Memory Flashcards
Definitions
Research on coding
Different form s
Bradley
G1 sound similar G2 sound different G3 mean similar G4 mean diff
Shown words asked to recall in order when immediately from stm worse with words that sound similar when after 20 mins LTM semantically worse sho STM acoustically code LTm semantic
AO3
+ clear difference in stores led to MSM
X artificial stimuli limited application
Research into capacity STM
Digit span Jacob’s read 4 digits recall in order id right then add one meow till cant found mean span 9-3 items letters 7.3
AO3
Replicated valid but finds confirmed by others bop and verhaghnen 2005
X may overestimated Cowan 2001 said 4 plus - 1
Research on duration STM
Margret and Peterson test 24 students in 8 trails one given constant syllabl eYCG then 3 digit number student count backwards till told to stop this would prevent rehearsal told to staff ap different times 3 6 9 12 seconds after 3 recall 80% after 18 3% show need rehearsal
AO3
Meaningless stimuli lack external validity
Research duration LTM
Bahrick 392 American 17-24 high school year books tested photo recognition one just names whic =h were in 15th year after graduation 90% in photo after 49 yrs 70% names after 15 yrs 60% 48 yrs 30% show LTM life time
AO3
High external validity memaningfulll memories
Multi store model MSM Atkinsonand shiffiren 68
Sensory register- receives environmental stimuli from sensory memory remains from split second capacity is unlimited coding specific to scenes, if attention paid info transferred to STM otherwise gone .
STM- info here Darcy quickly 18-30 sec if not rehearsed has a limited capacity 7+-2 will go to LTM if rehearsed
LTM- rehearsal of information allow to be transferred to LYM more rehersed better remembered once in LTm can be retrieved coded mostly semantically bahrick et al found most participants able to erefognise name and faces after 50 yrs of graduation so capacity = unlimited , retrieval = info STM-LTM-STM to be recalled
Evaluation
Here is a breakdown of the evaluation points from the Multi-Store Model of Memory (MSM) in 3 bullet points each:
⸻
Research Support
• Studies (e.g., Baddeley 1966) show that STM and LTM are different in terms of coding (acoustic vs semantic), supporting the idea of separate stores.
• Case studies like HM (who had a damaged LTM but intact STM) support the concept of distinct memory stores.
• However, this research is sometimes based on artificial tasks (e.g., word lists), which lack external validity.
⸻
More than one STM store
• Evidence (e.g., from KF who had poor verbal STM but good visual STM) suggests there are multiple components in STM, not just one store.
• The Working Memory Model (WMM) explains this better by including separate systems for different types of information.
• This challenges the simplicity of the MSM’s structure for STM.
⸻
Elaborative Rehearsal
• MSM suggests that rehearsal is the key to transferring information to LTM.
• However, Craik and Watkins (1973) argue that elaborative rehearsal (thinking about meaning) is more important than just repetition.
• This contradicts MSM’s assumption that prolonged rehearsal alone leads to LTM storage.
⸻
Evaluation Extra – Bygone Model
• MSM is an outdated model based mostly on lab-based research from the 1960s.
• Later models (like Working Memory Model) offer a more complex and realistic explanation of STM and memory processes.
• MSM may be too simplistic and rigid, not accounting for the flexibility and interaction between memory systems.
Types of LTM
- Tulving 85 first to realise MSM view of LRM is too simplistic he said there are 3 LTM stores which have different types of information
-episodic semantic procedural
Episodic memory
Long term memories of your personal experiences and the time conetext and emotion surrounding events which happened in past e.g 1st day of school they require conscious effort
Semantic memory
Lt mememory of knowledge of factual information which is not personal to you it is shared by many people .eg capital of Pakistan - Islamabad
Has factual knowledge but also knowledge oof properties of objects e.g chille is hot rules of social behaviour they also require conscious effort to be remembered
Procedural memory
Memories of how we do things e.g ride a bike comes through learning relation patactsie are uncousniousss effort and automatic we don’t need to think consiuolly of how to swim or walk
Evaluation of types of LTM
Strengths of Types of LTM
- Case Study Evidence (HM & Clive Wearing):
• Both had brain damage that affected episodic memory (e.g. couldn’t remember stroking a dog).
