Memory Flashcards
CCD- coding-
One strength?
CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO MEMORY STORES. Later research showed explanation for Baddley findings, STM= acoustic and LTM= semantic has high temporal validity
CCD- coding-
One limitation?
ARTIFICIAL STIMULI. Word lists has no personal link to the participants. So cannot tell us more about different memory stores, especially in everyday life. When memories are more meaningful we use semantic coding for STM too.
CCD- capacity-
One strength?
CAN BE REPLICATED (Jacobs). Very old and lacked adequate controls, for example may contain confounding variables, due to something like the participants being distracted. Research has been confirmed by other controlled studies (Bopp and Verhaegen (2005)).
CCD- capacity-
One limitation?
NOT SO MANY CHUNKS. Millers research overestimated. Cowan (2001), reviewed others research and concluded that STM capacity is around. 4 plus/minus 1 chunks.
CCD- duration-
One strength?
HIGH EXTERNAL VALIDITY (bahrick). This is because meaningful memories were investigated. Meaningless pictures had lower recall (sheltered (1967)).
CCD- duration-
One limitation?
MEANINGLESS TIMULI IN STM STIDY (Peterson). Not totally meaningless as we sometimes remember meaningless information. Consonant shallows does not reflect everyday life. So lacks external validity.
MSM-
One strength?
SUPPORTED BY STUDIES SHOWING STM ANS LTM ARE DIFFERENT. Baddley (1966), found we mix up words that sound similar in our LTM, and words that mean similar things in our LTM. Shows clear seperation
MSM-
Two limitations?
EVIDENCE OF MORE THAN ONE STM STORE. Shallice and Warrington (1970), use KF (who had amnesia). KFs STM for digit span was bad when it was read out to him, but was much better when he read them out to himself. Shows a possible memory store for non-verbal noises.
PROLONGED REHEARSAL IS NOT NEEDED TO TRANSFER DATA TO THE LTM. MSM stated the amount of rehearsal is important (prolonged rehearsal). Craik and Watkins (1973), downs elaborative rehearsal is needed for long term storage, this is linking knowledge to existing knowledge.
WMM-
Two strengths?
CLINICAL EVIDENCE. KF (shallice and Warrington) poor o audio ray processing but could process visual information fine. His phonological loop was damaged, but his visuospatial sketchpad was fine.
DUEL TASK PERFORMANCE SUPPORT. Baddley (1975), pps carried out a a visual and verbal task at the same time, their performance was similar, but when both were visual or verbal performance declined substantially.
WMM-
One limitation?
NATURE OF THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE. Baddley (2003), CE is the most important but the least understood. Needs to be more specialised than attention. Som psychologists believe it may consist of different sub components.
Explanations of forgetting- interference-
Two strengths?
REAL WORLD INTERFERENCE. Baddley and Hitch (1977), asked rugby players to name teams they had played against in a season, tha players who had played the most games had the poorest recall. This increases validity.
SUPPORT FROM DRUG STUDIES. Coenen and Van Luijtelaar (1997), gave pps a list to recall. Found when list was learned influenced by drugs (diazepan), (compared with a placebo control group), recall was poor. Found when list was learned before taking the drug, the recall was better than the placebo group one week later. Wixted (2004), suggested that the drug prevents new information reaching part of the brain that involved preserving information, so cannot go through RI.
Explanations of forgetting- interference-
One limitation?
INTERFERENCE AND CUES. Tulsi g and Psotka (1971), gave a list of words organised into categories (pps were not told what the categories were). Recall was 70% for the first list, but became worse as as more lists were learnt. At the end they were then given a cued recall test, the recall rose to about 70% again. Shows a temporary loss of accessibility.
Explanations of forgetting- retrieval failure- ESP-
Two strengths?
REAL-WORLD APPLICATION. Cues may not have a very strong effect on forgetting, Baddley suggested they are still worth paying attention to. When we forget something it is worth making the effort to recall the environment in which we first learnt it.
RESEARCH SUPPORT. Golden and Baddley and Carter and Cassaday are two examples which show a lack of relevant cues at recall can lead to context/state dependant forgetting. Eyesenk and Keane (2010), states retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting in the LTM.
Explanations of forgetting- retrieval failure- ESP-
One limitation?
RECALL VS RECOGNITION. Godden and Baddley (1980), replicated their underwater experiment, but used a recognition test instead of a recall one (had to say if they recognised a word from a list when read our). They found no context dependant effect, performance was the same in all four conditions.
ET- misleading information-
One strength?
REAL WORLD APPLICATION. Loftus (1975), leading questions have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers need to be very careful. Psychologists are somethings asked to be expert witnesses in court trials.
