Memory Flashcards
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Baddeley’s (1966) research on coding.
PROCEDURE
- ptps asked to recall word lists in correct order
- group 1 (acoustically similar): words sounded similar
- group 2 (acoustically dissimilar): word sounded different
- group 3 (semantically similar): words with similar meanings
- group 4 (semantically dissimilar): words with different meanings
FINDINGS
- when recalled immediately (recalling from STM), tended to do worse with acoustically similar words
- when recalling after a time interval of 20 mins (recalling from LTM) tended to do worse with semantically similar words
CONCLUSION
- information is coded acoustically in STM and semantically in LTM
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Jacob’s (1887) research on capacity.
- measured digit span
PROCEDURE
- researcher reads out 4 digits
- ptp recalls them in the correct order
- if correct, researcher reads out 5 digits, etc, until ptp gets it wrong
- indicates ptp’s digit span
FINDINGS
- mean digit span for all ptps was 9.3 ITEMS
- mean span for letters was 7.3
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Miller’s (1956) research on capacity (not usual format of APFC).
- span of memory and chunking
- made observations of everyday practice, e.g. 7 notes on musical scale, 7 deadly sins, 7 days of the week
- Miller thought that the span (i.e. capacity) of STM is about 7±2
- also noted that people can recall 5 words just as easily as 5 letters: chunking (grouping)
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Peterson and Peterson’s (1959) research on duration.
DURATION OF STM
PROCEDURE
- 24 students in 8 trials
- student given a consonant syllable (e.g. YCG) and a 3-digit number to remember
- student counted backwards from that number to prevent any maintenance rehearsal of the consonant syllable (which would increase the duration of STM)
- on each trial they were told to stop after varying periods of time: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 seconds (retention interval)
FINDINGS
- after 3 seconds, average recall was 80%
- after 18 seconds average recall was 3%
CONCLUSIONS
- STM duration may be 18 secs without maintenance rehearsal
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Bahrick et al’s (1975) research on duration.
DURATION OF LTM
PROCEDURE
- 392 American ptps
- aged 17-74
- high school yearbooks obtained from ptps directly or through schools
- recall tested in various ways including: 1) photo-recognition using 50 photos, some from ptps’ yearbook, 2) free recall test, where ptps recalled all the names of their graduating class
FINDINGS
Photo recognition test:
- after 15 years, 90% accuracy
- after 48 years, recall declined to 70%
Free recall test:
- less accurate overall
- after 15 years, 60% accuracy
- after 48 years, 30%
CONCLUSION
- duration of LTM may last up to a lifetime for some material
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Evaluate research on coding.
Baddeley (1966)
STRENGTH: identified clear difference between two memory stores
- idea that STM uses mostly acoustic coding and LTM uses mostly semantic coding has stood the test of time
~~> important step in our understanding of memory system, led to MSM
BUT: artificial stimuli
- word lists have no personal meaning to ptps
- findings may tell us nothing about coding of meaningful kinds of memory tasks in everyday life
~~> findings have limited application
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Evaluate research on capacity.
Jacobs (1887) & Miller (1956)
LIMITATION: Jacobs’ study has low temporal validity
BUT has been replicated:
- findings have been confirmed by other (better controlled) studies
- e.g. Bopp and Verhaeghen 2005
~~> Jacobs’ study is a valid test of capacity/digit span of STM
LIMITATION: Miller may have overestimated capacity of STM
- unscientific, weak evidence
PLUS: Cowan (2001) reviewed other research and concluded capacity of STM is only about 4(±1) chunks
- lower end of Miller’s research (five items) is more appropriate than 7 items
~~> reduced credibility due to weak and invalid evidence
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Evaluate research on duration.
Peterson and Peterson (1959) & Bahrick et al. (1975)
LIMITATION: meaningless stimuli in STM study
- recalling consonant syllables doesn’t reflect most everyday memory activities where what we’re trying to remember is meaningful
~~> Peterson and Peterson’s study lacked ecological validity
STRENGTH: LTM study has high external validity
- researchers investigated meaningful memories (ppl’s names and faces)
- Shepard (1967): when LTM study conducted with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates were lower
BUT: culture bias, only US ptps
- same in every culture?
~~> Bahrick’s findings reflect a more ‘real’ estimate of the duration of LTM but to an extent
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Complete the following sentences
The coding of STM is…
The coding of LTM is…
The capacity of STM is…
The capacity of LTM is…
The duration of STM is…
The duration of LTM is…
The coding of STM is… ACOUSTIC
The coding of LTM is… SEMANTIC
The capacity of STM is… 7±2 CHUNKS
The capacity of LTM is… POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED
The duration of STM is… 18 SECONDS
The duration of LTM is… UP TO A LIFETIME
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Match the researcher to the research
Baddeley et al (1966)
Jacobs (1887)
Miller (1956)
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
Bahrick et al (1975)
Bopp and Verhaeghen (2005)
Cowan (2001)
Shepard (1967)
____________________________________
- reviewed other research and concluded that the capacity of STM is only about 4(±1) chunks
- measured the capacity of STM by measuring digit span, found mean digit span to be 9.3 items and mean letter span to be 7.3 letters
- measured duration of LTM by doing recall tests using high school yearbooks, found the duration of LTM to be up to a lifetime
- measured duration of STM by making ptps remember consonant syllables while counting backwards, found duration of STM to be 18 seconds without maintenance rehearsal
- conducted LTM study with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall was lower than they were for meaningful stimuli
- confirmed Jacobs’ findings with their better, more controlled replica of his study
- researched coding of STM and LTM using word lists which differed in acoustic similarity then semantic similarity, found coding of STM to be mainly acoustic and LTM to be mainly semantic
- observed 7 as a magical number (7 days of the week, 7 notes on musical scale, 7 deadly sins), said that the span/capacity of STM is 7±2, noticed the idea of chunking
Baddeley et al (1966): researched coding of STM and LTM using word lists which differed in acoustic similarity then semantic similarity, found coding of STM to be mainly acoustic and LTM to be mainly semantic
Jacobs (1887): measured the capacity of STM by measuring digit span, found mean digit span to be 9.3 items and mean letter span to be 7.3 letters
Miller (1956): observed 7 as a magical number (7 days of the week, 7 notes on musical scale, 7 deadly sins), said that the span/capacity of STM is 7±2, noticed the idea of chunking
Peterson and Peterson (1959): measured duration of STM by making ptps remember consonant syllables while counting backwards, found duration of STM to be 18 seconds without maintenance rehearsal
Bahrick et al (1975): measured duration of LTM by doing recall tests using high school yearbooks, found the duration of LTM to be up to a lifetime
Bopp and Verhaegen (2005): confirmed Jacobs’ findings with their better, more controlled replica of his study
Cowan (2001): reviewed other research and concluded that the capacity of STM is only about 4(±1) chunks
Shepard (1967): conducted LTM study with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall was lower than they were for meaningful stimuli
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline what is meant by the Sensory Register (SR).
