Memory Flashcards
Joseph Jacobs
Capacity of STM
Jacobs reads increasing strings of numbers for ppts to recall in correct order. most no. remembered in a sequence is the digit span
mean span for mo. is 9.3 and letters is 7.3 as there are 26 letters and 9 numbers
capacity is bigger for numbers than letters
George Miller
reviewed psychological research
people can’s count more than 7 dots flashed onto a screen and the same was true when recalling musical notes, letters and words. people can recall 5 words as easily as 5 letters
span of immediate memory is about 7 items (7+-2)
chunking allows us to remember more
Peterson and Peterson
Duration of STM
8 trials - each P given consonant syllable and 3 digit number (THX 521).
asked to recall after 3s for first trail then after 6,9,12,18
during interval p’s count backwards from 3 digit number
found 90% correct over 3 secs, 20% correct after 9 secs, 2% correct after 18 secs
STM has short duration (less than 18 secs) as long as verbal rehearsal prevented
Alan Baddeley
find out how memory is coded depending on which store is used
four groups of p’s give words
group 1 = acoustically similar
group 2 = acoustically dissimilar
group 3 = semantically similar
group 4 = semantically dissimilar
P’s recall words in correct order directly after hearing (STM) or 20 mins later (LTM)
found
difficult to remember acoustically similar in STM but easy in LTM
Easy to remember semantically similar in STM but not in LTM
STM = encoded acoustically
LTM = encoded semantically
Bahrick et al
duration on LTM tested 400 people on memory of class mates 50 photos of p's high school year book to see is recognised then free recall rest, list names in graduating class 15 yrs after graduation = 90% correct in recognition after 48 yrs = 70% in recognition 15 yrs = 60% in free recall After 48yrs = 50% in free recall LTM can have a very long duration
STM
memory for events in the present or immediate past
LTM
memory for evens that happened in the more distant past
Capacity
measure of how much can be held in memory
Duration
measure of how long a memory lasts before it is no longer available
Coding
way in which information is changed to that is can be stored in memory
Explicit Memory
type of LTM
knowing that
Implicit Memory
type of LTM
know how
Episodic Memory
knowing that occurs as part of a sequence memories of personal experiences three main elements 1) details of the event 2) context 3) emotion felt must make a conscious effort to recall them
Semantic Memory
knowing that
knowledge of the world which is shared by everyone
related to things like function of objects and appropriated behaviour
less personal
Procedural Memory
knowing how
e.g riding a bike
acquired through repetition and practice
we’re not aware of recalling them as they’re automatic
inference
Explanation for forgetting
occurs when two pieces of info are in conflict
forgetting occurs In LTM due to lack of access to memories that are actually available
Proactive Inference
old information interferes with new info
older memories disrupts a newer one
e.g. teacher learns many names in past and can’t remember names of current class
Retroactive inference
new info interferes with old info
new memory disrupts an older one
McGeoch and McDonald
research effects of similarity
p’s lean list of words to 100% accuracy and were given a new list to learn
Group 1 - synonyms - words held same meaning to originals
Group 2 - antonyms - words had opposite meaning to originals
Group 3 - unrelated words
Group 4 - nonsense syllables
Group 5 - three digit numbers
Group 6 - control group, no new list
synonyms produced worst recall
inference strongest when memories are similar
Baddeley and Hitch
inference in everyday settings
rugby team with some playing in every game of the season and other only some. same time intervals form beginning to end of season but intervening games differed. asked to recall names of team playing against
team names recalled decreases as number of games played increases
supports inference
Tulving and Psotka
see if retrieval cues can overcome inference affects
P’s given 6 lists of 24 words each list organised into 6 categories but P’s not told categories
recall 70% for 1st list, but fell as more lists learnt (retroactive interference)
if given a cue recall increased
forgetting may not be due to interference but due to retrieval failure as info there just needed reminders
Retrieval Failure
When info is first placed in memory, associated cues are stored at the same time
if cues are available at time of recall, you might not be able to access memories that are actually there
Encoding Specificity principle
cues help retrieval if some cues are present at encoding and at retrieval
the closer the retrieval cue to the original cue the better the cue works
