memory Flashcards
describe the ‘multi-store model’ of memory (MSM)
by who? A… and S….
suggests memory is made up of … stores all linked by p….
Atkinson (1968) and Shiffrin (1971)
suggest memory is made up of three stores, all linked by processing.
sensory register:
info automatically detected and registered
each coding is modality specific
large capacity, short duration
goes to STM by paying attention to info
STM:
acoustic
7 items (+ or - 2)
duration 18-30 seconds
maintenance rehearsal keeps info in STM
if rehearsed long enough, goes to LTM
LTM:
coded semantically (in terms of meaning)
when info from LTM needs to be recalled, it has to be transferred back to STM in ‘retrieval’
evaluate the ‘multi-store model’ of memory
+ research shows that STM and LTM are different
(Baddeley’s 1966 study shows reasons we mess up words in STM and LTM are different)
-there is evidence that there is more that one STM store
Shallice and Warrington (1970)- studied patient KF, recall poor when digits read out but when he read them much better
- MSM does not mention elaborative rehearsal states all that matters is the time you rehearse
Craik and Watkins (1973) say the most important thing is the type of rehearsal
MSM does not fully explain how long term storage is achieved
types of LTM
who suggested there were three types of LTM? (T….)
What are they?
Tulving (1985), a cognitive [psychologist, suggested thst MSM was too simplistic in regards to LTM. said there were three types of LTM
episodic-
ability to recall events
time stamped
memories have to be consciously retrieved
semantic-
shared knowledge of the world
less vulnerable to distortion/forgetting
procedural-
memory for actions/skilled
eventually recalled without conscious awareness
evaluate the suggestion that there are different types of LTM
+ c…. evidence (two case studies)
+ r… w… a…. (helps psychologists..)
-conflicting n…. (linked…)
+clinical evidence
HM and Clive Wearing both had brain damage
episodic memory affected but semantic memory fine
+real-world application
understanding LTM allows psychologists to help people with memory problems
age, memory loss, specific to episodic memory
distinguishing between types of LTM helps treatment develop
-conflicting neuroimaging evidence
different psychologists have ,linked different areas of the brain to different types of LTM - therefore this is not conclusive
describe the working memory model (WMM)
sub units which are controlled by a central decision making system
central executive (CE)-
supvisory role
monitors incoming info and devides attention to ‘slave items’
phonological loop-
deals with auditory information
divides into : phonological store (storage) and articulatory process (maintenance rehearsal)
visuo-spatial sketchpad-
limited capacity 3/4 items
stores visual/spatial info
visual cache (storage) and inner scribe (records arrangements)
episodic buffer-
added by Baddeley in 2000
temporary store
brings info from other subsystems into a single memory
links working memory to LTM
evaluate the working memory model
+c…e…. (case study of … damage to …. so couldn’t….. but fine …. so could…..)
+d… t… p… (Baddeley, what were participants asked to do?)
-lack of clarity over….. (Baddeley quotation)
+clinical evidence
KF has poor processing of auditory info (phonological loop damaged) but could process visual info (visuo-spatial sketchpad)
+dual-task performance
Baddeley (1975)
participants did visual and verbal task separately
when same task (visual and visual) was done at same time, performance declined
because both tasks competed for same slave system
-lack of clarity over central executive
Baddeley (2003) ‘most important but least understood component of the working memory’
explain how ‘interference’ may cause forgetting
interference is when two pieces of information disrupt each other.
this means that one or both pieces of information are forgotten, or distortion is experienced
can explain forgetting info from LTM as although arguably the information is permanent, it is now harder to access due to interference
describe the two types of interference
proactive interference (PI)
older memories interfere with new ones
retroactive interference (RI)
new memories interfere with old ones
explain what McGeoch and Mcdonald found about interference (and similarity)
explainhow they investigated this
found that interference is worse when the memory/learning is similar
studied RI by changing similarities between two sets of materials
participants had to learn 10 words until 100% accurate, then given new list
interreference was strongest when memories were similar
explain the effects of similarity on interference (used to explain forgetting)
what two types of inteference could this be due to?
could be due to:
proactive interference (PI)- old info making it difficult to store new information
retroactive interference (RI)- new info overriding previous similar memories
(due to similarities in content)
using interference to explain forgetting- evaluation
+real world (rugby players)
+support from ….. (what did this prevent?)
- c…
+ real-world evidence
Badeley and Hitch (1977)
used rugby players
those who had played the most games (so most interference) had worst recall of team names
+support from drug studies
evidence of retrograde facilitation
participants given list of words and asked to recall (once time had gone so interference had happened)
some participants were given drug
drug improved recall as it prohibited new info from reaching the brain
-cues
interference is temporary and can be overcome by cues
Tulving and Psotka (1971)- learn list of words, when participants given cue, recall rose by 70%
explain the effect of cues on forgetting and how the lack of them may contribute to retrieval failure
when info is first placed in the memory, it is associated to cues
if these cues are not available at the time of recall, it may cause retrieval failure
Explain what is meant by ‘encoding specificity principle’ (ESP)
who came up with this?