• But semantic memory was intact (still knew what a dog was).
• Procedural memory also fine – could walk, talk, and Clive could still play music.
• Supports: LTM is not one store, different types can be separately damaged. - Brain Scan Evidence:
• Brain scans show different areas linked to different types of LTM:
• Episodic – hippocampus, frontal & temporal lobes
• Semantic – temporal lobe
• Procedural – cerebellum, basal ganglia, limbic system
• Supports idea that types of LTM are separate and physical. - Real-Life Application (Belleville et al., 2006):
• Older people lose episodic memory first, but not semantic/procedural.
• Training improved episodic memory in older adults (vs. control group).
• Helps develop treatments for memory loss by targeting specific LTM types.
Limitations of Types of LTM
- Clinical Case Studies – Lack Control:
• Brain injuries (like HM/Wearing) are accidental – no control over what happened before or during injury.
• Unknown baseline memory before damage – hard to judge change.
• Weakens conclusions about LTM types due to lack of scientific control. - Conflicting Brain Scan Evidence:
• Buckner & Petersen (1996):
• Semantic in left prefrontal cortex
• Episodic in right
• Other studies say opposite: episodic = left, semantic = right.
• Disagreement on exact brain locations weakens support for distinct memory types.
Working memory model
Baddely hitch 74
- explanation of one aspect of memory STM is organised how it functions concerned with mental space that is active when we are temporarily storing manipulating info e.g when working on a maths problem play8ing chess model consists of 4 main components they are difffrentin terms of coding and capacity .
Central executive
Supervisory system
Info comes from Senes of LTM and. It decides which of the slave systems are needed to deal with it
Deals with number of tasks e.g attention starting attention between tasks and other higher mental process such as decisions aiming and problem solving has a limited processing capacity doesn’t store info
Phonological loop
Deals with auditory acoustic info has united capacity subdivided into phonological store the inner ear retains words we hear for 1-2 sec the articultlatory process inner voice retains info we hear or see by silently reap eating it looped like a inner voice .
Visuo spatial sketchpad
The inner eye hold visual how things look and spatial the relationship between things information
Manipulates mental imagery perceives movement and recognises patterns limited capacity baddely 2003 3 4 objects the visual cache = stores visual data inner scribe = reactors the order of beats in the visual field
Episodic buffer
Temporary storage area which combines and brings together info received from all stores name them .
Evaluation
Strengths of the WMM
- Explains Parallel Processing:
• Unlike the Multi-Store Model (MSM), the WMM explains how we can do two things at once (e.g. listen and look).
• This is called parallel processing. - Case Study Support (KF – Shallice & Warrington, 1974):
• KF had brain damage – could remember visual info, but not verbal info.
• Supports idea of separate stores (phonological loop & visuospatial sketchpad). - Reliable Lab Evidence:
• WMM is based on controlled lab experiments, so results are more reliable and can be replicated.
• Confounding variables are reduced.
⸻
Weaknesses of the WMM
- Central Executive is Vague:
• The central executive is not well-defined – we don’t know how it works or what it really does.
• Too simplistic. - Low Ecological Validity:
• Many WMM studies use unrealistic tasks (e.g. repeating “the, the, the”).
• Doesn’t reflect how memory works in real life.
Explanations for forgetting : interference
Types of interference
Proactive = older memories already stored disrupt recal of newer memories the degree of forgetting is greater when mememorires are smaller e.g learned so many names in the past forgot the current ones .
Evidence - muller gave participants list of nonsense sylybbles HVB asked to learn in 6 min after a interval asked them to recall these sylyybles 1 group of subjects we’re given noting to do in the interval other were asked to study and describe 3 paintings those in 2nd conditions showed poorer recall
Retroactive = newer memories interfere in older already stored degree of forgetting is greater when
memeorirs are similar . E.g learned so many names now can’t remember brfro .
Evidence - underwood found that when given a list os words better memeory of words at the beginning f the list compared to the words towards end of list showed earlier info interfraering .
