Memory Flashcards
Describe STM using capacity, duration and encoding
duration of 30 secs
Limited capacity
Describe LTM using capacity, duration and encoding
encoding and retention of past events
unlimited capacity
unlimited duration
sensory register
the information collected by your senses (eyes, ears, nose, fingers etc)
short term memory
your memory for immediate events, STM lasts for a very short time and disappear unless they are rehearsed. STM has limited duration and capacity
long term memory
your memory for events that have happened in the past. This lasts anywhere between 2 minutes and 100 years. The LTM store has potentially unlimited duration and capacity
encoding
the act of getting information into our memory system through automatic or effortful processing
storage
creation of a permanent record of information
retrieval
point of finding the memory (giving information out of memory storage and back into consciousness awareness)
duration of STM (peterson)
-Investigate the duration of short term memory
-Lab experiment conducted in which 24 participants had to recall meaningless syllables e.g TGH
-These syllables were presented one at a time and had to be recalled after intervals of 3.6.9.12.15 and 18 seconds after each trial
-After heating this, participants were asked to count backwards from a random digit till they saw a red light
-Results –> after 3 seconds 80% were recalled correctly, after 6 seconds this fell to 50% and after 18 seconds this dropped to less than 10%
LTM Bahrick
-Investigated the duration of long term memory using 392 American university graduates. The graduates were shown photographs from their highschool yearbook and for each photograph participants were given a group of names to match
Results –> 90% of participants could match the names and faces. 14 years layer only 60% could.
Conclusion –> people could remember certain types of information such as names and faces for almost a lifetime
capacity of STM
-Capacity refers to how much information can be held in memory stores. It is measured in terms of bits of information e.g number of digits recalled
-Miller 1956 –> We can hold 7 items in short term memory plus or minus 2. People can recall 5 words as well as they can recall 5 letters. Chunking is to group sets of digits or letters into units. Short term memory stores chunks information rather than individual numbers or letters
-Jacobs 1887 (digit span test) –> Short term memory has a capacity of between 5 items of information, He presented participants with sequences of digits that were increasing in length, as age increases we develop better strategies of recall
Coding in STM
-Encoding refers to how memories are changed so that it can be stored.
-Stored in various forms; visual codes, acoustic forms (sound), semantic forms (meaning)
-In STM we usually encode information acoustically
-Baddeley 1996 found that participants presented with words that sound similar found it harder to recall them immediately because information in STM is represented as semantics (hence harder to differentiate)
Coding in LTM
-Baddeley concludes that LTM encodes semantically, at least primarily.
-this is why LTM gets confused when it has to retrieve the order words which are semantically similar
-LTM has no problem retrieving acoustically similar words because LTM pays no attention to how words sound
-In most conditions the participants LTM gets a bit of help from STM
Baddeley
-showed groups a slideshow with 10 words that were displayed 3 seconds each
-4 levels of IV –> acoustically similar, acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar, semantically dissimilar
-Findings –> acoustically similar words were harder to recall than dissimilar . Semantically similar words harder to recall than dissimilar.
Relation to memory –> LTM coded semantically
encoding, capacity, duration
Encoding –> raw information that is connected to storing and retrieving (20 mins after recall) -> Baddeley
Capacity –> volume of information which can be kept in a memory store (7 +-2) –> Miller
Duration –> amount of time that information can be stored (30 secs) –> Peterson
advantages and disadvantages of coding
Advantage –> separate memory stores –> Baddeley identified clear differences between STM and LTM. Important in understanding the multi store model
Disadvantage –> Artificiality – words had no meaning in Baddeleys study. Does not tell us about coding (limited research application)
advantages and disadvantages of capacity
Advantage –> Validity –> Jacob’s study replicated and came to the same conclusions. Original study is therefore reliable and findings are valid
Disadvantage –> Cowan reviewed and research and found out the capacity of STM is 3-5 chunks
advantages and disadvantages of duration
Advantage –> High ecological validity –> real findings (Bahrick)
Another strength of the study is that the findings are reliable. For example, Sebrechts et al 1989 asked pp to unexpectedly recall words either immediately after seeing them or some time after seeing them. The pps were not expecting to to have to recall the words so should not have been rehearsing them. It was found that recall was zero even after 4 seconds. Whilst this study shows that the STM has a much shorter duration than suggested by Peterson and Peterson it does support the overall idea that the duration of STM is very limited when rehearsal is prevented.