Tulving (1983)
a cue must be present at (1) time of coding and at (2) the time of recall
if cues at encoding and recall are different, there will be some forgetting
explain:
context-dependent forgetting
state-dependent forgetting
context dependent forgetting:
recall depends on external cue (weather/place)
recall depends on internal cue
(feeling sad/drunk)
Godden and Baddeley - research on context-dependent forgetting
1975
studied deep sea divers to see if learning on land helped or hindered their learning
4 different conditions- recall 40% worse in non-matching conditions
learn land-recall land
learn land-recall sea
learn sea- recall land
learn sea-recall sea
demonstrates that if external cues are different at time of learning and retrieval, it can lead to retrieval failure
Carter and Cassaday (research on state-dependent forgetting)
1998
gave antihistamine drug to some participants
when there was a mismatch between learning and recall, performance was significantly worse
learn on drug, recall on drug
learn on drug, recall no drug
learn no drug, recall on drug
learn no drug, recall on no drug
retrieval failure (used as explanation for forgetting) - evaluation
+real world application
+research support
- r… vs r….
+ real-world application
see that cues can help overcome forgetting everyday forgetting
+research-support
lots of research that suggests retrieval failure is a big contributor to forgetting
-recall VS recognition
only applies when a person has to recall information not recognise it
may depend what type of memory is being tested
Godden and Baddeley repeated underwater experiment, when only recognition was being tested, there was no context-dependent effect
define ‘eye-witness testimony’ (EWT)
ability for people to remember details of events, such as a crime or an accident, which they themselves observed
explain research on misleading questions and how this may affect EWT
L….and P…
what was their study? (videos)
what were the findings? ‘contacted’/’smashed’
police may ‘direct’ a witness to give a particular answer
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
students shown same clip of car crash, when asked questioned, different verb was used…. smashed/collided/bumped
those who heard
‘contacted’- said mean speed was 31.8mph
‘smashed’ said mean speed was 40.5 mph
EWT:
explain
response-bias explanation
substitution explanation
response bias explanation-
has no effect on participants memories but changes the way in which they choose to answer
substitution explanation-
leading question changes memory of event
(those who heard ‘smashed’ more likely to report broken glass)
Research on post-event discussion (PED) and the impact on EWT
Gabbert- what was the study and what were the findings?
PED is when eye witnesses discuss details/experiences of an event
Gabbert (2003) studied participants in pairs
they watched the same video but from a different perspective
discussed together (PED)
and recalled separately
71% recalled information they did not see
when PED did not happen, 0% misinformation
(EWT)
explain :
memory conformity
memory contamination
memory conformity- Gabbert concluded that witnesses often go along with each other for social approval or belief that they are wrong, however the actual memory is not changed
memory contamination- after discussing together, eyewitness testimonies become altered or distorted
evaluate misleading information on EWT accuracy
+RWA
L…(197.) - questions have a ? effect
-evidence against s….
Sutherland and H… (2001)
recall was more accurate for ….
original memories were not …
-evidence challenging memory c….
Skagerberg and Wright (200.)
mugger clip , hair , what did they report?
+real-world application
practical use in the criminal justice system
Loftus (1975) argues that misleading questions can have distorting effect on memory, so police officers need to be careful when interviewing and how they phrase questions
-evidence against substitution
EWT is more accurate for some aspects of the event than others
Sutherland and Hayne (2001), found recall was more accurate for central details rather than peripheral ones
original memories were not distorted, an outcome which is not supported by the substitution explanation
- evidence challenging memory conformity
Skagerberg and Wright (2008)
participants shown clip, mugger had different hair shade
reported a ‘blend’ of the two shades, showing memory is distorted by contamination and not conformity
explain how anxiety may affect the accuracy of EWT (positive and negative)
positive:
fight or flight response causes alertness
may improve memory of event as we become more aware of cues in situation
Yuille and Cutshall (1986)
studied witnesses from real shooting in canada
those who had the highest anxiety levels, reported the highest amount of accurate information when asked 4-5 moths later (compared with original police interviews)
negative:
creates physiological arousal in body
prevents attention on cues- recall worse
Johnson and Scott (1976)
participants believe they’re taking part in lab study
group 1: casual conversation overheard, man walks out with pen and grease on hands
group 2: loud conversation, breaking glass, man walks out with knife and blood on hands
49% accurate recall for pen group
33% for knife group
