Memory Flashcards
A01 - interference theory of forgetting
-suggests forgetting is caused by conflicting memories
-more likely to occur when the material is similar, for example, if you g on holiday to the same destination more than once you may forget on which holiday you went turtle spotting
- proposed mainly as forgetting in the LTM and suggests forgetting appears in the LTM due to info in the LTM combining and interfering with other info during encoding
- two ways interference cab cause forgetting, proactive and retroactive interference
AO1- interference theory of forgetting- pro active
-pro active interferenace is when older info interferes with newer ones
-older information may overwrite newer information for example teacher learnt so many names in past she has difficulty remembering new ones.
-example of pro is underwoods study
- requires ps to learn series of word lists
-found ps who memories 10 or more lists after 24hrs only remembered 20% of what they learned
- whereas if they only learned 1 list recall was 70%
-suggesting more lists a p must learn the worse their recall explained by pro active interference.
A01- interference of forgetting
-retro active interference is where newer memory interferes with an older one
-e.g teacher learned so many names this year she can’t remember older ones
-example of retroactive is muller,
-stuffy which got ps to learn a list of syllables and the were given an intervening task between describing paintings
-study produces retroactive interference as ps struggle to recall their lists.
-A03 interference of forgetting- strength, supporting evidence
-mcgeoch and McDonald’s
-studies retroactive interference by changing amount of similarity between 2 sets of materials, ps first learnt set of 10 words then they each had to learn another list
- ps recall of the OG list was lower with the ones who had learned similar words
-a strength as is shows interference is strongest when memories are similar
- however this study may lack mundane realism as they used artificial stimuli, ps were required to learn words raging from synonyms, to nonsense syllables and 3 digit numbers.
-we do not usually have to remember such lists in every day life
- so it lacks ecological validity and mundane realism as we may not be able to genrasued these findings to every day life where more meaningful sitmuli is encountered
A03- thory of interference in forgetting- strength, real life applications
-dasher found when people are exposed to rival advertising brands in a short time interval recall, ps struggled to recognise the brands or their message
- considering the millions spent on advertising this presents a big problem but also provides practical ways to overcome this
-by ensuring adverts are spaced significantly far apart from the airing of rival brands or by repeating more in one day rather than over a week with rival brands, therefore preventing adverts from dilution
-this is a strength as interference theory is useful for real life situations as it Helps advertiser as they attempt to to build brands
A03- interference theory, weakness, only explains similar
- only explains forgetting when info is similar and cannot explain why forgetting occurs in everyday life situations
- also forgetting due to similarities doesn’t happen often either suggesting it is only one part of a bigger explanation and over simplified
-fact that there is significant research support for cue dependent forgetting suggests other explanations o processes must be used at which interference theory cannot explain everything
A01- retrieval failure on the absence of cues —reterival failure
-argues forgetting in the LTM is due to insufficient cues
-memory is available but not accessible unless a cue is provided
-cue acts like a trigger that allows us to access memory
-tulving called this the ‘encoding specify principle’ which states that if a cue helps us to recall info it must be present in encoding and reterival but if cue available at coding and reterival differ there will be some forgetting
- he suggested that memory recall is most effective when info present at time of encoding is available during retreival
-two types; context dependent and state dependent
A01 retrieval failure explanation of forgetting - context dependent (external )
- when a retrieval cue may be based on context setting or situation in which info is encoded and retrieved
- e.g Abernethy got a group of students to be tested before certain course began
-students were tested each week in one of following conditions
-same room same instructor
-same room diff instructior
-diff room same instructor
-diff room diff instructor
Found those that tested in same room and instructor performed the best
-because on and instructor are were similar things and acted as cues
A01 retrieval failure explanation of forgetting
- state dependent ( internal)
-state dependent is dependent on mental state you are in at time of encoding can act as cue
- state dependent occurs when a persons internal mental state is different to when encoding information
E.g Goodwin et al asked male voulenteers too remember a list of words when they are either drunk or sober
- the ps then asked to recall list after 24hrs either being drunk or sober depending on condition
