Memory Flashcards
Multi store memory
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) came up with the Multi-Store Model which proposes that memory consists of three stores:
Sensory register
Short term memory
Long term memory
How does information move from SM to STM?
By paying attention to it
What needs to happen for information to be retained in the STM?
Maintenance rehearsal is need for information to be retained in the STM
How does information move from the STM to the LTM?
By elaborative rehearsal
What can prevent information from being retained in the STM or LTM
Distractions that stop you from paying attention
Not rehearsing the information
What happens to information which has not been retained
It is decayed or displayed
Features of sensory memory
Duration - Very limited
Capacity - Infinite
Encoding - All modalities
Supporting research for sensory memory
sperling (1960)_
Sperling (1960) studied ge sensory memory for vision (the iconic store) by using a tachistoscope
Features of short term memory
Duration - Between about 18 - 30 seconds
Capacity - limited; between 5 and 9 items on average
Encoding - Mainly acoustic
Supporting research for short term memory
Baddeley (1966) gave different lists of words to four groups of participants
Semantically similar
Semantically dissimilar
Acoustically similar
Acoustically dissimilar
Ps were shown the original words and were asked to recall them in the correct order, when they had to do this task immediately after hearing it (STM recall), they tended to do worse on acoustically similar words. This suggests that information is coded acoustically in STM
Features of long term memory
Duration - Can store memories for upto a lifetime
Capacity - Unlimited
Encoding - Mainly semantic
Supporting research for long term memory
Baddeley (1966) gave different lists of words to four groups of participants
Semantically similar
Semantically dissimilar
Acoustically similar
Acoustically dissimilar
Ps were shown the original words and were asked to recall them in the correct order. If ps were asked to recall the word list after a time interval of 20 minutes (LTM recall), they tended to do worse on semantically similar words. This suggests that information is coded semantically in LTM
Types of LTM
Procedural Memory
It is responsible for knowing how to do things, i.e. memory of motor skills.
It does not involve conscious (i.e. it’s unconscious - automatic) thought and is non declarative.
For example, procedural memory would involve knowledge of how to ride a bicycle.
Types of LTM
Semantic Memory
It is responsible for storing information about the world.
This includes knowledge about the meaning of words, as well as general knowledge.
It involves conscious thought and is declarative.
For example, London is the capital of England.
Types of LTM
Episodic Memory
It is responsible for storing information about events (i.e. episodes) that we have experienced in our lives.
It involves conscious thought and is declarative.
An example would be a memory of our 1st day at school.
Working model of memory
Baddeley and Hitch (1974) developed the Working Memory Model (WMM), which focuses specifically on the workings of short-term memory (STM).
Atkinson and Shiffrin’s Multi-Store Model of memory (MSM) was criticized for over-simplifying STM (as well as LTM) as a single storage system, so the WMM alternative proposed that STM is composed of three, limited capacity store
Features of working model of memory:
1) Central Executive:
The most important component is the central executive; it is involved in problem solving and decision-making.
it also controls attention and plays a major role in planning and synthesizing information, not only from the slave systems but also from LTM.
It is flexible and can process information from any modality, although it does have a limited storage capacity and so can attend to a limited number if things at one time.
Features of working model of memory:
(2) Phonological loop:
Another part of the working memory model is the phonological loop which processes auditory information and consists of two components.
There is the phonological store (inner ear) that allows acoustically coded items to be stored for a brief period
There is also the articulatory control process (the inner voice) that allows sub-vocal repetition of the items stored in the phonological store.
Features of working model of memory:
3) Visuo-spatial sketchpad:
Another important component is the visuo-spatial sketch pad
It stores visual and spatial information and can be thought of as an inner eye. It is responsible for setting up and manipulating mental images.
Like the phonological loop, it has limited capacity but the limits of the two systems are independent.
Features of working model of memory:
4) Episodic buffer:
Finally in 2000 Baddeley proposed an additional component, the episodic buffer.
It is responsible for integrating & manipulating material; it has limited capacity and depends heavily on executive processing.
It binds together information from different sources into chunks or episodes, hence the term ‘episodic’.
One of its important functions is to recall material from LTM & integrate it into STM when working memory requires it
Explanations for forgetting:
Interference theory
Interference is an explanation for forgetting in long term memory.
The basic theory states that interference occurs when information that is similar in format gets in the way of the information that someone is trying to recall.
There are two types of interference; retroactive and proactive.