Disadvantage –> Low external validity
Peterson and peterson -> A final limitation of the study is that it lacks population validity.This is because the participants were all students. Therefore, the findings may not generaliseto the wider population. It should also be considered that the sample size was also fairly small which again limits the ability to generlise the findings.
what is the the multi store model of memory
-The multi store model was the first theory that attempted to explain how we retain information in our memory and why we forget information and remember other information for a long period of time
order for multi store model
Environmental stimuli –> encode –> sensory register/memory –> attention –> short term memory –> maintenance rehearsal –> information retrieval –> transfer –> long term memory –> retrieval/rehearsal –> output
Long steps to multi store model
-Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) put forward the multi store model of memory. This model of memory consists of 3 memory stores (sensory, STM and LTM). This model explains how information is processed and transferred between each distinct store
-The encoding of information in the sensory register tends to be modality specific, has unlimited capacity and limited duration (0.5-2 seconds) before it fades out. Information quickly fades if attention is not given to it. If attention is given then it is transferred to the STM.
-For information to be effectively transferred from the sensory register to STM it needs to be encoded acoustically. Rehearsal must take place. If information is not encoded correctly or maintenance rehearsal does not take place the information will fade quickly (18 seconds)
-STM has a limited capacity (5-9 pieces of information) but can be increased by breaking down information
-elaborate rehearsal is the means by which information is transferred from the STM to LTM. This means that information has been verbally rehearsed in a meaningful way.
-LTM memory is unlimited duration possibly lasting a lifetime
clive wearing
-He lost his memory after contracting virus encephalitis. The disease resulted in one of the most severe cases of amnesia ever recorded. Today he lives in an assisted living facility
-Wearing contracted a form of viral encephalitis caused by herpes which attacked his CNS and caused significant brain damage. His hippocampus was removed
-He was unable to rehearse LTM
strengths to MSM
acknowledges the qualitative differences between STM and LTM by representing them as separate stores. E.g STM is located acoustically and LTM located semantically
-supporting research evidence (Baddeley)
limitations of MSM
-MSM states that STM is a unitary store (only one type) but evidence from people suffering w amnesia shows this cannot be true. For example shallice and warrington studied a patient with amnesia and his recall was good when reading to himself but poor when read information outloud
-Reductionist –> there is more than one type of rehearsal
patient HM
lost memory due to removal of hippocampus (experienced loss of conscious memories and retrograde amnesia)
MSM
The multi store of memory is a structural model of memory. It is comprised of 3 unitary stores (STM, LTM, SR). Information passes from store to store in a linear way. Environmental information arrives via your sensory register. If attention is not paid then information will decay rapidly. Paying attention causes the transference of information to STM. The original model suggests rehearsing information in STM causes it to transfer to your LTM.
why is it difficult to process two conversations simultaneously such as talking on the phone and listening to a friend at the same time
-they interfere with eachother and performance is reduced
-the phonological and visual sketchpad are separate systems within the working model and cannot operate at the same time
Working memory model steps
1) Central Executive –> component of the working memory model co-ordinates the activities of the three subsystems in memory. Allocates processing resources to those activities.
2) Episodic buffer –> component of the WMM that brings together material from the other subsystems into a single memory rather than separate strands. Provides a bridge between working memory and LTM.
