Memory Flashcards
Multi-Store Model of Memory
Sensory store ➡ short term memory ➡ long term memory
What is the time and capacity of each store?
Links to study of MURDOCK:
What is the aim, method, results and conclusion of this study?
And evaluation?
Sensory store ➡ less than one second, very limited capacity. Short term store ➡ less than one minute, approximately seven chunks of information. Information can be forgotten. Long term store ➡ remembered up to a lifetime, unlimited capacity. Information can also be forgotten and must be rehearsed and end up in the short term store for information to be recalled.
MURDOCK:
Aim: To provide evidence to support the multi-store explanation of memory.
Method: Participants were given a list of words to try and remember with 2 seconds between each word. After the words had been presented, the participants had to try and recall them in any order.
Results: Words that were presented last were recalled first as they were most recent (recency effect). Words that were presented first were also recalled (primary effect). Words in the middle weren’t really recalled.
Conclusion: Murdock concluded that this provides evidence for separate short and long term stores. The last few words were still in the short-term store and the first few were in the long-term store.
Evaluation:
▪Low ecological validity as its not an everyday task.
▪Not everything we learn has to be rehearsed.
▪Helps us to understand why we find it hard to remember the registration plate of a passing car or somebody’s telephone number.
Define key terms:
Interference
Retroactive Interference
Proactive Interference
Other terms into forgetting:
Anterograde amnesia
Retrograde amnesia
This links to the study of UNDERDERWOOD AND POSTMAN:
What is the aim, method, results and conclusion of this study?
And evaluation?
Key terms:
Interference: things that we have learnt that make it difficult to recall other information that we have learnt.
Retroactive Interference: when new information effects old information.
Proactive Interference: when old information effects new information.
Other terms:
Anterograde amnesia: when people suffer from brain damage and then can’t remember new information.
Retrograde amnesia: when people suffer from brain damage and can’t remember old infomation.
UNDERWOOD AND POSTMAN:
Aim: To see if new learning interferes with previous learning.
Method: Participants were divided into 2 groups: Group A were asked to learn of word pairs and then asked to remember a second list of word pairs. Group B were asked to remember the first list of word pairs only.
Results: Group B’s reacall of the first list was accurate than Group A’s.
Conclusion: New learning will cause people to recall previously learnt information less acccurately.
Evaluation:
▪Low ecological validity as it’s not an everyday task.
▪Conducted in a lab - artifical settings - can control almost everything.
▪Participant variables.
Define key terms:
Context
This links to the study of GODDEN AND BADDELEY:
Describe the aim, method, results and conclusion of this study?
And evalutaion?
Key terms:
Context: the general setting or environment in which activities happen.
GODDEN AND BADDELEY:
Aim: To see if people who learn and are tested in the same environment will recall more information than those who aren’t.
Method: Deep sea divers were split into four groups and were given the same list of words to learn.
Results: The groups that learnt and recalled the words in the same environment recalled more words than the groups in different environments.
Conclusion: Recall of information is better if it happens in the same context that learning takes place.
Evaluation:
▪Only representative of deep sea divers.
▪Low ecological validity as it’s not an everyday task.
Define key terms:
Reconstructive Memory
This links to the study of BARTLETT
Describe the aim, method, results and conclusion of this study?
And evaluation?
Key terms:
Reconstructive Memory: altering our recollection of things so that they make more sense to us.
BARTLETT:
Aim: To see if people, when given something unfamiliar to remember, would alter the information.
Method: Participants were asked to read a Native American Legend called ‘War of the Ghosts’. Later they were asked to retell the story as accurately as they could and retold it repeatedly over the weeks that followed.
Results: Bartlett discovered that the participants found it hard to remember the parts to do with spirits and changed parts so it made sense to them. Each time they retold it, they changed some more.
Conclusion: Bartlett concluded that our memory is influenced by our own beliefs.
Evaluation:
▪Difficult to measure the accuracy of the stories told.
▪The story is confusing and not similar to everyday activities.
▪Relevant to the way we use our memories in everyday life.
Define key terms:
Levels of Processing
Structural Processing
Phonetic Processing
Semantic Processing
This links to the study of CRAIK AND LOCKHART:
Describe the aim, method, results and conclusion of this study?
And evaluation?
Key terms:
Levels of Processing: the depth at which information is thought about when trying to learn.
Structural Processing: thinking about the physical appearance of words to be learnt.
Phonetic Processing: thinking about the sound of words to be learnt.
Semantic Processing: thinking about the meaning of words to be learnt.
CRAIK AND LOCKHART:
Aim: To see if the type of question asked about words will have an effect on the number of words recalled.
Method: Participants were presented with a list of words, one at a time, and asked questions about each word which they answered ‘yes or ‘no’ to. Some questions required semantic processing, some phonetic and some structural. They were then given a longer list and asked to identify the words they’d been asked questions on.
Results: Participants remembered words that required semantic precessing the best, then phonetic, then structural.
Conclusion: The more deeply information is processed, the more likely it is to be remembered.
Evaluation:
▪Deeper processing takes more time so that’s why it’s remembered better. Also takes more effort.
▪Low ecological validity as it’s not an everyday task.
▪Participant variables.
Define key terms:
Leading questions
This links to the study of LOFTUS AND PALMER MUST KNOW BY NAME!
Describe the aim, method, results and conclusion of this study?
And evaluation?
Key terms:
Leading questions: a question that hints that a particular type of answer is required.
LOFTUS AND PALMER:
Aim: To see if asking leading questions affects the accuracy of recall.
Method: Participants were shown videos of some car accidents. Some were asked ‘how fast was the car going when it hit the other car?’ and the others were asked ‘how fast was the car going were it smashed into the other car?’
Results: The participants who heard ‘smashed’ estimated a higher speed than those who heard ‘hit’.
Conclusion: Leading questions will reduce the accuracy of recall which led the people who heard ‘smash’ to think it was going faster.
Evaluation:
▪Watching a video is not the same as a real-life experience.
▪Low ecological validity as it’s not an everyday task.
▪Not usually expecting something to happen when you experience a real-life incident.
This links to the study of GEISELMAN:
Describe the aim, method, results and conclusion of this study?
And evaluation?
GEISELMAN:
Aim: To see if reinstating the context of an event will change the accuracy of witnesses’ accounts.
Method: Participants were shown a police training film of a crime. They were then interviewed about it 2 days later. The context of the crime was recreated for half the participants whereas standard police interview techniques were used for the other half during the interview.
Results: The participants who had the context recreated recalled facts more accurately than those who hadn’t.
Conclusion: Recreating context during interviews increases the accuracy of recall. This is known as cognitive interview.
Evaluation:
▪Cognitive interview techniques can be time consuming and often take up more time than police have.
▪Partcipant variables.
▪Only a video - not a real life incident,
This links to the study of BRUCE AND YOUNG MUST KNOW BY NAME!
Describe the aim, method, results and conclusion of this study?
And evaluation?
BRUCE AND YOUNG:
Aim: To see if familiarity affects the accuracy of identifying faces.
Method: Psychology lecturers were caught on security cameras at the entrance to a building. Participants were then asked to try and identify faces they saw on the tape from high-quality photos.
Results: The lecturers’ students correctly identified more people than other students and police officers.
Conclusion: Previous familiarity helps when trying to identify faces.
Evaluation:
▪Demonstrates the limited value of security camera’s when it comes to identifying someone.
▪Memory fades over time - may be a long time since they saw the person.
▪Participant variables.