some cues aer linked to the material in a meaningful way
other cues are encoded at the time of learning but not in a meaningful way
Context - dependent forgetting
Memory retrieval is dependent on external environmental cues (weather of place)
State - dependent forgetting
Memory retrieval is dependant on internal cues, state of mind (feeling upset, being drunk)
Goddan and Baddeley
see if environment can work as a cue/effect contextual cues
scuba divers learnt set of words either on land of in water and recalled them either on land or in water 4 experimental conditions
highest recall when initial context matched recall environment
suggests familiar things in environment acted as cues
Tulving and Pearlstone
Demonstrate value of retrieval cues
P’s learn 48 words belonging in categories shown as ‘category-word’. all words learnt with category. some participants asked to free recall and then cued recall where category reminded them
suggests cues being explicitly of implicitly encoded at time of learning and have meaningful link with words learnt
Goodwin et al
see if mental state at time of learning acts as a cue
asked males volunteers to remember lists of words when either drunk or sober and asked them to recall either drunk or sober
recall higher with same mental state learnt in
suggests that mental state at time of learning acts as a cue
Loftus and Palmer (Study 1) - aim
consider whether a leading question effects memory for events
Loftus and Palmer (Study 1) - procedure
45 p’s shown 7 films of different traffic accidents
then given questionnaire including one critical question ‘How fast were the cars going when them hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted each other?’
Loftus and Palmer (Study 1) - results
estimated speed varied from 31.8 - 40.8mph depending on verb used
Loftus and Palmer (Study 1) - conclusion
shows that the more brutal the verb the fast the p’s though the car was going
therefore suggesting leading q’s effect the answer
however unsure if it changed their memory or just influence the answer
Loftus and Palmer (Study 2) - aim
consider whether leading question is biasing a person’s response or if it may actually be causing the info to be altered before it is stored
Loftus and Palmer (Study 2) - procedure
new set of p’s divided into 3 groups and shown car accident film with no broken glass and asked the same Q about speed
1 week later asked another series of 10 Q’s including one critical Q
- Did you see any broken glass?
Loftus and Palmer (Study 2) - results
when Q asked with words ‘smashed’ rather than ‘hit’ believed to have seen glass
Loftus and Palmer (Study 2) - conclusion
leading questions change memory of events
Gabbert et al
find out if co-witnesses will reach agreement view of what happened
P’s put in pairs
each pair split in tow to watch a different video of same vent
condition 1 = discuss what seen with partner before recalling
condition 2 = no discussion
condition 1 = 71% of P’s wrongly recalled items only leant in discussion not actually seen
post-event discussion leads to changes in memory so people recollection match up - called memory conformity
Johnson and Scott
investigate whether weapon focus effect reduces the accuracy of EWT
P’s sat in waiting room and heard an argument
then saw a man running past with a pen covered in grease (love anxiety) or a knife (high anxiety)
asked to identify man form a set of photos
49% in low anxiety correctly identified man
33% in weapon focus effect condition (knife)
anxiety reduces EWT accuracy therefore supporting weapon focus effect
Christianson and Hubinette
consider effects of high vs low anxiety on EWT
Q’ed 58 real witnesses to a bank robbery 4-15 months after.
witnesses either bank teller (high anxiety) or bystander (low Anxiety)
all had good memory of event 75% accuracy
witnesses classed as high anxiety had best recall
the higher the anxiety level the better the recall
Pickel - aim
instigate if reduced anxiety in identification is due to weapon focus effect is the result of anxiety of surprise
Pickel - procedure
robber ran through a public place carrying either a gun (high threat and surprise), a chicken (low threat and high surprise), scissors (high threat and low surprise) or a wallet (low on both) and the P’s were asked to identify the robber
Pickel - Findings
identification least accurate in high surprise rather than high threat
Pickel - conclusion
Anxiety caused no effect on accuracy of identification but surprise did
challenges weapon focus effect
Fisher and Geiselman
Claimed EWT can be improved if police use techniques based on psychological insights into how memory works
cognitive interview
Cognitive interview
PROD Report everything Reinstate the context Reverse order Change perspective
