MEMORY Flashcards
limitations of coding, capacity and duration of memory research
x4
Baddeley didn’t use meaningful material:
words had no personal meaning to ppts and when processing meaning info, people may use semantic coding for STM. results have limited application and aren’t generalisable to different kinds of memory tasks
Jacobs study was conducted a long time ago:
could have lacked inadequate control of extraneous variables e.g ppts may have been distracted while they were being tested. results may not be valid as confounding variables weren’t controlled. however results have been confirmed in other research supporting validity
Miller may have overestimated capacity of STM:
Cowan reviewed other research and concluded that the capaity of STM was only about 4 chunks. lower end of Miller’s estimate (5 items) is more appropriate than 7 items
Peterson and Petersons’s study uses artifical stimulus:
trying to remember consonant syllables doesn’t reflect most real-life memory activities where we are trying to remember something meaningful so lacks external validity
strength of coding, capacity and duration research
Bahrick et al.s study has high external validity:
real-life memories (people’s names and faces) were studied. when lab studies were done with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates were lower (Shepard)
strength of the Multi-store model of memory
supported by research showing STM and LTM are different:
Baddeley found ppts found it harder to remember accoustically similar words using STM and harder to recall semantically similar words using LTM showing they are coded differently. supports view of MSM that LTM and STM are separate and independent
limitations of the multi-store model of memory
x3
evidence suggests more than 1 type of STM:
Shallice & Warrington’s case study of KF found his STM for digits when read aloud to him was poor but his recall was better when he read them to himself . MSM suggests STM is a unitary store but KF study suggests there are separate stores for processing auditory information and visual information. WMM better explanation
only explains one type of rehearsal:
Craik & Watkins argue there are 2 types of rehearsal: maintenance (described in MSM) and elaborative (needed for long-term storage and occurs when you link information to existing knowledge or process it.
oversimplifies LTM:
lots of research support that LTM isn’t a unitary store. has been found that we have one store for memories of facts about the world (semantic) and another store for memories of how to e.g ride a bike (procedural). MSM doesn’t reflect these differences in LTM
strengths of types of long-term memory
x2
support for different types by case studies:
case studies of Clive Wearing and HM showed they both had difficulty recalling events that had happened due to amnesia but their semantic and procedural memories were in tact, e.g CW could play piano and would both understand concept of a dog. supports different types as one damaged but other fine
support from brain scan studies:
Tulving et al. made ppts do different memory tasks while in a PET scanner and found episodic and semantic memories were located in the prefrontal cortex, episodic on the right and semantic on the left. physical diference confirmed in many studies thus supporting validity
limitations of types of long-term memory
x2
problems with case studies:
evidence often based on case studies about what happens when memory is damaged. lack of control over different variables e.g precise location of brain damage and personality traits. difficult to generalise
may only be 2 types of LTM:
Cohen and Squire argue episodic and semantic memories are stored together in 1 LTM store called declarative memory (memories that have to be consciously recalled). Procedural memory is a distinctly different kind of memory that is recalled without conscious awareness (non-declarative). important to get distinction correct between types of memory as influences how studies are conducted
strengths of the working memory model
x3
support by Shallice & Warrington’s study of KF:
found KF who had suffered brain damage found itmuch harder to recall digits if they were read aloud to him than if he read them. so his phonoloigcal loop had been damaged but other areas of his memory were intact suggesting there are different visual and auditory stored
support from dual task performance studies:
Baddley et al. found ppts had more difficulty dong 2 visual tasks at once e.g tracking a light and desrcibing letters than 1 visual and 1 verbal task at the same time. due to both visual tasks competing for same resources but no competition when doing a verbal and visual task simultaneously. provides evidence for existence of VSS
word length effect supports existence of phonological loop:
Baddeley et al. found people have more difficulty remembering a list of long words than short words (word length effect). as limited space for rehearsal in the articulatory process (capacity about 2 seconds worth of what you can say)
limitation of the working memory model
lack of clarity over the central executive:
cognitive psychologists sugest the CE doesn’t really explain anything and needs to be more clearly specified than just being ‘attention’. some psychologists believe it may consist of separate components. WMM hasn’t been fully explained
strengths of interference as an explanation for forgetting
x2
support from lab studies:
many lab studies have been carried out into interfernce e.g McGeoch & McDonald effects of similarty. majority show that both types of interference are very likely causes of forgetting from LTM. lab experiments control the effects of EVs so give us confidence that interference is a valid explanation
support from real-life studies:
Baddeley & Hitch asked rugby players to recall the teams they had played that season week by week. accurate recall didn’t depend on how long ago the match took place but by how many games had been played in the meantime, a example of retroactive interference. therefore inteference explanations can apply to some everyday situations
limitations of interference as an explanation for forgetting
research uses artificial tasks:
stimulus material often used is word tasks e.g McGeoch and McDonald, which is quite different from things we remember in everyday life e.g people’s faces and birthdays. use of artificial materials makes interefernce much more likely in the lab as not meaningful so may not be a likely cause of everyday forgetting
time allowed between learning limited:
time periods between learning lists, recalling them and then leaning another list in lab studies is quite short due to efficiency of lab time. 20 mins to learn 2 lists. research reduces whole experience of learning into a short time period which doesn’t reflect how we learn and remember most info in everyday life. conclusions therefore may not be generalisable and role of interference may be exaggerated
strength of retrieval failure as a cause of forgetting
vast range of evidence:
Godden & Baddeley’s study on deep sea divers showed learning and recalling words in the same context improved recall by 40%. Carter & Cassaday alos found recall much higher when recalling words in same state (taken anti-histamine or not). Eysenck argues retrieval failure is main reason for forgetting in LTM. validity
limitations of retrieval failure as a cause of forgetting
x3
context effects aren’t very strong in real life:
Baddeley argued contexts have to be very differet indeed before retrieval failure occurs. learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting due to retrieval failure are environments aren’t different enough. limited real-life applications as don’t explain much forgetting due to contextual cues
context effects only occur when memory is tested in certain ways:
Godden and Baddeley replicated their underwater experiment using a recognition rather than recall test and found no difference in performance in all 4 groups so no context-dependent effect. limited explanation for forgetting as presence or absence of contextual cues only affects memory when you test recall rather than recognition
encoding specificity principle can’t be tested:
when a cue produces successful recall of a word, we asume the cue must have been present and encoded at the time of learning. however if a cue doesn’t result in succesful recall, we assume the cue wasn’t encoded even if it was present at time of learning. no way to independently establish whethr or not the cue has really been encoded
strength of misleading information as a factor affecting EWT
research has real-life applications:
research has led to practical uses as consequences of EWT can be very serious. Loftus claimed leading question can have such a distorting influence on memory that police have to be very careful when phrasing questions to eyewitnesses. research into EWT is oe area where psychologists can make an important difference to the lives of real people e.g by improving how the legal system works
limitations of misleading information as a factor affecting accuracy of EWT
Loftus & Palmer’s study used artifiial materials:
ppts watched film clips of accidents which is very different from witnessing a real-life accident. Yuille & Cutshall found witnesses of a traumatic robbery still had very accurate recall after 4 months. using artificial tasks tells us little about how leading questions affect EWT in real life
lab studies of EWT suffer from demand characterisics:
research ppts usually want to be helpful so when they don’t know the answer to a question they guess. might be asked ‘did you see the blue car?’ and even if there wasn’t a blue car in the film they may reply ‘yes’ as it seem like a more helpful answer. challenges validity of EWT research as answers eyewitnesses give may not actually reflect their memories
many EWT research studies lack external validity:
Foster et al. argue that what you remember as an eyewitness has very important consequences in the real world but the same isn’t true for research studies. real eyewitnesses search their memory with more effort as their testimony may lead to a succesful conviction (or the wrong one if inaccurate). EWT accuracy may be greater in real world due to seriousness with which eyewitnesses undertake their role
limitations of anxiety affecting accuracy of EWT
x4
Johnson & Scott’s study may test surprise not anxiety:
ppts may focus on weapon as they are suprised at what they see rather than scared (pen and paper knife). Pickel used varius objects as hand-held items in a hairdressing salon and found EWT poor for high unusualness e.g chicken. weapon focus effect due to surprise so tells us nothing about effects of anxiety on EWT
field studies lack control of variables:
real-life witnesses interviewed some time after event (e.g Yuille & Cutshall 4-5 months) and many things could’ve happened in the mean time e.g post-event discussions, rading accounts on the media and police interviews. extraneous varibales may be responsible for (in)accuracy of recall not anxiety
ethical issues:
creating anxiety inducing situation purely for research purposes may subject ppts to psychological harm. life-life studies more beneficial as interview poeple who have already witnessed an invent; they hven’t created one. ethical issues don’t challenge the findings of e.g Johnson & Scot’s study but do raise questions about conducting such research
inverted-U explanation is too simplistic:
anxiety is difficult to define and measure as it has many different elements - cognitive, behavioural, emotional and physical. the inverted-U explanation assumes only one of these is linked to poor performance - physiological arousal. fails to account for other factor e.g emotional experience of witnessing a crime e.g fear on accuracy of memory