-found that when info learnt when drunk is more available in the same state
A03 retrieval failure explanation of forgetting— strength evince
-range of supports evidence
- e.g michale eysecnk argued that reteival failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting in LTM
- strength as evidence shows reterival failure occur both in real life situations and in highly controlled lab conditions
-strength as increases validity for retrieval failures explanation as finings can be genralised to real life situations
A03 retrieval failure explanation of forgetting-supporting evidence strength
-Godden and Baddely carried out study of Deep sea divers working underwater
-divers learned list of words underwater or in land
-then were asked to recall words either underwater or on land
-in two of these conditions the enivoronmental contexts of learning and recall matched whereas in rage other two they did not
Accurate recall was 40% lower in the non matching conditions
-a strength because is increases the validity of the explanation and supports context dependent
-however Baddely himself criticised E validity of research as he suggested it’s unlikely that we come across such differen contexts in real lie
-also the context may be related to the kind of memory tested
G+ b repeated above study using recognition instead of recall
-s had to say if they recognised a word read to them from a list instead of reteriving it
-when recognition testes there was no context dependent affect, performance was Same in ll condition
-indicated presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test in particular way
A01 retrieval failure explanation of forgetting strength— real life applications
-had useful applications
-recalling the context of a memory van help trigger to recall this has been effectively used to improve eye witness testimony using CI
-one aspect includes ‘context reinstatement’ where witness will return to crime scene in their mind and imagine environment
-strength as it has produce so much better recall in witnesses than traditional police interviews
AO1 multi store model - proposed by
-Atkinson and sherif which suggests that memory is made up of three key parts
- sensory register, STM and LTM
-model proposes that memories are formed through a sequence
-info passes from one component to next in a linear fashion
AO1 multi store model- components
-info enters our sensory resister via our senses such as sound or sight
- sensory register has a limited duration of less than one sec
Info that is attended to is passed onto the STM
-which has a limited capacity of 7+ or -2 chucks of info
-and limited duration of approx 20 secs
-info in our STM is coded acoustically
-if maintenance rehearsed information is transferred to the long-term memory which has an unlimited capacity and a lifetime duration
-information in long-term memory is coded semantically and can be retrieved from the long-term memory to when required
AO3 multi store model - KF strength with counter
- to support this model from the case of patient KF reported by Shallice and Warrington.
Because of a motorcycle accident it reduced his short-term memory to only one or two digits and had a Regency effect of only one item.
-Yet his memory of events before the accident was relatively normal.
This supports the idea that the stores are separate as proposed by the Mustone model of memory
-and that long-term memory can function even when the short-term memory has become damaged
-however he was able to remember visual images including faces but was unable to remember sounds
-This suggests that there are at least two components in the short-term memory one components of visual information and another for acoustic suggesting that the multi model of memory maybe an oversimplified account for the short-term memory.
AO3 multi store model strength miller
-further support comes from psychological studies
-for example, Miller supports the idea of a limited capacity of 7+ or minus chunks of information in short-term memory
-Peter and Peter also support the idea of a limited duration and short-term memory for approximately 20 seconds and Barwick supports the idea of a lifetime duration and long-term memory
-These studies all support the different elements of the multi model of memory and therefore suggest that the model is an accurate representation of human memory.
-However research examining the multi model of memory is a clear example of experimental reductionism as attempts to explain a complex behaviour by rely on isolated variables operationalised and laboratory experiments such as the capacity of short-term memory duration of short term memeory
AO1 multi store model strength
-evidence comes from Beadsley
-He found the preform of cortex was active during a usage of short-term memory
-And squire found the hippocampus was active during long-term memory tasks
-This suggests that the model is correct in assuming that a separate stores for long-term memory and short-term memory
AO3 multi store model weaknes LTM
-It’s been criticised for suggest suggesting the long-term memory is a unitary store which has been found to be too simplistic
-The model was based on evidence at the time.