Effects of similarity
In both proactive and retro active interference worst when material is similar .
- mcgeoah and McDonald 31 studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between 2 sets of materials . Participants had to learn list of 10 words still could rememmeber 100% then learned new list, there were 6 groups of participants who had to learn different types of new lists
- G1= synonyms what is it similar meaning
- G2= antonyms opposite meaning
G3= words unrelated to original
G4= constant syllables
G5= 3 digit numbers
G6= no new list just rested control conditions
- findings = when asked to recall original list of words most similar material synonyms had worst recall showed interferance strongest when memories are similar
- reason similarity effects recall is pro active and retro active .
Evaluation for interference
You’re right — thanks for spotting that! Here’s the full simplified evaluation, including the counterpoint you mentioned:
⸻
Evaluation of Interference Theory (Simplified)
- Real-World Support – Baddeley & Hitch (Rugby Players):
• Rugby players forgot fewer team names when they’d played fewer games, even if it was a long time ago.
• Shows that interference (not just time) causes forgetting.
• Supports interference theory in real-life settings. - Counterpoint – Limited in Everyday Life:
• In real life, we remember more unique events, not similar word lists like in lab studies.
• Less chance of interference in real-world memory.
• Weakens support – interference may not explain forgetting in most daily situations. - Interference Can Be Overcome with Cues – Tulving & Psotka:
• People remembered more when given cues after learning.
• Suggests interference is temporary – info may still be there but needs help to retrieve.
• Suggests retrieval failure could be a better explanation than interference in some cases. - Drug Studies Support Interference – Fornell & Luria:
• Drugs that block memory consolidation led to more forgetting.
• Shows interference is more likely when memories are not strongly stored.
• Gives biological evidence for the theory. - Validity Issues – Artificial Materials:
• Many studies use word lists or nonsense syllables.
• These don’t reflect real-life memory tasks like remembering names, faces, or events.
• Low ecological validity – findings may not apply to real-world memory.
⸻
Let me know if you want this turned into a flashcard set or a 12-mark essay structure!
Explanations for forgetting : retrieval failure
Retrieval failure theories argue forgetting fromLTM is caused by failing to access the memory due to insufficient clues or cues to aid recall rather than it being unavailable.
cues act as markers to aid recall and without these, the mind is unable to locate the correct memory. A cues effectiveness depends on the number of items associated with it with fewer items leading to a more effective cue.
Tulving (1973) called this the encoding-specificity principle; where recollection is affected if the context of recall is different from what it was when the memory was coded. He suggested memory recall is most effective when information which was present at the time of encoding is available during retrieval.
two main types of cue-dependent forgetting
- context-dependent failure + state-dependent failure. - Context-dependent failure = may rely on external environmental retrieval cues being similar to when the information was encoded to aid recall, e.g. being in the same room where you learnt the answers to a test and then taking the test in this room. This would result in greater recall than being in a different room.
- support = Abernethy (1940) found that after participants had learnt various material, they showed greater difficulty with recall when they were tested by an unfamiliar teacher in an unfamiliar room compared to a familiar teacher and familiar room. This shows support for the importance of context aiding the memory retrieval process.
State-dependent failure would occur when the internal state of the person is different from when the information was encoded. This may be down to feeling a different emotion for example and trying to remember something when you were happy while you are feeling sad. Therefore internal states can also act as retrieval cues. - Environmental context such as being at a particular place can trigger retrieval as can particular sights or sounds if they are experienced strongly enough during encoding
Support = Support for state-dependent failure comes from a study by Overton (1972). Participants learnt material either drunk or sober and found participants struggled with recall more when trying to retrieve the information in a state that is different from the time of encoding. For example, trying to recall information sober when it was learnt drunk (and vice versa). This provides support for state-dependent failure as an explanation for forgetting.
Evaluation
Many studies into retrieval failure due to cue dependent forgetting are based in the laboratory lack ecological validity and mundane realism as they are not indicative of real-world environments or situations of forgetting. such explanations are not able to explain why retrieval failure cannot be explained with cue dependent forgetting for activities such as riding a bike, suggesting retrieval failure as a theory for forgetting is oversimplified and incomplete.