3) Visuospatial sketchpad –> processes visual and spatial (location) information in a mental space often called the inner eye
4) Phonological loop –> processes information in terms of sound. Included both written and spoken material. Divided into the phonological store and acoustic store
5) Articulatory loop –> allows maintenance rehearsal (repeating words or sounds)
Phonological store –> stores the words you hear
central executive
limited processing capacity + process and monitors incoming data/makes decision
phonological loop
2 seconds –> deals with auditory information and presents order of information
visuospatial sketchpad
limited capacity (3 or 4 objects) –> stores information when required
episodic buffer
temporary store of information (limited capacity – 4 chunks)
dual task experiment
(WMM)
-demonstrated the existence of a visuo-spatial pad by using a dual task paradigm. Asked participants to do 2 tasks that would utilise the visuo-spatial sketch pad
Findings –> if one store is used for both tasks then performance is poorer than when completed separately. If tasks require difference stores than performance would be unaffected
strengths of working memory model
-High internal validity –> model was developed based on evidence from lab experiments. Confounding variables controlled to produce reliable results. Has ability to be replicated
-Supporting evidence –> Baddeley and Hitch. Conducted an experiment involving a repeated list of numbers. Concluded these results suggested verbal reasoning using the central executive.
-Studies of dual task information –> , where each participant must undertake a visual and verbal task simultaneously, shows decreased performance for such tasks and so supports the idea that the central executive has a very limited processing capacity (as predicted by the WMM) and that the slave systems are in competition with each other for these tasks and resources.
-Neuroscanning evidence –> such as that provided by Braver et al, has demonstrated a positive correlation between an increasing cognitive load processed by the central executive (as marked by increasing task difficulty) and increasing levels of activation in the prefrontal cortex. This supports the idea that the central executive has the role of allocating tasks to slave systems and has a limited processing capacity, as reflected by the increased brain activation levels, thus suggesting that the WMM is accurate in its mechanism of the central executive.
limitations of working memory model
-Low ecological validity –> lab experiment lacks practical applications.
-Too simplistic and vague –> the WMM has been critised for being too simplistic and vague, unclear what the central executive is or its true role in attention
what are the three types of memory
recognition
recall
reminder/remembrance
what does case study patient HM provide evidence for
multi store model
-he had his hippocampus removed
duration of memory
STM = Peterson
LTM = Bahrick
what is needed for information to be converted from sensory register to STM
attention
how is information transferred from STM to LTM
rehearsal
true or false - the multi store of memory is unitary
true (linear)
what does the working memory model show
STM
(Baddely and Hitch)
clive wearing
STM was damaged
Shallice and Warrington (KF)
Shallice and Warrington studied KF a man whose brain had been injured in a motorcycle accident. KF’s LTM functioned normally but his STM was severely impaired. 1-2 chunks only. Further investigation showed that KF forgot letters and digits much faster when he received them auditorily than visually. KF also had normal STM span for meaningful sounds.
—> KF = working memory model (separate slave stores)
subdivisions of LTM
-The WMM shows that the MSM is an over-simplified explanation of memory. There is more than one type of short-term store and the situation is the same with LTM. Research indicates the existence of several types
-The main sub-division of the LTM is into explicit and implicit
episodic LTM
-personal recollections
-LTM store for personal events. It involves memories of when events occurred and of the people, objects, places and behaviours involved
-conscious and time stamped
semantic LTM
-general knowledge
-LTM store for our knowledge o the world. Includes facts and our knowledge of what worlds and concepts mean
-not time stamped and conscious
procedural LTM
knowing how
-LTM store for our knowledge of how to do things
-includes our memories of learned skills
-not conscious and not time stamped
who came up w the idea of types of LTM
Tulving et alt
testing episodic and semantic memories
episodic –> ask questions about events from earlier
semantic –> ask questions about knowledge of the world e.g who composed a specific piece of music
why does clive wearing play the same type of music again and again
-procedural LTM was intact
-cannot form new memories as episodic LTM was damaged so thus cannot remember playing the same piece of music the previous time
evaluation episodic LTM (4 marks)
Strength = real life applications = Clive wearing
who demonstrated that semantic memories were recalled from the left prefrontal cortex
Peterson et al (different neurological bases)
