself at the scene, what can you see?’ May trigger recall

Change Order- remembering events in a different order, info that doesn’t match original info could be inaccurate info, prevents schemas from filling in the gaps.

Change of Perspective- separates false info from accurate info, asks witness to take on perspective of a different person that was at the scene of the crime (could be a passer by or another witness) Prevents expectations from schemas.

Question 44

Evaluation of cognitive interviews for eye-witness testimonies.

Answer 44

strength; real-life applications. Fisher & Geiserman’s study. Analysed interviewers before and after training in cog interviewers accuracy. 47% more info recalled was recalled from cog interviews. TMB it shows cog interviews are more effective in gaining info about the crime, this helps build greater case and helps solve the crime. Strengthening the use of CI’s for EWT.

strength; real-life application and individual differences. Melo & Fisher- compared older and younger recall either using a CI or a standard interview, recall was greater using a CI, but they actually found that the elderly had greater recall of the event than the younger ptps. TMB shows the effectiveness of the CI on a group who tend to be considered a ‘bad’ eyewitness. Enables the CI’s to be used for everyone and helping less capable eye witnesses. Strengthening the use of CI’s.

limitation; info not always correct reducing quality of EWT. Khonkens meta -analysis- found CI’s produced 85% correct info however also found that there was a 61% increase in incorrect info. TMB it shows that although the quantity of info increased it may not be high quality of info which means police may need to still treat EWT’s with caution and this method may make it harder for police harder for officers to determine the true events. Limiting the effectiveness of CI’s to improve EWT’S.

limitation; a lot of time and training needed. Kebbell’s & Wagstaff’s interviews with police. CI’s take more time than what is available and officers prefer to limit eye witness accounts to the minimum. TMB it shows inconsistencies in police force, showing practical application is limited. Limiting reliability.