The long-term memory has been found to have different types of memories for example semantic=facts episodic=personal information and procedural =motor skills
-This is a weakness as it suggests the MSM is oversimplified and lacks temporal validity.
LTM A01- episodic
-tulving
-Was one of the first cognitive psychologists to realise that the MSMs view of long-term memory was too simplistic
-He suggested that there are three stores in LTM containing quite different types of information
-1st would be episodic
-This is the ability to recall events from our lives E.G like a diary of events
-These are personal events from our lives like what you had for breakfast this morning
-These memories are complex and our time stamped
-We have to make a conscious effort to recall these memories
-for example, it may take a few seconds to record the name of your English teacher, but you are still aware that you are searching for it
LTM A01- semantic
-secondly is semantic memory
-This is our knowledge of the world
-It may include facts
-This memory is often linked to a dictionary or en Encyclopedia
-An example could be what different fruit taste like how to apply to a university etc
- These memories are not timestamp and they are less personal
-They are constantly being added to and developed
LTM A01-procedural
-lastly is procedural memory
- This is the memory for motor actions and skills
-Please give me a record without conscious awareness or effort
-Some examples could be riding a bike, driving a car
-I will need to do these things rely on our procedural memory
LTM A03- brain scans- strength
-A strength for the long-term memory, our brain scans
-These are neuroimaging techniques
-and they show different types of memory in different parts of the brain
-For example tulving et al got participants to perform various memory tasks which their brain was scanned using PET scanners
-He found the episodic and semantic memories were recalled at the pre-frontal cortex
-Episode on the right side
-And semantic on the left
-Additionally, evidence has found that procedural is linked to the cerebellum
- This strong evidence increases the scientific validity of the explanation for different stores in the long-term memory
LTM A03- strength, case studies
-The patient of case HM provides evidence for the distinction between procedural and semantic memories
-He was unable to form new semantic or episodic memories but he could form new procedural memories
-He was able to draw but couldn’t remember learning to do so
-This again increased the validity for different stores in the LTM
-However this case study is unique and it cannot be replicated because he had surgery
-Therefore, there is a difficult to establish reliability of the results and the validity because we can not generalise to the wider population or replicate it
LTM A03- weakness cohen nd squire
-A weakness is that Cohen and Squire disagree with this theory
-They argue that episodic and semantic memories are stored together in one store they call declarative memory
-These can be consciously recalled
- In contrast Cathedral are non-declarative
-Therefore reducing the reliability of talking theory that there are three stores in the long-term memory
-As they suggest that there are two stores
LTM A03 - strength
-however another strength is it has real life applications
- Belleville at al studied how episodic memories could be improved in older people who had mild cognitive impairment
-Compared to participants who received memory training and those that did not (control)
- They found the participants in the experimental group outperformed the control group on episodic tests
-Therefore concluding that psychologist could have better understanding and advise better treatments by categorising different types of long-term memory
Working memory model- A01
-this was developed by bodily and Hitch and expands upon the short-term memory store in the multi store model and it consists of four sub components
-The phonological loop: responsible for the order of information, auditory information, and it is subdivided into the phonological store(holds words were hear), and the articularly process(this allows us to repeat words in a loop)
- The Visiospatial sketchpad: which stores visual (visual cache) and spatial information ( inner scribe)
-The episodic buffer:: which is a temporary store which integrates information from other components and maintains a sense of time so events can occur in a continuing sequence
-The central executive: which controls all the other slave stores, and direct tension to the two slave systems, the phonological loop and the visual spatial sketchpad
-The model provides a framework for understanding the functioning of the working memory
Working memory model- A03
-One strength is that it has empirical support
-For example Bailly’s dual task study demonstrated that performing two tasks simultaneously that require the same component of the working memory
-Such as tracking a point of light while completing a visual imagery task leads to a decrease in performance
-This suggests that the phonological loop and the physio spatial sketch but our distinct systems and have limited capacities supporting the assumptions of the working memory model
Working memory model- A03
-however a weakness is that the methodology of these experiments of studies can be subject to criticism
-Many of these studies like ecological validity and mundane realism
-The results collected from lab experiments may not be generalisable to other more naturalistic situations
-Therefore limiting the external validity of the model
-Furthermore experiments testing the working model are offered unlike how people use their memory in day-to-day real life
-This may raise questions about the models validity and its ability to explain how we use memory in every day situations
Working memory model- A03
-however another strength is the working memory models assumptions have been supported by case studies of brain damaged patients
-For example, patient KF who suffered severe brain damage following a motorbike accident, which resulted in near total inability to form short term memories, but only for information.