- Research into retrieval failure and cue dependent forgetting has real-world applications particularly in the search for missing people and reconstructing the last known whereabouts. This was used to aid in the conviction of Danielle Jones killer as a reconstruction in 2001 prompted witnesses to recall her arguing with a man which later led to the conviction of her uncle through witness testimony. This has also helped in cognitive interviews to help people recall information for witness testimonies. Therefore understanding how cues affect recall can help us develop ways to improve memory for the benefit of society.
- Support for retrieval failure having more validity than interference theory comes from Tulving and Psotka (1971). They showed how interference effects occurred due to the absence of any cues to aid retrieval. Participants were given word lists to remember with one condition having category headings and another without. In conditions without category headings, fewer words were recalled than when headings were present showing the information was available but simply unable to be accessed due to the absence of cues.
- Research into state-dependent failure such as Overtons (1972) study raises ethical concerns as they encouraging people to become drunk and under the influence of substances which can lead to injury or even death even by accident. Also the level of engagement from participants when under the influence of alcohol may not necessarily be genuine due to the way it affects peoples willingness to give honest responses. Some participants may have deliberately done poorly in some situations or try harder in others due to how alcohol affects people in unpredictable ways.
- Baddeley (1997) criticised the encoding specificity principle as impossible to test and verify for certain making it unscientific. If a cue aids retrieval then it could be argued to have been encoded in the memory however if it does not then it could be argued that it wasn’t encoded in memory as a cue. The fact that it is impossible to test for an item as having been encoded or not means we cannot fully test the encoding specificity principle.
- Baddeley’s (1975) study did find supporting evidence for cue dependent learning and how context cues aided retrieval. Divers tasked with learning material either on dry land or while underwater were found to have poorer recall when they were tested on retrieval in a context that differed from where encoding and learning happened. For example, testing them for the material they learnt underwater while on land resulted in poorer retrieval than if they were tested while still underwater. The same was true vice versa too with better recall shown when the learning context remained the same as encoding. This supported cue- dependent failure, however, this was during free recall only. When given a recognition test and asked to say whether the item on the list was in the learning list or not, context-based failure effects were not observed showing how cue dependency can not explain all forms of forgetting.
Factors effecting eyewitness testimony
Leading questions , post event discussion , anxiety
Leading questions
Loftus and Palmer (1974) experiments measuring how leading information affected recall and is the primary research study you need to know as part of your revision.
In their key study, 45 students were shown several films of road traffic incidents and then given a questionnaire to describe the accident and answer a series of questions about their observation. One critical question varied between conditions with one group asked how fast the vehicles were going when they “hit” each other while other groups had verbs implying different degree’s of a collision such as “bumped, smashed, contacted, collided”.
Results found the words that implied a stronger collision resulted in greater average estimates of speeds from participants.
Those exposed to “smashed” gave the highest estimates (41mph) while “contacted” resulted in the lowest speed estimate (30mph), demonstrating how leading questions could influence memory recall.
The experiment was recreated with another group with the verbs “smashed” and “hit” while a control group was not exposed to such leading questions. They were questioned 1 week later and asked a series of questions with one critical question being whether they witnessed any broken glass.
There was no broken glass in the film however results found that those who were exposed to the “smashed” condition and thus led to believe the car was travelling faster were more likely to report seeing broken glass with the control group being least likely. This highlighted how misleading information post-event can change the way information is stored or recalled.
Post event discussions
The way an event is remembered can also be altered or contaminated by discussing events with others and/or being questioned repeatedly.
In another study, Loftus & Pickrell (1995) investigated how misleading information could create false memories in individuals. 24 participants ranging in age from 18-53 were given four stories about their childhood gathered from relatives.
3 of the stories were true while one was false and it included being lost in a department store when aged 5 and an elderly lady rescuing them. Participants then asked questions on whether they recalled these stories and results found 29% of the fake stories were recalled by participants believing them to be true. 68% of the true stories were recalled correctly also. This highlighted how false memories could be created from suggestion and misleading information.