- all environmental stimuli pass through SR
- comprised of stores for each of the 5 senses (e.g. iconic, echoic)
- duration is less than 1/2 second
- capacity is very high (over 100 million cells storing data in one eye)
- info only passes through if we pay attention
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline what is meant by the Short-term Memory (STM).
- limited-capacity memory store
- coding is mainly acoustic
- capacity is 7±2 chunks
- duration is 18 seconds
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline what is meant by the Long-term Memory (LTM).
- permanent memory store
- coding is mainly semantic
- capacity is potentially unlimited
- duration is up to a lifetime
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline one strength of the Multi-Store Model of memory, regarding supportive research.
STRENGTH: research support
- Baddeley (1966): we mix up words that sound similar when using our STM
- but we mix up words with similar meanings when we use our LTM
- further support from other research on duration and capacity of STM and LTM
~~> clearly there are separate stores for STM and LTM, as suggested by MSM
HOWEVER: artificial stimuli
- stimuli used in studies have no personal meaning to ptps
~~> MSM may not be a valid model for how memory works in our everyday lives when we have to remember meaningful info
LIMITATION: more than one STM store
- Shallice and Warrington (1970): studied patient KF (amnesia)
- KF’s STM for digits was poor when they were read TO him, but much better when HE read the digits to himself
~~> MSM is wrong in claiming that there is just one STM store processing different types of info
FURTHERMORE: WMM offers a more realistic explanation for STM
- encompasses these separate STM stores (phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad)
THEREFORE: MSM incomplete explanation, WMM better
LIMITATION: more than one type of LTM
- not just LTM but there are different types which MSM doesn’t include
- Baddeley and Hitch (1974): procedural, semantic and episodic
- incomplete explanation of memory, too simple
FURTHERMORE: elaborative rehearsal over prolonged rehearsal
- Craik and Watkins (1973): type of rehearsal is more important than the amount
- elaborative rehearsal is needed for transfer to LTM (linking new info to existing knowledge/thinking about what it means) rather than prolonged rehearsal (rehearsal for a long time)
- therefore info can be transferred to LTM without prolonged rehearsal
~~> MSM offers a limited explanation of LTM, so reduced credibility
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline one limitation of the Multi-Store Model of memory, regarding the simplicity of STM.
LIMITATION: more than one STM store
- Shallice and Warrington (1970): studied patient KF (amnesia)
- KF’s STM for digits was poor when they were read TO him, but much better when HE read the digits to himself
~~> MSM is wrong in claiming that there is just one STM store processing different types of info
FURTHERMORE: Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM offers a more realistic explanation for STM
- encompasses these separate STM stores (phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad)
THEREFORE: MSM incomplete explanation, WMM better
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline one limitation of the Multi-Store Model of memory, regarding the simplicity of LTM.
LIMITATION: more than one type of LTM
- not just LTM but there are different types which MSM doesn’t include
- Tulving (1985): procedural, semantic and episodic
- incomplete explanation of memory, too simple
FURTHERMORE: elaborative rehearsal over prolonged rehearsal
- Craik and Watkins (1973): type of rehearsal is more important than the amount
- elaborative rehearsal is needed for transfer to LTM (linking new info to existing knowledge/thinking about what it means) rather than prolonged rehearsal (rehearsal for a long time)
- therefore info can be transferred to LTM without prolonged rehearsal
~~> MSM offers a limited explanation of LTM, so reduced credibility
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Match the researcher to the research
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
Baddeley (1966)
Shallice and Warrington (1970)
Craik and Watkins (1973)
_______________________________________________________________
- found that elaborative rehearsal is needed for long-term storage rather than prolonged rehearsal
- their research on coding provided support for the MSM by showing that the STM and LTM were separate stores
- studied amnesia patient KF, whose STM was poor when digits were read TO him but better when HE read the digits to himself
- created the MSM, which describes how info flows through the memory system, suggested to be comprised of the SR, STM and LTM
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968): created the MSM, which describes how info flows through the memory system, suggested to be comprised of the SR, STM and LTM
Baddeley (1966): their research on coding provided support for the MSM by showing that the STM and LTM were separate stores
Shallice and Warrington (1970): studied amnesia patient KF, whose STM was poor when digits were read TO him but better when HE read the digits to himself
Craik and Watkins (1973): found that elaborative rehearsal is needed for long-term storage rather than prolonged rehearsal
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Name the 4 components of Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM.
Central Executive (CE)
Phonological Loop (PL)
Visuo-spatial Sketchpad (VSS)
Episodic Buffer (EB)
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline the role of the Central Executive in Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM.
Central Executive
- ‘supervisory role’
- monitoring incoming data
- focuses and divides our limited attention
- allocates subsystems to tasks
- limited capacity, doesn’t store info
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline the role of the Phonological Loop in Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM.
PHONOLOGICAL LOOP
- deals with AUDITORY info
- coding = acoustic
- divided into Phonological Store (stores words we hear) and Articulatory Process (allows for maintenance rehearsal - repeating sounds in a loop to remember them)
- Articulatory Process has a capacity of 2 secs
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline the role of the Visuo-spatial Sketchpad in Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM.
VISUO-SPATIAL SKETCHPAD
- deals with VISUAL (and/or spatial) info
- (e.g. “How many windows are in your house?” you’d visualise it)
- limited capacity, 3 or 4 objects
- divided into Visual Cache (stores visual data) and Inner Scribe (records arrangements of objects in the visual field)
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline the role of the Episodic Buffer in Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM.