classic research (types of LTM)
Patient HM and Clive wearing produced clinical evidence in which both their episodic memory was severely impaired but for different reasons (amnesia). They couldn’t recall memories from the past but semantic memories were unaffected. Supports Tulving’s view that there are different memory stores in LTM in different parts of the brain
-Baddedly
contemporary research (types of LTM)
Brain scan studies show different types of memory are stored in different parts of the brain e.g tulving et al got participants to perform memory tests while brains were scanned using PET scanner. E.g episodic and semantic memory in prefrontal cortex (right vs left)
-Hodges and Patterson –> found that some people with Alizhimer’s could form new episodic memories but not semantic memories
psychology in the real world (types of LTM)
Belleville et al (2006) demonstrated that episodic memories could be improved in older people who has mild cognitive impairment. Trained participants performed better in a test of episodic memory after training than control group
-types of LTM enabled specific treatments to be developed
HM + dog
could not recall stroking a dog but he understood the concept and meaning of a dog
LTM
Both Clive wearing and patient HM had procedural memories for example, they both knew how to tie their shoelaces, walk, speak and wearing could play the piano but lost their semantic/episodic memories
LTM memory is more complex than a unitary store
neuroimaging evidence
Frontal lobe –> stores semantic and episodic memories
Motor cortex –> storing procedural memories
Prefrontal cortex –> storage of short term memories
Temporal lobe –> storage of LT semantic and episodic memories
Amygdala –> formation of new emotional memories
Hippocampus –> formation of new LT semantic and episodic memories
Cerebellum –> important role in storage of procedural memories
Explain what is meant by procedural LTM
definition + example
-knowledge of learned skills
-e.g how to ride a bike
-not conscious and not time stamped
evaluate episodic LTM
-strength = research evidence e.g clive wearing
-highlights separate memory stores
interference
Interference is one explanation for forgetting (where the memory for one thing disrupts the recall of another)
-Forgetting/distortion of memory due to interference (two pieces of information conflict w eachother)
types of interference
proactive interference
retroactive interference
proactive interference
-old memory is remembered but not new memory
-old memories affect the ability to remember new memories
-information learnt interferes with information that is new
retroactive interference
-new memory is remembered but not old memory
-new information interferes with the retrieval of old information
-e,g cant remember names from last year but can remember from this year
Muller + Pilzeker (retroactive)
-first to identify retroactive interference
-gave ppts nonsense syllables to learn for 6 mins and recall lists
-performance was less good if ppts were given an intervening task between initial learning and recall
-interfering task produced as a later task was affected by previous learnings
Underwood (proactive)
-effect of proactive interference on LTM
-experiment resembles Peterson and Peterson study (meaningless syllables)
-participants typically remembered trigrams presented irrespective of interval length
-probability of recall decreased from 80 when there was no list to 20 following 20 lists
-proactive interference occurred as memory from earlier constants interfered LTM for new consonants
McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
-effects of similarity on interference
-studied retroactive interference by changing similarity between two sets of materials
-participants had to learn a list of 10 new words until they could 100% remember it. They then learned a new list
-6 groups with categories e.g synonyms/antonyms
-When participants recalled original lists of words their performance depended on nature of 2nd list
-most similar material produced the worst recall
strengths - interference
-lab experiments + consistent results
-research evidence
-Baddely and Hitch –> in a group of rugby players who had to recall their last game and the number of games they’d played that season (which would be different for each player), the number of games they’d played since was more important than the total time they’d been playing for. This can be explained in terms of interference, where the more games each player had played, the more likely the memories of these newer games would interfere or block the recall of older games i.e. retroactive interference.
limitations - interference
-artificial stimulus –> low mundane realism + lacks personal meaning
- that they are often conducted in very short spaces of time, with participants recalling their words 1 or 2 hours after they have learnt them. This does not reflect the normal passage of time in everyday life, where we often find that several days pass until we need to recall such information e.g. in the case of an exam. Therefore, this suggests that interference is unlikely to be a valid explanation for forgetting from the LTM.