Other research has found a ‘conformity effect’ occurs when co-witnesses reach a consensus view of what they think happened from discussing. Gabbert et al (2003) conducted a study where participants were paired up and each partner watched a different video of the same event so that they had each viewed unique items.
Pairs in one condition were encouraged to discuss the event before each partner recalled the event they watched.
The results found that 71% of witnesses who had discussed the event went on to mistakenly recall items acquired during their discussion.
This highlights clearly how post-event discussion can cause people to mistakenly recall incorrect information.
Evualtion
Absolutely! Here’s a full evaluation summary of misleading information and post-event discussion in eyewitness testimony (EWT), with all your points clearly written out and simplified for easier memorisation:
⸻
Evaluation of Misleading Information and Post-Event Discussion
⸻
- Weakness – Lab Studies Lack Realism and Generalisability
• Many studies on misleading info are done in laboratory settings with artificial tasks (e.g. watching videos of car crashes).
• These settings lack ecological validity – they don’t reflect real-life emotional or high-stress eyewitness situations.
• Therefore, results may not have external validity or be easily generalised to everyday events.
⸻
- Strength – High Control & Reliability in Lab Studies
• Lab conditions allow researchers to control extraneous variables, making it easier to establish cause-and-effect between leading questions and memory recall.
• Replication is easier, and repeat studies have found similar results, supporting the idea that leading questions can distort memory.
⸻
- Weakness – Sample Bias (Use of Students)
• Many studies use students, who may not represent the wider population – they are generally younger, more educated, and less experienced.
• This reduces population validity.
• Warren et al. found that children are more influenced by misleading questions than adults, showing that age is a confounding variable.
• So, findings may only show how leading questions affect certain age groups, not everyone.
⸻
- Weakness – Questionnaires and Interpretation Issues
• Use of questionnaires in research can lead to misunderstandings:
• Participants may misread questions, and researchers may misinterpret answers.
• This affects the accuracy and validity of results.
• Adds another layer of uncertainty to findings on the impact of misleading information.
⸻
- Real-Life Evidence Challenges Lab Findings – Yuille & Cutshall
• In a real-life study, witnesses to a real armed robbery still gave accurate recall months later, even when asked misleading questions.
• This suggests that misleading information may have less impact in real-life, high-stakes situations.
• Lab studies may show greater effects due to demand characteristics or lack of emotional involvement.
⸻
- Weakness – Other Real-Life Factors May Be Stronger than Leading Questions
• In real situations, arousal, stress, focus, or motivation may affect recall more than misleading questions.
• Forster et al. found participants who believed they were watching a real robbery and thought their answers would impact a trial gave more accurate recall.
• Suggests that emotional involvement can override the effects of misleading information.
• However, the study used deception, raising ethical concerns.
Anxiety
- Deffenbacher looked at 21 studies and found that the relationship between stress and performance follows the inverted U shape of the Yerkes-Dodson Curve. the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is affected by how stressed someone is. When stress levels are either very low or very high, people’s recall is worse. However, when stress is at a moderate level, their memory and performance are at their best.
- The practical takeaway is that understanding how anxious an eyewitness was can be crucial for evaluating their testimony in court. However, figuring out someone’s level of anxiety can be tricky and often relies on subjective judgment.
- Loftus et al found similar findings when two groups in different conditions observed a violent and non-violent event. In condition 1 a man exited a discussion holding a pen while condition 2 saw a man exiting holding a paper-knife covered in blood after a loud altercation. The group who observed the pen were more accurate (49%) than the group observing the violent situation (33%). A possible explanation is the weapon may have distracted their attention from everything else happening and may explain why some witnesses struggle for other details in violent crimes as their focus switches to the weapon itself
- Clifford and Scott found people who saw a film of a violent attack remembered less than people in a control group who saw a less stressful version. concluded witnessing stressful situations in real life far more stressful than observing a film memory accuracy may well be more affected in real life with poorer recall. However Christianson (1993) et al found contradicting evidence. When witnesses to real bank robberies tested on recall, found increased anxiety led to improvements in the accuracy of recall. suggests high levels of anxiety in situations do not always divert attention away from what is happening.