EPISODIC BUFFER
- temporary store of info
- integrates info from other stores and maintains time sequencing
- capacity of 4 chunks
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline one strength of Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM, regarding supportive clinical evidence.
STRENGTH: clinical evidence of patient KF
- Shallice and Warrington (1970): KF had poor STM ability for auditory info but normal ability for visual info
- e.g. immediate recall of digits was better when he read them himself, rather than having them head to him
- KF’s PL was damaged but his VSS was intact
~~> strongly supports existence of separate visual and acoustic stores
HOWEVER: possibility of other factors
- unclear whether KF had other cognitive impairments (other than PL) which might have affected his performance on memory tasks, because his injury was caused by a motorcycle accident
- the trauma involved may have affected his cognitive performance rather than the brain injury
~~> challenges evidence from clinical studies of ppl with brain injuries
THEREFORE: credibility of WMM is reduced due to weakened supportive evidence
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline one strength of Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM, regarding dual-task performance studies.
STRENGTH: dual-task performance studies
- Baddeley et al (1975): when ptps carried out a visual and a verbal task at the same time (dual task), their performance was similar to when they carried out the tasks separately
- but when both tasks were visual (or both verbal), performance on both declined substantially
- this is because both visual tasks compete for the same subsystem (VSS)
- but there is no competition when performing the visual and verbal tasks together
~~> there must be a separate subsystem for processing visual data (VSS) and verbal data (PL)
HOWEVER: artificial setting and task
- lab studies: unnatural setting for ptp
- meaningless stimuli (digit span, recalling letters etc)
- low ecological validity
THEREFORE: credibility of the WMM is reduced due to the supportive evidence having limited generalisability to real-world settings
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline one limitation of Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM, regarding lack of clarity over CE.
LIMITATION: lack of clarity over central executive
- Baddeley (2003) “The CE is the most important but the least understood component of working memory”
- needs to be more clearly specified than being just simply ‘attention’
- e.g. some psychologists believe the CE may consist of separate subcomponents
~~> CE is an unsatisfactory component and this challenges the integrity of the WMM
HOWEVER: more comprehensive than MSM
- WMM appreciates the complexity of STM much more than the MSM does
- demonstrates a growth in our understanding of memory
THEREFORE: credibility is increased to an extent due to the WMM representing an improved (but not complete) understanding of memory.
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Match the researcher to the research
Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
Shallice and Warrington (1970)
Baddeley et al (1975)
Baddeley (2003)
_____________________________________________________________________
- said “The CE is the most important but least understood component of the working memory”
- studied patient KF, whose PL was damaged and so struggled with auditory processing but could process visual data normally
- their ptps were able to carry out a verbal and visual task simultaneously but failed to carry out two tasks which competed for the same subsystem (i.e. two visual or two verbal)
- devised the Working Memory Model, which describes how STM is organised and how it functions
Baddeley and Hitch (1974): devised the Working Memory Model, which describes how STM is organised and how it functions
Shalice and Warrington (1970): studied patient KF, whose PL was damaged and so struggled with auditory processing but could process visual data normally
Baddeley et al (1975): their ptps were able to carry out a verbal and visual task simultaneously but failed to carry out two tasks which competed for the same subsystem (i.e. two visual or two verbal)
Baddely (2003): said “The CE is the most important but least understood component of the working memory”
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
What 3 types of LTM did Tulving (1985) propose?
Episodic Memory
Semantic Memory
Procedural Memory
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline what Tulving (1985) meant by Episodic Memory
EPISODIC MEMORY
- our ability to recall events (episodes) from our life (like a diary/record of daily personal experiences)
- memories are time-stamped (we remember when they happened and how they relate to other events in time)
- memory of a single episode will include several elements (e.g. people, places, objects and behaviours) which are interwoven to produce a single memory
- must make a conscious effort to recall episodic memories; it’s quick but you’re aware you’re searching for that memory
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline what Tulving (1985) meant by Semantic Memory
SEMANTIC MEMORY
- our shared knowledge of the world (like a cross between an encyclopedia and a dictionary)
- e.g. how to apply to uni, meaning of words, taste of an orange, understanding of concepts like love
- memories are not time-stamped
- semantic knowledge is less personal and more about the facts we all share
- immense collection of material, constantly being added to
- less vulnerable to distortion and forgetting than episodic
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline what Tulving (1985) meant by Procedural Memory
PROCEDURAL MEMORY
- memory for actions, skills: how we do things
- can be recalled without conscious effort but requires practise
- difficult to explain to someone else
- memories of learned skills, unlikely to forget but must be practised to recall/be good at them
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline one strength of Tulving’s (1985) LTM stores, regarding clinical evidence. (whopper - 2 extend points !!)
STRENGTH: clinical evidence (HM + Clive Wearing)
- episodic memory of both men was severely impaired due to brain damage
- but semantic memories were relatively unaffected (still understood meaning of words)
- e.g. HM could not recall stroking a dog 30 mins earlier but he didn’t need to have the concept of ‘dog’ explained to him
- procedural memories were also intact
- e.g. still knew how to walk and speak, and Clive Wearing could still read music and play piano
~~> evidence supports Tulving’s view that there are different memory stores in LTM, one store can be damaged while the others are unaffected
HOWEVER: lack of control over variables in clinical studies
- brain injuries experienced by patients were usually unexpected, so researchers had no way of controlling what happened to the ptp before or during the injury
- the researcher has no knowledge of an individual’s memory before the damage => difficult to judge how much worse it is afterwards
~~> lack of control limits what clinical studies can tell us about different types of LTM
FURTHERMORE: lack of generalisability from case studies
- both of these cases are very unusual and unique
- idiographic approach means that the findings are not necessarily generalisable to the whole population and so have low population validity.
THEREFORE: psychologists must be cautious about the extent to which we can generalise the findings from these case studies to the wider population, therefore the credibility of the theory of different types of long-term memory is increased but only to an extent
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline one limitation of Tulving’s (1985) LTM stores, regarding conflicting neuroimaging evidence.