Describe how retrieval failure due to absence of cues leads to forgetting (6)
-context dependent forgetting
-state dependent forgetting
-trace decay
-encoding specificity principle
-baddeley and godden
-carter and cassaday
types of cue dependent forgetting
-context –> external environmental cues
-state –> internal cues
context dependent forgetting
-improved recall of specific episodes of information when contextual cues relating to the environment are the same during encoding and retrieval
-more likely to remember something learned if in the same environment
state dependent forgetting
-forgetting which occurs because the emotional or physical state of recall is different to that of the time of learning
trace decay
-learned memories in our brain eventually fade overtime if not rehearsed or retrieved (automatic function)
-suggests limited duration of the STM
encoding specificity principle
Encoding specificity principle –> the greater the similarity between the encoding event and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling original memories
godden and baddely (context dependent forgetting)
-asked deep sea divers to learn a list of words either underwater or on land and then were asked to recall words
-4 conditions –> underwater learning, land learning, recall in same context, recall in opposite context
Findings:
-accurate recall was 40% lower than in non-matching conditions because encoding event and retrieval event were not similar so reduced likelihood of reducing learnt information
-correlation between environment and effectiveness of retrieval
carter and cassaday (state dependent forgetting)
-Looked at the effect of anti-histamines on participants
-made participants slightly drowsy –> created an internal physiological state different from normal state of being awake and alert
-participants had to learn a list of words and passages of prose and then recall information in 4 conditions
Group 1 –> learning w drug, recall w drug
Group 2 –> learning without drug, recall without drug
Group 3 –> learning w drug, recall without drug
Group 4 –> learning without drug, recall w drug
Findings:
-in the conditions where there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and recall, performance on memory test was significantly worse as physiological state was affected
-when cues are absent e.g drowsy then there is more forgetting
-hard to control for extraneous variables as drowsiness could not be to the drug but due to fatigue etc
strengths of retrieval faliure
-research evidence to support context dependent forgetting (Baddeley and Godden)
-research evidence to support for state dependent forgetting (Carter and Cassaday)
limitations of retrieval failure
-very little direct support for decay theory as an explanation for loss of information from STM to LTM. Decay theory is more or less impossible to test. If you prevent rehearsal there will be interference. Therefore not enough scientific evidence to draw valid conclusions
-studies lack ecological validity e.g Baddley and Godden argued that it is difficult to find polar conditions in real life; retrieval failure is associated with more abnormal conditions
-Context isnt very strong in real life
Explain how anxiety might have affected eyewitness testimony of this event
-Define EWT and anxiety
-scenario
-positive effect on recall
-research evidence = yuille and cutshall
Eye witness testimony and its uses
-Eye witness testimony –> ability of people to remember the details of events such as accidents and crimes which they themselves have observed. Accuracy is affected by misleading information, leading questions and anxiety
-Eye witness testimony uses –> recorded in a police statement, verbal testimony to be used in court of law
anxiety
-unpleasant emotional state where we fear that something bad is about to happen. Stress/fear accompanied by physiological factors such as increased heart rate
tunnel theory of memory
the superior recognition and recall of central, emotion-arousing details in a traumatic event as shown in previous research on emotion and memory. When you can focus on a traumatic event that has happened and remember the details but miss other information around
anxiety has a negative effect - Johnson and Scott
-Aim –> effect of weapons (which create anxiety) on accuracy of recall of the witness. More focus on weapon = less recall
Procedure –> IV = type of argument (high or low anxiety condition) DV = accuracy of recall
-Participants were led to believe they were going to take part in a lab study. Participants heard and argument in the next room and a man walked out with a pen and greasy knife. Another argument had participants hearing glass breaking and man walked out holding paper knife covered in fake blood
-Results –> participants later had to pick out a picture of the man from a set of 50 photos. 49% could identify the man. 33% of participants had said they had seen a man holding bloody knife
Conclusion –> overall anxiety has a negative effect of recall because tunnel theory of memory…
positive effects of anxiety (Yuille and Cutshall)
-Aim –> stress of crime / anxiety and effect on physiological arousal. Fight or flight response on recall and memory cues
Procedure –> study of real life shooting in shop in Vancouver
IV = time of report
