Memory

Question 1

Outline the method and findings of the duration study on STM

Answer 1

Peterson and Peterson 1959

• 24 psych students selected and given trigrams eg BVM and asked to recall them after 3,6,9,12,15,18sec
• given interference task bw being given trigrams and recalling them where they counted back in 3s from a 3digit number
• found after 3s recall was 80%
  and after 18s recall was 10%- suggests duration of STM is around 18s without rehearsal

Question 2

Evaluate the duration study for STM

Answer 2

• likely reliable as lab experiment so variables tightly controlled
• lacks ecological validity bcz trigrams artificial- suggests ‘meaningful’ or ‘real life’ info may last longer
• 1 typa stimulus used and STM duration may depend on stimulus type. Also p(s) saw many trigrams so possible they got confused making the 1st trigram only realistic trial
• lacks populational validity bcz uni students were used and they’re expected to be smarter than average. Likely if different grp used different results would occur

Question 3

Outline the method and findings of the duration study on LTM

Answer 3

Bahrick et al

• 392 American ex-highskl students asked to freely recall names of classmates.
• they were shown photos from annual yearbooks and asked to name the person in photo or given names and asked to match them to the photos
• Found after 14yrs, ex-students were able to recall 90% of the names
• after 48yrs, recall was 70%.
• suggests LTM can be lifelong for some materials

Question 4

Evaluate the duration study for LTM

Answer 4

• High ecological validity bcz real life task where you rmbr ppl and names and better than studies with trivial non-realistic tasks
• possible classmates had seen each other in reunions/events making the results less valid as this woulda add to LTM

Question 5

Outline the methods and findings for the research on capacity for STM

Answer 5

Jacobs 1887
- measured digit span where he was investigating how many digits we can rmbr after hearing them
- found digit span of STM to be bw 5 to 9 chunks of info and that we can rmbr digits better than letters

Miller 1956
- reviewed studies on the capacity of STM
- concluded capacity of STM is magic#7 with plus or minus 2 chunks of info- this accords with things we rmbr in everyday life eg 7d a week or 7 deadly sins

Question 6

Evaluate the research on the capacity of STM

Answer 6

• low ecological validity bcz artificial tasks- info is meaningless and if meaning was attached, maybe it’ll be rmbrd more accurately
• individual differences- STM capacity may not be the same for everyone. Jacobs found 8yr olds on average rmbr 6.6 digits and 19yr olds rmbr 8.6 digits suggesting age is an important factor and therefore results aren’t valid for every age group, therefore lacks populational validity

Question 7

Outline the method and findings on the research of coding in memory

Answer 7

Baddeley 1966

AIM= to c if LTM encodes acoustically or semantically

• 72 male and female p(s) given list of words to recall
• Each list contained 10words and given to 4 diff grps:
  1) acoustically similar words
  2) acoustically dissimilar words- control group1
  3) semantically similar words
  4) semantically dissimilar words- control group2
• p(s) asked to recall list immediately (testing STM) or after 20m interval (testing LTM)
• Grp1 immediate recall- found hard to recall suggesting STM encodes acoustically so if words too similar, harder to organise and recall. BUT, after 20m(LTM) recall of acoustically similar words better bcz LTM doesn’t code acoustically so wasn’t confused by acoustically similar words
• grp3 immediate recall- didn’t struggle but when tested after 20m performed less well suggesting LTM encodes semantically so when words semantically similar it becomes confusing and harder to code as similarity muddles things up

Question 8

Evaluate the study on coding

Answer 8

• LTM was tested after 20m before asking p(s) to recall and 20m not enough to test LTM
• Ecological validity q’able as learning random words doesn’t represent rmbring info irl. Maybe in everyday tasks STM doesn’t rely on acoustic coding and LTM doesn’t rely on semantic coding
• Strength is the research was used as a basis on the development of WMM by Baddeley and Hitch

Question 9

Outline the types of LTM

Answer 9

Tulving 1985
proposed LTM made of 3 stores:

• Episodic- ability recall events/experiences- likened to a diary. Time stamped (rmbr when it happened and specific details). in this 3 elements interlinked: specific details of event, context and emotion attached to episode. Conscious effort to recall.
• Semantic- Generic memory/ knowledge of world eg taste of food or meanings of words. Not time stamped. Conscious effort recall.
• Procedural- linked to performing actions/skills eg riding bike. Unconscious recall and involves repetition n practice

Question 10

Evaluate the types of LTM

Answer 10

• Tulving 1994 - p(s) performed memory tasks n brain scanned using PET scanner simultaneously. Found:
  Left prefrontal cortex = responsible semantic memory recall
  right prefrontal cortex = episodic memory recall
  Cerebellum n motor cortex = associated w procedural memory
  This confirmed by other studies using brain scans so supports there’s diff LTMs in brain
• w Clive Wearing (CW) we saw divisions in STM as some parts worked better than others n also w his LTM. His procedural memory was fine (rmbrd to read and play music) and semantic fine too. episodic impaired- couldn’t recall key events from past. this supports divisions of LTM
• Division of LTM has irl benefits:
  Belleville et all 2006 showed old ppl w mild cog impairment could improve episodic memory after memory training like keeping diary w pics of past personal events so studying these helps regain episodic memory and compared to control grp that didn’t get training. This used to help p(s) dementia and irl application is strength of this study

Question 11

Outline the multi store model (MSM)

Answer 11

Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968 proposed 3 memory stores:

Info passes between each store in linear way

• Sensory register- info from env (visual/auditory) goes into sensory register and most info doesn’t get attention so isn’t registered. if registered, info passes to STM
• STM store- STM has limited capacity so info in fragile state (Miller capacity bw 5-9chunks of info),
  limited duration (Peterson&Peterson 18s w/o rehearsal). If info rehearsed, goes to LTM. More it’s rehearsed, longer memory will last.
  Rehearsals mostly verbal (Maintenance Rehearsal helps increase our STM of thing being rehearsed and then prolonged rehearsal transfers it to LTM)
• LTM store- Atkinson and Shiffrin claim there’s direct relationship bw amount rehearsed in STM and strength of LTM. In retrieval it moved to STM again when needed

Question 12

Evaluate the multi store model

Answer 12

• Beardsley found w brain scans prefrontal cortex active when STM’s worked
  similar research shows hippocampus active when LTM, therefore supports they’re separate memory stores
• Baddeley supports distinction bw LTM n STM as diff stores bcz they showed diff forms of coding. Studies like Miller (Capacity), Bahrick et all (duration) supports LTM&STM as separate stores proposed by MSM
• Clive Wearing case= irl support of MSM bcz his STM was limited but LTM was better proving they’re separate stores. Bcz of virus he could only rmbr info for roughly 30s but rmbrd wife’s name and other past info.
  Whilst could no longer transfer info effectively bw stores, he could retrieve much of LTM info- this supports idea of separate memory stores, memory’s linear and supports MSM
• KF’s case showed STM can be divided further so challenges idea of STM as 1 memory store. He got amnesia after motorbike accident- if digits read to him (acoustic) couldn’t rmbr well but if he read himself (visual) recall was better. Suggests STM’s subdivided with diff parts responsible for visual and acoustic stimuli that MSM doesn’t account for
• Later studies showed LTM’s subdivided into episodic (personal events) and procedural (skills/abilities) therefore MSM seen as oversimplified but still arguably a good starting point
• over-relies on rehearsal- irl we not necessarily rehearsing again n again for LTM
• Research on MSM clear experimental reductionism bcz aims to explain complex behaviour by relying on isolated variables operationalised in lab experiments eg capacity of STM.
  Memory’s complex phenomena so psychs argue reducing it to isolated variables undermines complexity n dont give us comprehensive understanding of memory in everyday contexts

Question 13

Outline the Working memory model (WMM)

Answer 13

Baddeley and Hitch 1974 proposed the STM has range of diff stores. WMM’s part used when working on complex tasks where store info as u go eg multi-step math qs
- They conducted ‘dual task’ studies. showed 2 visual tasks cause confusion but if auditory and visual manage better cos diff parts of memory so no interference. As such they suggested separate stores for visual and auditory processing