LIMITATION: conflicting neuroimaging evidence (locating LTM stores)
- Buckner and Petersen (1996): semantic memory located in left prefrontal cortex, episodic on the right
- however, other research links left prefrontal cortex with encoding episodic memories and the right with episodic retrieval
~~> challenges any neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory as there is poor agreement on where each type might be located
HOWEVER: the fact that these LTM stores are located in different places provides supportive evidence for the idea that there are different types
- episodic was located on the right while semantic was located on the left
- therefore this conflicting neuroimaging evidence is actually supporting Tulving’s idea of 3 separate stores of LTM
THEREFORE: credibility of LTM stores is increased
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline one strength of Tulving’s (1985) LTM stores, regarding real-world application.
STRENGTH: real-world application
- memory loss experienced in old age, but research has shown this seems to be specific to episodic memory
- Belleville et al (2006) devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people
- the trained ptps performed better on a test of episodic memory after training than a control group
~~> shows that distinguishing types of LTM enables specific treatments to be developed
FURTHERMORE: positive implications for economy
- improved episodic memory => less need for care since they are more capable of looking after themselves (they can remember whether they have eaten and showered etc in extreme cases)
THEREFORE: credibility of the 3 separate LTM stores is increased due to having real-world application
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Match the researcher to the research
Tulving (1985)
Buckner and Petersen (1996)
Belleville (2006)
_______________________________________________________________________
- devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people; the trained ptps performed better on a test of episodic memory after training than a control group
- felt the MSM was too simplistic and inflexible so proposed 3 stores of LTM
- said that semantic memory located in left prefrontal cortex, episodic on the right, which contrasts other research which links left prefrontal cortex with encoding episodic memories and the right with episodic retrieval
Tulving (1985): felt the MSM was too simplistic and inflexible so proposed 3 stores of LTM
Buckner and Petersen (1996): said that semantic memory located in left prefrontal cortex, episodic on the right, which contrasts other research which links left prefrontal cortex with encoding episodic memories and the right with episodic retrieval
Belleville (2006): devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people; the trained ptps performed better on a test of episodic memory after training than a control group
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
What is Interference?
- interference is forgetting because one memory blocks another, causing one or both to be forgotten
- proposed mainly as an explanation in LTM
- once a memory reaches the LTM it is more-or-less permanent; any forgetting of LTMs is likely because we can’t get ACCESS to them even though they’re AVAILABLE
- interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them, which is experienced as forgetting
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
Outline the types of interference, with an example for each.
PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE (PI)
- old memory interferes with new memory
- “pro” meaning working forwards; old memories move forwards to interfere with the recall of new memories
- e.g. teacher has learned so many names in the past that she struggles to remember new names
RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE (RI)
- new memories interfere with old ones
- “retro” meaning backwards; new memories move backwards to interfere with the recall of new memories
- e.g. teacher has learned so many new names that she struggles to remember old ones
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
Outline the research on the effects of similarity by McGeoch and McDonald (1931).
- in both PI and RI, interference is worse when the memories are similar
PROCEDURE
- varying level of similarity between two sets of materials
- ptps learned a list of 10 words until they could remember them with 100% accuracy
- then learned a new list
- 6 groups: antonyms of original words, synonyms of original words, unrelated to originals,, consonant syllables, 3-digit numbers, control condition (no new words learned, just rested)
FINDINGS
- when ptps asked to recall original list of words, recall was worse for most similar material
CONCLUSION
- interference is strongest when materials are similar
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
Explain the effects of similarity on interference (PI vs RI)
- could be due to PI: previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store
- could be due to RI: new info overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarity
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
Outline one strength of interference as an explanation of forgetting, regarding real-world interference.
STRENGTH: real-world interference
- Baddeley and Hitch (1977): asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against during a rugby season
- all players played for the same time interval (one season)
- number of intervening games varied (some players missed matches due to injury)
- players who played the most games (most interference for memory) had poorest recall
~~> increased validity due to real-world application
HOWEVER: could be other explanations
- there were varying numbers of games played due to some having to miss matches because of injuries
- rugby is a physically demanding game and can easily result in head trauma
- could result in in poorer functioning memory regardless of whether there were the right conditions for interference
THEREFORE: credibility of interference theory is reduced
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
Outline one strength of interference as an explanation of forgetting, regarding support from drug studies.
STRENGTH: support from drug studies of retrograde facilitation
- Coenen and van Luijtelaar (1997): gave ptps a list of words to be recalled a week later, assuming intervening experience would act as interference
- found that when word list was learned under influence of the drug diazepam, recall was poorer than the control group
- when list was learned before drug was taken, recall was better than placebo (control group)
- drug improved recall of material
- Wixted (2004): suggests the drug prevents new info reaching parts of brain associated with memory, so it cannot interfere retroactively with info already stored
~~> forgetting can be due to interference; reduce the interference and reduce you reduce the forgetting (credibility for theory increased)
HOWEVER: artificial scenario
- not everyday activity (learning and recalling word lists)
- would interference affect us the same in day-to-day life?
- findings have low eco validity
THEREFORE: credibility increased but to an extent because the supportive research is flawed
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
Outline one limitation of interference as an explanation of forgetting, regarding it being an insufficient explanation
LIMITATION: insufficient explanation
- interference can be overcome with cues
- Tulving and Psotka (1971): gave ptps word lists organised into categories (ptps not told what categories were)
- recall averaged 70% for 1st list
- became progressively worse with each additional list learned (proactive interference)
- when ptps were told what the categories were, recall rose again to about 70%
~~> interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material in LTM, which is not predicted in interference theory
FURTHERMORE: unusual, conditions for interference are rare
- memories have to be fairly similar for them to interfere with each other
- can occasionally happen outside the lab but not often
~~> forgetting may be better explained by other theories like retrieval failure
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
Match the researcher to the research
McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
Baddeley and Hitch (1977)
Tulving and Psotka (1971)
Coenen and van Luijtelaar (1997)
Wixted (2004)
___________________________________________________________
- asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against during a rugby season; found that players who played the most games (most interference for memory) had poorest recall
- (evidence supporting state-dependant forgetting) found that when word list was learned under influence of the drug diazepam, recall was poorer than the control group; when list was learned before drug was taken, recall was better than placebo (control group)
- gave ptps word lists organised into unknown categories; recall became progressively worse with each additional list learned; when informed of categories, recall rose again to about 70%; => interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material in LTM, which is not predicted in interference theory
- (explanation of supportive evidence of state-dependant forgetting) suggests the drug prevents new info reaching parts of brain associated with memory, so it cannot interfere retroactively with info already stored
- discovered that in both PI and RI, interference is worse when the memories are similar
McGeoch and McDonald (1931): discovered that in both PI and RI, interference is worse when the memories are similar
Baddeley and Hitch (1977): asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against during a rugby season; found that players who played the most games (most interference for memory) had poorest recall
Tulving and Psotka (1971): gave ptps word lists organised into unknown categories; recall became progressively worse with each additional list learned; when informed of categories, recall rose again to about 70%; => interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material in LTM, which is not predicted in interference theory
Coenen and van Luijtelaar (1997): (evidence supporting state-dependant forgetting) found that when word list was learned under influence of the drug diazepam, recall was poorer than the control group; when list was learned before drug was taken, recall was better than placebo (control group)
Wixted (2004): (explanation of supportive evidence of state-dependant forgetting) suggests the drug prevents new info reaching parts of brain associated with memory, so it cannot interfere retroactively with info already stored
EXPLANATIONS OF FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Explain the concept of cues.