DV = number of details recorded into the account and stress rating
-shop owner shot a thief dead. 21 witnesses. 13 agreed to take part in study and interviews. Interview 4-5 months after accident
Witnesses also had to rate stress levels on 7 point scale
-Results –> witnesses were accurate in their accounts and their was little change in accuracy after 5 months though some things were lost. 88% when stressed, 75% for less stressed group
Conclusion –> more stressed you are the more likely you are to recall and remember things
Yerkes and Dodson
Yerkes and Dodson (1908):
-believe the relationship between emotional arousal and performance looks like an inverted u
Deffenbacher
Deffenbacher applied the Yerkes-Dodson law to EWT:
-lower levels of anxiety = produce lower levels of recall accuracy
-after optimal levels are reached and witness continues to experience high levels of stress, the accuracy EWT decreases
strengths EWT
-Research support + positive effects which adds credibility to eyewitness testimony
limitations EWT + anxiety
-Weapon focus may not be relevant –> Potentially Johnson and Scott’s study may be a test or surprise rather than anxiety. Ppts may focus on weapon bc they don’t expect it. Similar research has found that when in that crime situation ppts had poor EWT due to focusing on handheld items including rubber chicken as much as they did a gun
-Inverted-u explanation is too simplistic –> only assumes that one factor it linked to poor performance (physical arousal) rather than other factors. Anxiety is very difficult to define and measure accurately as it has many elements. Therefore, a more complex and detailed explanation for performance link to physiological arousal should be developed as level of performance is not only affected by one thing
-Field studies sometimes lack control –> Yuille and Cutshall. Extraneous variables may have been responsible for the recall and is overwhelmed by other factors
-Ethical issues –> Johnson and Scott experiment inflicted real psychological harm. Perhaps interviews of real incidents should be done instead.
misleading information
-Incorrect information given to the eyewitness usually after the event (post-event). It can take many forms such as leading questions and post-event discussion between co-witnesses and/or other people
leading questions
Leading questions –> A question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer e.g was the knife in the accused’s left hand, suggesting the answer is in the left hand
response bias explanation
Response-bias explanation –> suggests that the wording of the question has no real effect on the participant’s memories but just influences how they decide to answer
substitution explanation
Substitution explanation –> the wording of a leading question actually changes the participants memory
Loftus and palmer experiment 1
-Aim = accuracy of memory after witnessing a car accident in particular to see if leading questions distorted the accuracy of eyewitness’s immediate recall
-Procedure –> 45 college students were shown 7 films of different traffic accidents. After each film participants were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and then answer specific questions about it. “How fast were the cars going when they ___ eachother”.5 groups in total with different verbs –> smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted
-Mean speed estimate was calculated for each group:
Results: smashed = 40.8 mph
Collided = 39.3 mph
Bumped = 34.0 mph
Hit = 38.1 mph
Contacted = 31.8 mph
DV = questionnaire but limitation is that it can be subjective and thus not generalisable
Conclusions = EWT is unreliable
loftus and palmer - experiment 2
-Aim = to see if indeed memory was altered by misleading post-event information
-Procedure = new set of participants divided into 3 groups and shown a film of a car accident lasting one minute. Group 1 was given verb smashed, group 2 = hit, group 3 control group not having question abt speed of car. The participants returned one week later and were asked 10 questions with the critical question “Did you see any broken glass”.
-Results = participants gave higher speed estimates in the smashed condition and were more likely to think they saw broken glass for smashed condition
Smashed = 16 yes 34 = no
Hit = 7 yes 43 = no
Control = 6 yes 44 = no
strength -> misleading information
Strength:
-Research = real life applications –> improve the way legal systems work, police officers need to be more careful in the way the phrase information
Limitation - misleading information
-Research is lab based so lacks ecological validity = cannot be generalisable to everyday life = experiment 1 for Loftus and Palmer. Participants lack physiological arousal brought be a real life traumatic situation
-Real life applications show that EWT can be unreliable (Ryan Ferugson case)
- The artificial tasks and stimuli used by both Loftus and Palmer, alongside Gabbert, reduces the ecological validity of the findings and the mundane realism of the methodology. For example, the film clips of the car crashes do not expose participants to the anxiety of experiencing a real-life car crash. This anxiety may either have a negative (Johnson and Scott) or positive (Yuille and Cutshall) effect on the accuracy of EWT, thus biasing the findings.