Central executive- component of WMM responsible for allocating resources to tasks. limited capacity and coordinates 3 slave systems:

• Phonological loop -processes auditory info. Deals w learning phonics, links w LTM to store/retrieve info. Acoustic coding.
  Divided into phonological store( stores words u can hear) and articulatory process (allows maintenance rehearsal.
  Capacity believed to be 2sec of what u can say so has limited capacity
• Visuo-spatial sketchpad- stores visual/spatial info in mental space (inner eye). limited capacity. Spatial info is the relationship u make bw thing u visualise eg if some1 says think of suin warm-blanket
• Episodic buffer- brings together acoustic and visual info into single memory. provides bridge bw WMM and LTM. like extra storage system but limited capacity.

Question 14

Evaluate Working memory model

Answer 14

• Baddeley and Hitch 1974 from dual task studies found 2 tasks requiring p(s) to use phonological loop, ability to perform tasks impaired.
  When 1 task requires phonological loop and other requires VSS (visuo spatial sketchpad) performance not impaired- supports idea of diff components of STM
• Central executive idea is vague. WMM only details STM so is limited explanation of memory cos not enough focus on LTM or sensory register
• Support for WMM= KF case acoustic and visual memory is diff stores in STM and LTM and STM separate too (detail this in essay)
• most evidence from p(s) w brain damage so can’t make comparisons of behaviour b4 n after damage as client’s only participant after damage done so cause n effect can’t be est’d
  eg is damage to the brain that caused impairment bcz of where damage occurred? eg motorcycle accident

Question 15

Outline Forgetting: Interference theory

Answer 15

Explains forgetting in LTM.
Interference= forgetting bcz 1 memory blocks other causing 1 or both to be distorted/forgotten. likely when 2 pieces info similar

Types of Interference:
- PROACTIVE- Old memory interferes w new eg teacher confuse names of students w old students
eg Keppel and Underwood 1962 p(s) given trigrams at diff intervals. Counted back in 3s to not rehearse b4 recalling. typically rmbrd trigrams 1st presented with irrespective of interval length- suggests proactive interference occurred as memory for earlier consonants interfered w memory for new consonants bcz of similarity of info

• RETROACTIVE- new memory impacts old eg teacher learn new names so forgets name of previous students
  eg McGeoch n McDonald 1931 P(s) learnt 10words then given List B. when B contained similar words to A, recall for A= 12% and when B contained numbers recall for A= 37%. Shows interference likelier to occur when items being recalled r similar

Question 16

Evaluate Forgetting: Interference theory

Answer 16

• Support: 1000s studies done in labs where EVs controlled so we can conclude interference theory reliable explanation of forgetting
• But cos lab, artificial tasks therefore theory lacks ecological validity so not applicable to irl
• Support: Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall names of opposition players they played. Players w most matches had worst recall bcz more interference so is good support for validity of theory as irl situ
• theory ignores impact of time- most studies time bw learning and recall short for practicality but irl we don’t learn n then recall straight away and we’ve lots of old stores memories that may help rmbr or interfere. unclear how inference works w these variables

Question 17

Outline forgetting: Retrieval failure theory

Answer 17

• if specific cues not present during recall, may cause retrieval failure eg visitor door rings, give msg to mum but forget, door rings again n rmbr, bell = cue
  Sometimes depends on env memory made eg up for laundry, forget n down, then rmbr, down = cue
  memory n cue stored atst- theory suggests we forget cos insufficient cues eg cue card to jog memory for exams. Psychs suggest exam should occur in same room lessons taught so room is cue

Tulving n Thompson 1973 found pattern called encoding specificity principle- cue must be present during coding and retrieval- forgetting occurs if cue not available at both

Cues can b:
- context dependant (external/env)
- state dependant (internal)