- cues are triggers of info that allow us to access a memory
- they may be meaningful or indirectly linked by being encoded at the same time as learning
- indirect cues may be external (environmental context) or internal (mood or degree of drunkenness)
- when info is initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time
- if these cues are not present at time of recall, it may appear that you’ve forgotten the info but you’re just unable to access the memories
EXPLANATIONS OF FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILURE
What is the encoding specificity principle, as discovered by Tulving (1983)?
- cues must be present at both encoding and retrieval otherwise there may be some forgetting
- some are meaningful (e.g. “STM” allows you to recall facts about the STM)
- some are not meaningful: context-dependant forgetting (recall depends on external cue, e.g. weather or place) and state-dependant forgetting (recall depends on internal cues, e.g. emotions or being drunk)
EXPLANATIONS OF FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Outline the research on context-dependant forgetting by Godden and Baddeley (1975)
AIM: to investigate whether training on land helped or hindered the work of deep-sea divers underwater
PROCEDURE
- word list learned and recalled in 4 conditions:
- learn on land, recall on land
- learn on land, recall underwater
- learn underwater, recall on land
- learn underwater, recall underwater
FINDINGS
- accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matched conditions
CONCLUSIONS
- external cues available at learning were different to the ones available at recall, which led to retrieval failure
EXPLANATIONS OF FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Outline research on state-dependant forgetting by Carter and Cassaday (1998)
PROCEDURE:
- gave antihistamine drugs to ptps
- drugs had a mild sedative effect, making ptps drowsy
- creates an internal psychological state different from the ‘normal state’ of being awake and alert
- ptps had to learn and recall word lists and passages of prose:
- learn on drug, recall on drug
- learn on drug, recall off drug
- learn off drug, recall on drug
- learn off drug, recall off drug
FINDINGS:
- performance was significantly worse in mismatched conditions
CONCLUSIONS:
- when cues are asbsent, there is more forgetting
EXPLANATIONS OF FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Outline one strength of retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting, real-world application of context-dependent forgetting
STRENGTH: real-world application of context-dependent forgetting
- e.g. walking into a room and forgetting what you went in for, but when you go back to original room, you remember again
~~> research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall, such as in exam/school situations
FURTHERMORE: cognitive interview
- “reinstate the context” in the cognitive interview has been shown to increase the quantity and accuracy of information recalled by a victim about a crime
- real-world application in our ability to more accurately convict criminals of crimes and promote justice for victims
THEREFORE: real-world application of context-dependent forgetting leads to increased credibility of the theory
EXPLANATIONS OF FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Outline one strength of retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting, regarding research support.
STRENGTH: research support for context-dependent forgetting (as well as Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) research)
- Grant et al (1998) had ptps read an article in either silence or noisy environments and recall information about the article in either silent or noisy environments
- they found that less accurate recall in mismatched conditions
- provides supportive evidence for Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) underwater vs on land context-dependant forgetting research
~~> evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations (reading and understanding articles is a very realistic scenario) as well as in the highly controlled lab conditions
FURTHERMORE: research support for state-dependent forgetting (as well as Carter and Cassaday’s (1998) research)
- Lowe (1983): ptps asked on day one to memorise a geographical map and an audio description of a set of instructions to follow a particular route on the map
- ptps memorised this either sober or drunk and asked to recall this info 24hrs later, being either drunk or sober
- recall was again lower for mismatched conditions
EXPLANATIONS OF FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Outline one limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation of forgetting, regarding the limited explanation
LIMITATION: limited explanation
- different contexts would have to be very different before an effect is seen
- e.g. difficult to find environments as different as underwater and on land
- learning and recalling in different rooms is unlikely to cause much forgetting because these environments are generally not different enough
~~> retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not actually explain much everyday forgetting
FURTHERMORE: recall vs recognition
- Godden and Baddeley (1970) replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test instead of a recall test (ptps had to say whether they recognised words from a list rather than recalling it themselves)
- no context-dependant effect; performance was the same in all 4 conditions
~~> suggests retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting, only applies when person has to recall info rather than recognise it
THEREFORE: credibility reduced to an extent due to it being a limited explanation
EXPLANATIONS OF FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Match the researcher to the research
Tulving (1983)
Godden and Baddeley (1975)
Carter and Cassaday (1998)
Eysenck and Keane (2010)
Baddeley (1997)
Godden and Baddeley (1980)
___________________________________________________
- did research on state-dependent forgetting; found that mismatched conditions led to significantly worse performance on a memory test when word list was learned on/off the drug diazepam and recalled on/off it
- argue that retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as in highly controlled lab conditions
- did research on context-dependent forgetting; found that mismatched conditions led to 40% less recall when learning and recalling word lists on land vs water
- argues that context effects aren’t strong; the two contexts would have to be extremely different to lead to retrieval failure
- discovered the encoding specificity principle, which states that cues must be present at both encoding and retrieval otherwise there may be some forgetting
- replicated their context-dependent underwater study but used a recognition test instead of recall; found that there was no context-dependent effect (performance was the same in all 4 conditions); this suggested retrieval failure was a limited explanation for forgetting since it only applies when a person has to recall info rather than recognise it
Tulving (1983): discovered the encoding specificity principle, which states that cues must be present at both encoding and retrieval otherwise there may be some forgetting
Godden and Baddeley (1975): did research on context-dependent forgetting; found that mismatched conditions led to 40% less recall when learning and recalling word lists on land vs water
Carter and Cassaday (1998): did research on state-dependent forgetting; found that mismatched conditions led to significantly worse performance on a memory test when word list was learned on/off the drug diazepam and recalled on/off it
Eysenck and Keane (2010): argue that retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as in highly controlled lab conditions
Baddeley (1997): argues that context effects aren’t strong; the two contexts would have to be extremely different to lead to retrieval failure
Godden and Baddeley (1980): replicated their context-dependent underwater study but used a recognition test instead of recall; found that there was no context-dependent effect (performance was the same in all 4 conditions); this suggested retrieval failure was a limited explanation for forgetting since it only applies when a person has to recall info rather than recognise it
FACTORS AFFECTING ACCURACY OF EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY: MISLEADING INFORMATION
Outline Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) research on leading questions
AIM: to investigate the effects of leading questions on eye-witness testimony
PROCEDURE:
- 45 ptps watched a video of a car accident, then asked follow-up questions
- critical question: “how fast were the cars going when they [hit/contacted/bumped/collided/smashed] each other?”