-interestingly KF was still able to recall visual information which suggests that the separate visual spatial sketchpad and phonological loop stores exist separately in our working memory model supporting badly and hitch’s idea of these two separate stores
Working memory model- A03
However, despite providing more detail for the short-term memory than the multi store model
-The working memory model has been criticised for being far too simplistic and vague
-For example it is very unclear what the central executive is and it’s exact role in our attention
-This lack of detail may be due to the fact that the central executive is very difficult to operationalise and measure
-therefore there may be more than one central component to the central executive but to date this is not been established with empirical evidence
-so the working memory model only really involves the STM so it is not a comprehensive model of memory
Misleading info, EWT- A01
Misleading information incorporates misleading questions and post event discussion
-Loftus and Palmer examine the effect of misleading questions by using three groups of students who watched a one minute video of a car accident
-One group was asked how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other
-While the other group was asked the same question but with the verb hit instead of smashed
-One week later they were asked did you see any broken glass?
-Despite the fact that there was none
-32% of participants in the smashed condition say yes
-Compared to a 14% in the hit Condition
-And 12% in the control
-These results suggest that misleading questions can significantly affect the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and make people report seeing things that they did not witness
Misleading info, EWT- A01
-Gabbert et al investigated the effect of post event discussion
-Her participants watched a video of a girl stealing money
-However the participants in the co-witness group was told that they had watched the same video when they had in fact seen different perspectives
-71% of the witnesses in the co-witness group recall information they had not seen
-And 60% so that the girl was guilty despite not having seen her commit a crime
-These results highlighted the issue of post event discussion and the powerful effects that this can have on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info, EWT- A03 X
-One limitation of lofts and palmers research is that it has questionable ecological validity
-On one hand questioning participants about every day events like a car crash appears to be a genuine measurement of eyewitness testimony
-However the participants did watch t a video of the car crash and witnessed the event unfolded from start to finish
-in every day reports of car accidents witnesses rarely see the entire event
-They are either involved in the event directly or see a small part of the event happened in their peripheral vision
-Therefore, their results may not reflect every day car accidents and we are unable to conclude if the effect of leading questions is the same outside the lab
Misleading info, EWT- A03 x
Additionally, Lofters and palmers research lacks population validity
- Their experiment consisted of 150 American students
-Ecological to conduct that the students in their experiment were less experienced drivers who may be less accurate at estimating speeds
-Consequently we are unable to generalise the results to other populations for example older and more experienced drivers he may not be affected by me eating questions in the same way
Misleading info, EWT- A03
One strength of gabberts study is that he tested two different populations
-University students and old adult adults
-And she found little difference between these two conditions
-Therefore her results provide good population validity and allows us to conclude that post event discussion affects younger and older adult adults in the same way
-However her results do have questionable ecological validity
-The participants in the co-witness condition witnessed different perspectives of the same crime as would typically be the case in real life crimes
-However, like Loftus and Palmer, these witnesses knew they were taking an experiment and more likely to have paid attention to the detail details of the video clip
-Therefore, these results do not reflect every examples of crime while witnesses may be exposed to less information
Misleading info, EWT- A03 X
-although gabberts results provide an insight into the effect of post event discussion on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony we are unable to conclude why the distortion occurs
-The distortion could be the result of poor memory where people assimilate new information into their own accounts of the event and are unable to distinguish between what they have seen and what they have heard
-On the other hand it could be that distortion occurs due to conformity and the social pressure from the co-witnesses
-So therefore further research then is needed to answer this question