• Context-dependant forgetting:
  likelier to recall if go same place memory made.
  Support= Godden n Baddeley 1975 diver learnt word lists:
  1) learn on land recall land
  2) land then recall water
  3) water recall water
  4) water recall land
  Found 40% recall in non-matching conditions suggesting if contexts diff from place of learning, can lead to retrieval failure then forgetting cos of lack of context dependant cues
• state-dependant forgetting: internal state we in eg mental/emotional
  Goodwin et al 1969 p(s) to recall words when drunk or sober after 24hrs. Drunk couldn’t rmbr when sober n vice versa. shows mental state can be cue for retrieving info and forgetting can occur if cue not present

Question 18

Evaluate Forgetting: Retrieval failure theory

Answer 18

• Support: Hella research on theory w hella methods eg lab, natural shows relevance of theory to everyday rmbring.
  Irl study by Abernethey 1940 found students who took exams in same room where taught w same teacher there, has higher performance chance in exams showing irl application but unlikely to occur
• Smith 1979 found even in think of room where originally learnt, it’s enough of cue in exam for effective recall
• Irl app= cues used in fed interview w eyewitness told to mentally reinstate context saw crime and sometimes physically taken to jog memory and retrieve cues that were present
• Baddeley 1977 argues evidence for context link n forgetting is exaggerated eg his diver study unrealistic cos context of land water so extreme compared to normal differences eg class n hall so not transferable
• Methodological evaluation of diver study was repeated measures design (divers took part in 4conditions). possible they knew aim of study and showed demand characteristics. by 4th trial, may have display practice effects (recall improve cos repeated so many times) n fatigue effects (results decline cos bored)
• forgetting theories nomothetic and tries make general laws regarding forgetting for all humans- oversimplistic esp bcz samples r small.
  idiographic approach better where investigate diff p(s) of diff ages, cultures, education lvls bcz forgetting complex and individual differences may play important part

Question 19

Outline the eyewitness testimony (EWT)

Answer 19

Refers to eyewitnesses giving evidence in court to identify someone that committed crime.

1) Loftus n Palmer 1974
Aim= to test if lang in EWT alters memory
- 45 USA students shown clips of car accidents and given questionnaire
- a critical q asked them to describe how fast cars were driving. 5 grps given diff verb each:
smashed= 40.8
bumped = 38
contacted = 31.8
collided = 39.3
hit = 34
^ mean speed estimates
- showed sig differences in estimated speed of car recalled by witnesses depending on form of q used showing recall can be distorted by wording of q

2) - 150 new p(s) followed similar procedure to above
- 3 conditions: smashed, hit, control group w no q asked
- 1w later p(s) returned, asked series of qs. critical being if they saw broken glass (none was there)
hit= 7
smash = 16
control = 6
suggests misleading info can change way info stored in memory

Question 20

Evaluate the EWT

Answer 20

• Loftus and her colleagues made v important contribution to understanding limits of EWT which can have important implications for way feds q witnesses so made pos difference to our lives as a whole
• low ecological validity bcz artificial eg recalling in court more tense than lab
  seeing crime vid diff from irl n won’t produce same emotions impact- factors could make recall more/less accurate. For ethical/practical reasons, reproducing crime witnessing in realistic way than in lab v hard- therefore validity of EWT research for irl q’able
• Witnesses interviewed shortly after incident but irl could have huge delay where process of giving testimony in court is lot longer after witness saw crime and so they have more time to forget info
• individual differences not considered- some witnesses obvs more vulnerable eg kids may accept misleading info from adult bcz fears their authority
  Roberts and Lamb 1999 investigated interviews w kids w alleged child abuse. Found hella distortions of child’s words being misinterpreted in 2/3 of cases n child failed to correct adult. eg child said ‘in private’ it was interpreted as ‘in the privates’- suggests individual differences exist in effect of misleading info on EWTs
• Loftus- used only USA students so lacks pop validity n they’re not experienced drivers so older experienced drivers may’ve better estimates of car speed so results can’t be generalised
• Gabert et al 2003 some witnesses discuss w eachother version of what happened (post event discussion). Research showed this can contaminate EWT bcz info from others can alter memories of event
  -p(s) watched vid of same crime individually (control) / in pairs (co witnesses)
  -told they saw same vid but w diff details. co-witness grp encouraged to discuss what saw after they were questioned individually
  -71% witnesses in co-witness grp recalled wrong info compared to 0% in control grp- shows post event discussion can weaken accuracy of EWT