- each group had a different verb
FINDINGS
- mean estimated speed calculated for each group
- “contacted” group said 31.8mph
- “smashed” group said 40.5mph
CONCLUSION
- leading question biased eyewitness’s recall of an event
FACTORS AFFECTING ACCURACY OF EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY: MISLEADING INFORMATION
What are the 2 explanations as to why leading questions affect EWT?
response bias explanation:
- leading questions influence how they decide to answer, rather than affecting the memory itself
- e.g. “smashed” encouraged them to choose a higher speed
substitution explanation:
- supported by Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) second experiment
- “smashed” group were more likely to report having seen broken glass (there was none) than “hit” group
- critical verb altered their memory of the event
FACTORS AFFECTING ACCURACY OF EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY: MISLEADING INFORMATION
Outline research done by Gabbert et al (2003) on post-event discussion
AIM: to investigate the effects of post-event discussion on EWTs
PROCEDURE:
- ptps studied in pairs, who had seen different perspectives/angles of the same crime (on videos)
- ptps then discussed what they’d seen, before individually taking a recall test
FINDINGS:
- 71% ptps mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they didn’t see in the video but picked up in discussion
- in a control group it was 0%
CONCLUSION:
- evidence of memory conformity, post-event discussion affects EWT accuracy
FACTORS AFFECTING ACCURACY OF EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY: MISLEADING INFORMATION
What are the two explanations of why post-event discussion affects EWT?
memory contamination:
- co-witness discussion leads to EWT becoming distorted/altered
- because they combine (mis)information from other witness with their own memories
memory conformity
- Gabbert et al (2003) concluded that witnesses go along with each other because they either seek social approval or believe other witness are right and they’re not
- unlike memory contamination, the memory is unchanged
FACTORS AFFECTING ACCURACY OF EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY: MISLEADING INFORMATION
Outline one strength of misleading information as a factor affecting the accuracy of EWT, regarding real-world application.
STRENGTH: real-world application in criminal justice system
- police warned about severe distortion effect of leading questions
- psychologists explain limits of EWT to juries in court
~~> psychologists help improve legal system, especially by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT
HOWEVER: ethical implications; undermining the personal experience of victims of crimes
- victims look to police and criminal justice system for help in times of crisis and injustice
- denying the accuracy of their account of the crime could make them feel distrust towards the police
- can have knock-on effects such as fewer crimes being reported (due to the belief that justice won’t be served because the victim’s EWT doesn’t matter) and therefore criminals would be punished and convicted less for crimes, causing crime rates to go up etc
THEREFORE: ethical implications of research into factors affecting the accuracy of EWT reduces the credibility of this research
FACTORS AFFECTING ACCURACY OF EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY: MISLEADING INFORMATION
Outline one limitation of misleading information as a factor affecting the accuracy of EWT, regarding contradictory evidence for substitution explanation of the effect of misleading questions and contradictory evidence for memory conformity explanation of the effect of post-event discussion on EWT. (whopper - extended twice ! )
LIMITATION: evidence against substitution explanation of effect of leading questions
- EWT is more accurate for some events than others
- Sutherland and Hayne (2001): ptps shown a video clip, then asked follow-up misleading questions
- recall was more accurate for central details of the event than peripheral ones
- presumably where ptps attention was focussed on central features of event, such memories were resistant to misleading information
~~> original memories for central details survived and were not distorted, an outcome which is not predicted by the substitution explanation
FURTHERMORE: evidence challenging memory conformity explanation for effects of post-event discussion, that it does actually alter the memory
- Skagerberg and Wright (2008): showed ptps a film clip and discussed in pairs
- 2 versions: mugger’s hair was dark brown in one and light brown in the other
- often reported a blend of the two versions after discussion (“medium brown”)
~~> suggests the memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than a result of memory conformity
HOWEVER: low internal validity
- Loftus and Palmer (1974), Sutherland and Hayne (2001) and Skagerberg and Write (2008) all based their findings from on lab studies using video clips of crimes rather than real crimes
- much less stressful than it would be in real life because we have removed the (powerful) effect of anxiety on EWT => less realistic
- also no consequences in a lab, less motivation to be accurate
~~> we are left no clearer about the effect of post event discussion and misleading questions on the accuracy of EWT due to both the supporting evidence and contradictory evidence having low internal validity
FACTORS AFFECTING ACCURACY OF EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY: MISLEADING INFORMATION
Match the researcher to the research
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Gabbert et al (2003)
Foster et al (1994)
Sutherland and Hayne (2001)
Skagerberg and Wright (2008)
_____________________________________________________
- ptps’ recall of central events of a video was more accurate than peripheral ones after being asked leading questions; suggests memories for central details survived and weren’t distorted (an outcome not predicted by substitution explanation)
- showed ptps two similar versions of a film clip (hair of mugger was a different shade of brown in each); ptps reported a blend of what they had seen and what they had discussed; suggests memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than a result of memory conformity
- ptps watched different video angles of the same event; post-event discussion led to 71% of the ptps mistakenly recalling aspects; 0% in control group where there was no discussion (evidence of memory conformity)
- conducted a second/follow-up experiment that supported the substitution explanation; ptps who heard “smashed” were more likely to report seeing broken glass (there was none)
- ptps asked a question about a car crash video with a critical verb that varied from “contacted” to “smashed”; found that these leading questions biased the EWT
- pointed out ptps are less motivated to be accurate in research, which casts doubt over the effects of misleading info due to flawed research
Loftus and Palmer (1974): ptps asked a question about a car crash video with a critical verb that varied from “contacted” to “smashed”; found that these leading questions biased the EWT
Loftus and Palmer (1974): conducted a second experiment that supported the substitution explanation; ptps who heard “smashed” were more likely to report seeing broken glass (there was none)
Gabbert et al (2003): ptps watched different video angles of the same event; post-event discussion led to 71% of the ptps mistakenly recalling aspects; 0% in control group where there was no discussion (evidence of memory conformity)
Foster et al (1994): pointed out ptps are less motivated to be accurate in research, which casts doubt over the effects of misleading info due to flawed research
Sutherland and Hayne (2001): ptps’ recall of central events of a video was more accurate than peripheral ones after being asked leading questions; suggests memories for central details survived and weren’t distorted (an outcome not predicted by substitution explanation)
Skagerberg and Wright (2008): showed ptps two similar versions of a film clip (hair of mugger was a different shade of brown in each); ptps reported a blend of what they had seen and what they had discussed; suggests memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than a result of memory conformity
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
How can anxiety have a negative effect on recall?