Fisher and Giesman –> cognitive interview
-Fisher and Geiselman et al (2003) developed the cognitive interview which aimed to reduce the impact of misleading information and poor interview technique on eyewitness accounts
-Research identified that leading questions can affect the way in which participants recall and EWT. Participants who are guided towards an answer which indicate that something occurred are more likely to believe they saw something which didnt happen
-The use of leading questions can be highly influential and is something that can be controlled
-Cognitive interview aims to reduce errors in accuracy with EWT
Ryan Ferguson case
role of misleading information and leading questions
steps for cognitive interview
1) Report everything –> witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail of the event even if it seems irrelevant or the witness is not confident about it –> this helps trigger important memories/cues to reinstate information
2) Reinstate the context –> Witnesses should return to original crime scene in their mind and imagine the environment –> related to context dependent forgetting
3) Reverse the order –> events should be recalled in a different chronological order for the original sequence –> this prevents people reporting their expectation of how the event might have happened (prevents dishonesty)
4) Recall from a changed perspective –> Witnesses should recall the incident from other peoples perspectives –> disrupts expectations and schema or recall
enhanced cognitive interview
-focus on interactions between interviewer and interviewee (social dynamics)
-Involved reducing EWT/anxiety, minimizing distractions, asking open ended questions, asking questions slowly
Strengths of the enhanced cognitive interview
-accurate and has real life applications –> Fisher found that witnesses reported greater detail in accounts of crime when American detectives used this technique as it is more structured and thorough
-supporting evidence –> Kohnken et al conducted a meta analysis to show the enhanced cognitive interview improved consistency and correct information = practical benefits which increase credibility
-The entire CI need not be used to reap the benefits, as Milne and Bull (2002) suggested, where
context reinstatement and report everything produced the greatest accuracy of recall of correct
information as compared to any other combinations of steps. This means that even if police forces do
not have enough time to train the entire force for all of the 4 steps involved in the CI, even gradual
changes from the standard police interview can increase the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness
testimony
Limitations of the enhanced cognitive interview
-Time consuming and long to conduct –> rapport must be published and requires specialist training of police officers. Kebbell and Wagstaff found many police offices did not use this technique in less serious crimes bc they had less time
-Increase in inaccurate information –> 81% in correct information but also 61% in inaccurate information compared to standard interview. Lacks reliability and objectivity
declarative vs non declarative memory
declarative = consiously recall
non decalarative = unconsciously recall
subcomponents of the phonological loop
-primary acoustic store
-articulatory process
primary acoustic store
-filter out auditory information that is not needed
-store auditory information for 1-2 seconds
articulatory process
the capacity of the articulaory process is determined by how many words we can say in 2 seconds
LTM declarative vs non declarative
procedural = non declarative
episodic and semantic = declerative
how is LTM created
through maintenance rehersal
what part of LTM memory did clive wearing and patient HM damage
episodic not procedural or semantic
central executive
co-ordinates slave systems and allocates resources
limited storage
episodic buffer
integrates processing of slave systems and records order of events
linked to LTM
Tulving and Potska
Tulving and Psotka’s study supports interference theory because in the free recall condition, the results showed that the more participants had to learn, the less they remembered. This is evidence of retroactive interference, where new memories interfere with similar, older memories. The study also supports cue-dependent theory because participants in the cued condition recalled more words overall than those in the free recall condition. This is evidence that external cues helped participants to recall information.
declarative memories
things that we can recall out loud
capacity of sensory register =
unlimited
Baddley
STM = confused with words sounding the same
LTM = confused words with the same/similar meanings
episodic + semantic =
hippocampus + temporal lobe
procedrual =
basial ganaglia + cerebellum
central executive =
untestable + vague
3 factors affecting the accuracy of eye witness testimony
anxiety = memory may be worse bc of arousal
post-event discussion = may be less accurate bc they confuse their original memory with what other people say
leading questions
research support for multi store model
-Squire et al found hippocampus is active during LTM suggesting STM and LTM are separate stores
research supporting types of long term memory
Hodges and Patterson = studied Alzhimer patients and found that they were unable to form new semantic memories but could form episodic ones
research supporting effect of misleading information on EWT
-LaRooy (2005) = found that repeat interviewing increases the chance of interviewees including information given to them by the interviewer in EWT
