Memory Flashcards

1
Q

MSM A01

A

3 separate stores
Linear path
Unitary model
Coding, capacity and duration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

MSM Strengths A03

A

HM
Couldn’t retain new memories (damage to STM) - proving it follows a linear path
Glanced and Cuntiz
Recall immediately or delay then recall
R- first and last words remembered (no rehearsal) D- first words remembered (limited capacity of STM)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

MSM Limitations A03

A

KF
Damage to STM, remembered visual not sound
Able to learn new material - suggesting its not a linear path
Semantic memories
Can’t explain how these are stored in LTM without conscious rehearsal
WMM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

WMM A01

A

Model of STM
Separate slave systems that work independently
Coding, capacity and duration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

WMM Strengths A03

A

Baddely
2 visual or 1 visual, 1 sound task
Ps using different slave systems performed best - they work independently
KF
Explains his case as his phonological loop was damaged but visuo spatial sketch pad was still in tact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

WMM Limitations A03

A

KF
Individual differences, condition may be unique
Cannot be generalised to everyone lacking population validity
Lack of Empirical evidence (via the senses)
Not enough detailed information on how central executive works
Less useful model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Interference Theory A01

A

Explanation of forgetting
When two lots of information become confused, more likely to happen when there is a smaller gap between the learning

Proactive
Old learning affecting the recall of new learning
Retroactive
New learning affecting the recall of old learning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Interference Theory Strengths A03

A

McGeogh and McDonald
Ps learned a list of 10 words until they could recall perfectly
They then got given a second list - recall was worse when the second list was of synonyms
Minami and Dallenbach
Cockroaches normally remain immobile in damp conditions
Gave shocks and they learnt to avoid that area, 24 hours later they showed no loss of retention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Interference Theory Limitations A03

A

McGeogh and McDonald
Lab experiment- artificial environment so lacks ecological validity
Baddely and Hitch
Asked players to recall teams they played against
Players who were absent recalled more
Retrieval Failure Theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Retrieval Failure Theory A01

A

Explanation for forgetting
Memories are stored with associated cues, without the cue we cannot access the memory

State dependent forgetting
Internal bodily cues present at the time are now absent
Context dependent forgetting
External environmental cues present at the time are now absent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Retrieval Failure Theory Strengths A03

A

Godden and Baddely
Scuba Divers, recall was best was in the same environment
Tulving and Pearlstone
Ps asked to learn 48 words, they could be tested with or without cues
W/ cue - 60% correct recall, w/out cue - 40%
Goodwin et al
Recall when DS, SD, DD or SS, best was DD/SS
Abernethy
Students did best when doing test in class (state dependent)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Retrieval Failure Theory Limitations A03

A

May be the type of memory, as opposed to the cue being present
Goodwin et al
Only male ps, lacks population validity
Highly controlled experiments, lacking ecological validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Leading Questions A01

A

Loftus and Palmer
45 students, watched a video of a car crash
Asked 10 questions (10th being the Critical Q)
“How fast were the cars going when they…”
(Smashed, hit, collided, bumped, contacted)
Smashed - 40.8 contacted - 31.8

Later, 3 groups of 50ps
“Was there broken glass?”
Smashed - 16/50
Contacted - 7/50

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Leading Questions Strengths A03

A

Loftus and Palmer findings

Infer cause and effect (lab exp)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Leading Questions Limitations A03

A

Yuille and Cutshall
2 leading questions used on witnesses of a real life bank robbery 4 months after it, and findings were very accurate recall
Loftus and Palmer
Lacks population validity (only used students)
Lacks ecological validity (video is not the same as a real life experience)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Post Event Discussion A01

A

When co witnesses discuss their experiences/memories, their EWT may become contaminated

17
Q

Post Event Discussion Strengths A03

A

Gabbert et al
Video of girl stealing a wallet
Ps were individual or paired up
Individual- 0% incorrect recall Pairs - 71%
Skagerberg and Wright
60 eyewitnesses to criminal events did a questionnaire, around 60% discussed w/ others

18
Q

Post Event Discussion Limitations A03

A

Gabbert et al
May have been social pressure as opposed to distortion of EWT
Bodner et al
Effects of PED are reduced if warned about its effects

19
Q

Anxiety A01

A

A state of physical and emotional arousal
Physical- increased HR, sweating
Emotional - fear, worry

Anxiety increase accuracy because it makes you more alert
Anxiety decreases accuracy because it causes distraction

20
Q

Anxiety Strengths A03

A
Johnson and Scott
Identified pen and knife man from 50 photos
Pen - 49% identified him correctly
Knife - 33% identified him correctly 
Deffenbacher et al 
Meta analysis looking at anxiety on EWT
high levels negatively affect recall 
Yerkes- Dodson 
Relationship between anxiety and performance is curvilinear
21
Q

Anxiety Limitations A03

A

Johnson and Scott
Lab exp- low ecological validity
Christianson and Hubinette
Questioned witnesses of real life robberies
Actual victims were more accurate compared to bystanders
Memory is more accurate in high anxiety

22
Q

Cognitive interview A01

A

Reinstate the context
Recall everything
Recall from another perspective
Recall in another order

23
Q

Cognitive Interview Strengths A03

A

Geiselman at al
Students shown police training video of crimes, interviews 2 days later by CI or SI
CI - 41.5 correct recall
SI - 29.4 correct recall
Real world application
Potential to replace SI, preventing leading Q and reducing inaccuracies in EWT

24
Q

Cognitive Interviews Limitations A03

A
Geiselman et al
Error rates were similar
Mello and Fisher 
CI more effective for younger ps (22) then older (72) individual differences
Economic implications 
Training 
Long process
Kohnken et al
CI, 81% increase in correct recall but 61% increase in incorrect recall