- anxiety creates physiological arousal in the body which prevents us from paying attention to important cues, so recall is worse
- presence of a weapon => weapon focus, reducing a witness’s recall for other details of the event
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
Outline the research by Johnson and Scott (1976) on the negative effect of anxiety on recall
PROCEDURE:
- (ptps thought it was a lab study, and were “waiting” in a waiting room)
- low anxiety condition: ptps overheard a casual convo, then a man walked past with a pen with grease on his hands
- high-anxiety condition: ptps overheard a heated argument, then a man walked past carrying a bloody knife
FINDINGS:
- ptps later picked out a photo of the man, 49% of those in pen + grease condition identified him correctly, compared to 33% in knife + blood condition
CONCLUSIONS
- the tunnel theory of memory argues that people have enhanced memory of central events
- weapon focus as a result of anxiety can have this effect
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
How can anxiety have a positive effect on recall?
anxiety => physiological arousal in the body => triggers flight or flight response => increased alertness
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
Outline the research done by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) on the positive effects of anxiety on recall
PROCEDURE:
- actual shooting in a gun shop, 21 witnesses and 13 took part in this study
- interviewed 5 months after incident, compared with original interviews at time of event
(- accuracy determined by number of details reported in each account)
- witnesses also asked to report stress levels at time of incident, and whether they’d had any emotional problems since (e.g. sleeplessness)
FINDINGS:
- very accurate accounts, little change after 5 months
- those who reported the highest stress levels were most accurate, 88% (compared to 75% for less-stressed group)
CONCLUSIONS:
- anxiety doesn’t have a detrimental effect on EWT, may even enhance it
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
Explain the contradictory findings of the negative and positive effects of anxiety on recall
- Yerkes and Dodson (1908): relationship between emotional arousal and performance = inverted U shape
- Yerkes-Dodson law: there is an optimum level of anxiety, too much or too little reduces accuracy of EWT
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
Outline one strength of anxiety as a factor affecting the accuracy of EWT, regarding supportive evidence for positive effects.
STRENGTH: support for positive effects
- Christianson and Hübinette (1993): interviewed 58 witnesses of actual bank robberies in Sweden
- some were directly involved (bank workers), some indirectly (bystanders)
- researchers assumed that those directly involved would experience most anxiety
- found that recall was more than 75% accurate for all witnesses
- direct witnesses (most anxious) were even more accurate
~~> findings from actual crimes confirm that anxiety doesn’t reduce the accuracy of EWT and may even enhance it
HOWEVER: confounding variables
- interviewed months after the event
- no control over post-event discussion in intervening time
- effects of anxiety impossible to assess by the time ptps were interviewed
THEREFORE: a lack of control over confounding variables may invalidate thee study’s findings and their support for positive effects of anxiety on accuracy of EWT
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
Outline one strength of anxiety as a factor affecting the accuracy of EWT, regarding supportive evidence for negative effects.
STRENGTH: support for negative effects
- Valentine and Mesout (2009): study supports research on weapon focus, finding negative effects on recall
- used heart rate (objective measure) to divide ptps into high-anxiety and low-anxiety groups
- high anxiety groups recalled less correct details and made more mistakes than low anxiety groups
- anxiety clearly disrupted ptps’ ability to recall details about the actor in the London Dungeon’s Labyrinth
~~> high level of anxiety does have a negative effect on immediate EWT of a stressful event
FURTHERMORE: high eco validity
- real world scenario, so the representation of a stressful event and the effect of anxiety on the EWT is more realistic than lab studies
THEREFORE: credibility of anxiety having a negative effect on recall is increased due to the ecologically valid supportive research
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
Outline one limitation of anxiety as a factor affecting the accuracy of EWT, regarding unusualness rather than anxiety.
