Memory Flashcards
MSM A01
3 separate stores
Linear path
Unitary model
Coding, capacity and duration
MSM Strengths A03
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)
MSM Limitations A03
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
WMM A01
Model of STM
Separate slave systems that work independently
Coding, capacity and duration
WMM Strengths A03
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
WMM Limitations A03
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
Interference Theory A01
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
Interference Theory Strengths A03
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
Interference Theory Limitations A03
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
Retrieval Failure Theory A01
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
Retrieval Failure Theory Strengths A03
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)
Retrieval Failure Theory Limitations A03
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
Leading Questions A01
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
Leading Questions Strengths A03
Loftus and Palmer findings
Infer cause and effect (lab exp)
Leading Questions Limitations A03
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)
Post Event Discussion A01
When co witnesses discuss their experiences/memories, their EWT may become contaminated
Post Event Discussion Strengths A03
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
Post Event Discussion Limitations A03
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
Anxiety A01
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
Anxiety Strengths A03
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
Anxiety Limitations A03
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
Cognitive interview A01
Reinstate the context
Recall everything
Recall from another perspective
Recall in another order
Cognitive Interview Strengths A03
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
Cognitive Interviews Limitations A03
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