Question 21

Outline the effect of anxiety on EWT

Answer 21

studies found anxiety has neg effect on memory n performance generally-suggests if crime involves weapon anxiety of witness increases so accuracy decreases

Johnson n Scott 1976
AIM= investigate effects of weapons on accuracy recall:

• p(s) were seated n whilst waiting ‘overheard’ argument in next room
• low anxiety condition: convo about equipment failure n man walked thru waiting room carrying a pen
• high anxiety: heard argument, breaking glass, crashing chairs, man came out room carrying knife covered in blood
• P(s) shown 50pics to identify man that left lab
  FOUND:
  low anxiety: 49% correct
  high anxiety: 33% correct
  suggests anxiety experienced due to knife affected recall (WEAPON FOCUS EFFECT)

contrary, Christianson n Hubinette 1993:

• questioned 58 real witnesses to bank robberies in Sweden
  -Found: witnesses who were threatened in some way were more accurate in recall(rmbrd more details compared to spectators-they less emotionally effected)
• even after 15months, the former’s recall was better-suggests emotional arousal may enhance accuracy of memory
• Deffenbacher suggests contradiction bw the 2 studies could be related to Yerkes Dodson Law (anxiety can boost performance upto certain optimum lvl- further increase will reduce performance)
  eg in exams need some anxiety to focus but too much anxiety can ruin performance

Question 22

Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT

Answer 22

• Peters 1998 supports Yerkes Dodson Law. Ppl attending clinic for infection met nurse who gave it n met researcher for equal time periods. 1w later, p(s) aired to identify nurse and researchers from pics.
  found: ez to recognise researcher than nurse- suggests anxiety due to injection lead to decrease in memory recall
• Johnson n Scott’slab based so arguable didn’t create anxiety p(s) claimed to have- may’ve guessed aim of study so affects validity n application to irl scenarios- weakens support for weapon focus effect
• Yuille n Cutshall 1986 contract weapon focus effect.
  21 witnesses to robbery n shooting interviewed by feds. 13 of em then took part in follow up interview 4-5month later n this only affected minor details so anxiety undergone at the time didn’t affect recall

Question 23

Outline the cognitive interview (CI)

Answer 23

Geiselman et al 1985 developed CI to enhance EWT accuracy:
1) REPORT EVERYTHING: witnesses told to give every detail even if seems irrelevant
2) CONTEXT REINSTATEMENT: imagine crime scene n env to recreate incident eg weather
3) CHANGE PERSPECTIVE: look at event from someone else POV eg offender
4) CHANGE THE ORDER: asked to recall event reverse chronological

1&2 based on principle consistency bw incident n recreated situ will boost accuracy of recall (rmbr more detail). This based on retrieval failure theory and cue-dependent memory concept
3&4 diff routes in EWT memory to boost recall so it prevents witnesses j recalling their schemas n instead boosts chances of recalling what acc occurred.
Schema= way we make sense of info we exposed to- subjective bcz based on experiences n stereotypes so not best for EWT, so changing POV can help negate effects of this

Question 24

evaluate the cognitive interview (CI)

Answer 24

• Geiselman 1985 showed that of students who watched crime vid, p(s) interviewed 2d later w CI instead of standard police interview recalled info more accurate- suggested CI better to extract info from witnesses accurately so has irl potential
• further supported by Fisher et al 1989where detectives recorded real police interviews using standard technique. They were then divided in 2grp.
  Grp1= trained w CI
  Grp2= standard
  FOUND:
  Grp1 elicited 46% more info than grp2 n it was 90% more accurate suggesting CI highly effective for EWT recall
• Memon et al 1994 find experienced detectives using CI didn’t have any sig improvement compared to standard-suggests advantage associated w CI not conclusive n depends on experience of officer
• CI requires officers to be trained (means time n £) whilst many forces lack resources for this explaining why not commonly used