LIMITATION: unusualness, not anxiety
- Johnson and Scott’s (1976) study might not have tested anxiety but unusualness
- the reason the ptps focussed on the weapon could have been because they were surprised at what they saw, rather than being scared
- Pickel (1998): used scissors, handgun, wallet, raw chicken in salon video (scissors would be low unusualness)
- EWT accuracy was significantly poorer in high unusualness conditions (chicken and handgun)
~~> weapon focus effect is due to unusualness rather than anxiety/threat, therefore tells us nothing specifically about the effects of anxiety on EWT
FURTHERMORE: ethical issues
- ptps were deceived (told they were waiting for the experiment to start but had already started) so they didn’t consent (didn’t know what they were consenting to) and so did not have the right to withdraw (didn’t know what was going on). they were also exposed to more harm than they would be in everyday life (protection from psychological harm) due to the stress of hearing a heated argument and seeing a man with a bloody knife
THEREFORE: the credibility is reduced due to low internal validity and ethical issues
FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: ANXIETY
Match the researcher to the research
Johnson and Scott (1976)
Yuille and Cutshall (1986)
Yerkes and Dodson (1908)
Pickel (1998)
Valentine and Mesout (2009)
Christianson and Hübinette (1993)
_______________________________________________________
- negative effect of anxiety on recall: ptps picked out a photo of a man they’d seen in (two conditions): 49% of those in pen + grease condition identified him correctly, compared to 33% in knife + blood condition; suggested the tunnel theory of memory (argues that people have enhanced memory of central events); weapon focus as a result of anxiety can have this effect
- positive effect of anxiety on recall: ptps were witnesses to an actual shooting in a gun shop; interviews from 5 months after were compared with police interviews at time of event; ptps also rated stress levels at time of event; those who reported higher levels of stress were more accurate (88%) than those who were less stressed (75% accurate)
- devised a law that states that there is an optimum stress level for best performance
Johnson and Scott (1976): negative effect of anxiety on recall: ptps picked out a photo of a man they’d seen in (two conditions): 49% of those in pen + grease condition identified him correctly, compared to 33% in knife + blood condition; suggested the tunnel theory of memory (argues that people have enhanced memory of central events); weapon focus as a result of anxiety can have this effect
Yuille and Cutshall (1986): positive effect of anxiety on recall: ptps were witnesses to an actual shooting in a gun shop; interviews from 5 months after were compared with police interviews at time of event; ptps also rated stress levels at time of event; those who reported higher levels of stress were more accurate (88%) than those who were less stressed (75% accurate)
Yerkes and Dodson (1908): devised a law that states that there is an optimum stress level for best performance; curvilinear relationship
Pickel (1998):
Valentine and Mesout (2009):
Christianson and Hübinette (1993):
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
Name the 4 main techniques used in the cognitive interview as suggested by Fisher and Geiselman (1992)
Report everything
Reinstate the context
Reverse the order
Change perspective
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
Outline the ‘report everything’ technique in the cognitive interview, as suggested by Fisher and Geiselman (1992)
REPORT EVERYTHING
- witnesses encouraged to include every detail of the event
- regardless of how irrelevant it may seem
- regardless of witness’ confidence about it
- seemingly trivial details may be important and may trigger other important memories
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
Outline the ‘reinstate the context’ technique in the cognitive interview, as suggested by Fisher and Geiselman (1992)
REINSTATE THE CONTEXT
- witness to return to the crime scene in their mind
- imagine the environment (e.g. weather, what they could see)
- imagine their emotions
(- related to context-dependant forgetting)
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
Outline the ‘reverse the order’ technique in the cognitive interview, as suggested by Fisher and Geiselman (1992)
REVERSE THE ORDER
- event should be recalled in a different order from the original sequence (end>middle>beginning or middle>beginning>end etc.)
prevents people reporting their expectations of how the event must have happened, instead reports actual event
- prevents dishonesty (harder to produce an untruthful account if they have to reverse it)
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
Outline the ‘change perspective’ technique in the cognitive interview, as suggested by Fisher and Geiselman (1992)
CHANGE PERSPECTIVE
- witness to recall event from someone else’s perspective (e.g. different witness or perpetrator)
- done to disrupt effect of expectations and effect of schema recall
(the schema you have for a particular setting will generate expectations of what would have happened; this is the schema which is recalled rather than what actually happened)
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
What is the enhanced cognitive interview? (ECI)
Fisher et al (1987) developed additional elements of CI to focus on:
- social dynamics of the interaction (interviewer needs to know when to establish eye contact and when to relinquish it)
- reducing EW anxiety
- minimising distractions
- getting witness to speak slowly
- asking open-ended questions
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
Outline one strength of the cognitive interview as a way of improving the accuracy of EWT, regarding supportive evidence.
P: One strength of the cognitive interview as a way of improving the accuracy of EWT is that there is supportive evidence for its effectiveness.
E: For example, Geiselman et al (1985) had participants watch police training videos of simulated violent crimes and then interviewed them all individually using either the standard interview or the cognitive interview. They found that the cognitive interview produced significantly more accurately recalled items than the standard interview.
E: This is a strength because it suggests that the congitive interview improves the likelihood of accurately recalled information during police interviews, which means we are more likely to to get the information we need to correctly convict criminals.
E: However, Köhnken et al (1999) did a meta-analysis of 42 studies which included nearly 2500 interviews. Whilst they did find that using the CI led to a 41% average increase in accurately recalled information compared with standard interview, they found that the enhanced CI led to more errors produced than the standard CI. This is a weakness because it suggests that the enhanced CI prioritises quantity over quality, which reduces the credibility of this technique.
L: As a result, the credibility of the cognitive interview as a way of improving the accuracy of EWT is increased but only to a certain extent due to the reduced effectiveness for its supposed “further improved” variation, the enhanced cognitive interview.
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
Outline one limitation of the cognitive interview as a way of improving the accuracy of EWT, regarding it being time-consuming.
P: One limitation of the cognitive interview as a way of improving the accuracy of EWT is that it is time-consuming.
E: For example, the CI, particularly the enhanced CI, not only takes a lot of time to carry out and establish rapport with the victim, but it also takes time to train interviewers to properly conduct the interview.
E: This is a weakness because many police forces don’t have the time or the resources to train interviewers and conduct the CI and so the technique is less likely to be used in practise. This then means we may sacrifice the chance to get more accurately recalled information and risk not having the information we need to correctly convict criminals.
E: However, Fisher et al (1989) had 7 detectives trained in the CI and 9 untrained detectives in the CI interviewed victims of real-life robberies. They found that those trained in the CI produced 63% more information than the untrained detectives, with over 90% accuracy. This shows that the cognitive interview, when conducted properly, produces highly accurate recall of information. This suggests that although the cognitive interview is time-consuming to conduct and be trained for, it is much more successful to be trained in doing it than not being trained, suggesting that the time is worth taking in order to maximise the quality and quantity of the information we get.
L: As a result the credibility of the cognitive interview as a way of improving the accuracy of EWT is increased, despite it being time-consuming.
IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW (CI)
Match the researcher to the research