Evaluation
- Criticisms of research into how anxiety affects eyewitness testimony point to the fact that studies have been conducted in laboratory settings and therefore lack ecological validity due to their controlled nature. Participants are usually motivated and eager to engage in the study which may be unrealistic of real-life witnesses and motivation in itself may, therefore, be a confounding variable. Therefore the possibility of demand characteristics is very possible with such laboratory studies.
- benefit of these key studies being conducted in the laboratory, however, was that such experiments can be easily replicated for validity and reliability checking as well as limiting confounding and extraneous variables to establish cause and effect relationships between anxiety and eyewitness testimony.
- Due to the ease of replication other studies have found similar findings showing the findings of Deffenbacher and Loftus are reliable. However again the replicated studies tend to be within artificial settings which could be affecting results and lack external validity and wider generalisation to real-world situations which is again limited.
- Yuille & Cutshall’s study contradicts laboratory findings highlighting the importance of stress in eyewitness testimony. Witnesses to a real-life violent crime such as a gun shooting were found to have remarkable memories of the stressful situation even after observing the gunman be killed. Even those re-interviewed 5 months later were found to have accurate recall with even misleading questions which were inserted into the questioning having no effect. One thing to note however was the witnesses who experienced the most stress were closest to the event and this may have aided their accurate recall. Therefore proximity to events itself may be a confounding variable in such research studies. This study illustrated that in instances of real-life stressful situations recall may be accurate even months later. Also, misleading questions, as illustrated, tended to have less of an effect in real-life situations compared to Loftus & Palmer’s laboratory study on misleading questions and stress may be a stronger mitigating factor in recall.
- Studies that have subsequently found stress/anxiety to aid recall were likely to have experienced the first increasing levels of stress in the Yerkes-Dodson curve while those suffering from poor recall may be due to them being within the second part with over-arousal resulting in poor recall performance. Such studies involving violence (Loftus/ Clifford) to heighten anxiety levels also raise ethical concerns due to the possible psychological harm they can cause from observing such events. Other research suggests age is also a mitigating factor which could be a confounding variable beyond simply anxiety and this needs to be considered also.
- There is also research evidence to suggest the Yerkes-Dodson curve is far too simplified to explain how anxiety affects eyewitness accounts. Fazey & Hardy (1988) proposed Catastrophe theory which may better explain the conflicting findings of how anxiety affects EWT on a 3- dimensional scale. This includes performance, physiological arousal and also cognitive anxiety too. This model proposes that as physiological arousal increases beyond the moderate optimum level, unlike the Yerkes-Dodson curve where there is a steady decline, they observed a drastic drop in performance which they proposed is caused by increased mental anxiety and worry. However, trying to distinguish whether a person felt anxiety or stress in itself would be difficult and subjective.
Cognitive interview
- method used primarily by the police to aid eyewitnesses in recalling information more accurately.
- witness is encouraged to:
- Report every detail regardless of how trivial it may seem. This is because the recollection of one small memory may act as a retrieval cue for other important memories.
- Recreate the context of the event itself with the witness encouraged to mentally recreate the environment or contacts they may have had as well as their own psychological state. Doing this may help trigger contextual or emotional cues which aid recall.
- Recall the event in different orders such as in reverse order or at different stages. This reduces the chance of expectations or existing “schemas” of how an event unfolds influencing recall.
- Recall the event from different points of view or perspectives of what others may have seen again to reduce the influence of an individuals schema on recall.
- The interviewer may also try to ensure they reduce the anxiety of the witness, minimise distractions, allow them to take their time in their recall and avoid interruptions or leading questions while the interview occurs.
Evaluation
Strengths
- Fisher et al. (1990) found that witnesses reported greater detail in their accounts of crimes when American detectives had been trained to use the technique.
- The technique is more structured than the standard technique, and it seems appropriate for crime-related interviews to be very thorough in order to gather the detail required for a useful testimony.
Weaknesses
- Koehnken et al. (1999) found that witnesses recalled more incorrect information when interviewed with the cognitive interview compared to the standard interview technique, perhaps because more detailed recall increases the chances of making mistakes.
- The interview is far more time-consuming than the standard interview.