Proactive interference
Proactive interference is the reverse direction of interference to retroactive interference. This is when old information prevents the recall of newer information.
number.
Retroactive interference
Retroactive interference is when more recent information gets in the way of trying to recall older information.
Strengths of the interference theory
+Interference has been consistently demonstrated in several studies, but particularly in lab experiments. This increases the validity of the theory, due to the use of highly-controlled conditions in lab experiments, standardised instructions alongside the removal of the biasing effects of extraneous and confounding variables
Intuitively correct: Most people can think of times when interference in both directions have occurred. This means that the theory makes sense and there are plenty of everyday examples of it occurring.
Weaknesses of the interference theory
The artificial stimuli used in these tasks, such as learning lists of random words with no personal meaning to the participants, means that the findings of interference studies are likely to have low mundane realism.
This is because in real life, we are likely to learn lists of meaningful information, such as revision topics for psychology, which we draw links upon and also which have personal meaning to us.
These factors may also influence the extent of forgetting, rather than influence.
This is a limitation because the use of artificial tasks makes interference much more likely in the lab. Interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is the lab
Explanations for forgetting:
Retrieval failure
Retrieval failure is an explanation for forgetting from long-term memory.
It refers to difficulties in recall that are due to the absence of correct retrieval cues or triggers.
There are 2 types; state dependant failure and context dependant failure
State-dependent failure
Forgetting which occurs because the emotional or physical state at recall is different to that of the time of learning.
Context-dependent failure
Context dependent forgetting can occur when the environment during recall is different from the environment an individual was in when they were learning the information to be recalled.
Loftus and Palmer (1974) Study
Aim: To test their hypothesis that the language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory.
Thus, they aimed to show that leading questions could distort eyewitness testimony accounts and so have a confabulating effect, as the account would become distorted by cues provided in the question.
To test this Loftus and Palmer (1974) asked people to estimate the speed of motor vehicles using different forms of questions. Estimating vehicle speed is something people are generally poor at and so they may be more open to suggestion.
Loftus and Zanni (1975)
Loftus and Zanni (1975) Showed ppts a brief film clip of a car accident then asked a series of questions.
Half were asked: “Did you see a broken headlight?” (7%) and the other half were asked “Did you see the broken headlight?” (17%).
However there was no broken headlight in the film.
Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony: Anxiety:
- Anxiety can have either a positive or negative effect on the accuracy of EWT.
- Johnson and Scott (1976) demonstrated that anxiety has a negative effect on the accuracy of EWT. The high-anxiety condition overheard a heated argument in the neighbouring room, with the sound of smashing glass and a man walking through the waiting room with a bloody paper-knife, as opposed to a greasy pen in the low-anxiety condition. When asked to identify the man, participants in the high-anxiety condition experienced 16% lower rates of accurate recall, compared to the low anxiety condition.
This may be explained by the tunnel theory of memory and the weapon focus effect, where our attention is drawn towards the weapon as a source of anxiety
AO3 anxiety:
Yerkes Dodson law
The Yerkes-Dodson Law suggests that there is an ‘inverted-U’ relationship between increasing arousal and increasing performance (in this case the accuracy of EWT), with moderate arousal yielding the highest levels of performance.
However, this can be considered as an overly-simplified explanation of anxiety because it does not take into account the multiple factors which make up arousal i.e. cognitive, behavioural, emotional etc.
AO3 anxiety:
Ethical issues
There are significant ethical issues associated with exposing participants to distressing images of a car crash (Johnson and Scott) and forcing them to recall traumatic crimes which have occurred in the past (Yuille and Cutshall).
This breaches the BPS guideline of the right of the participant to be protected from psychological harm, thus meaning that a cost-benefit analysis would be needed to compare the associated ethical costs with the benefits of increased knowledge of the effects of anxiety on the accuracy of EWT.
AO3 anxiety:
Low internal validity of supporting research
Real-life studies, particularly with the use of field studies, are particularly susceptible to the biasing effects of extraneous variables which have not been controlled.
For example, Yuille and Cutshall could not have controlled the influence of post-event discussions, which has been suggested to reduce the accuracy of EWT, as demonstrated by Gabbert et al. This, alongside media influences in the form of TV report, and the effects of individual schemas, means that field studies of EWT may be flawed in that they lack reliability
AO3 anxiety:
Weapon focus effect
The weapon focus effect may be testing for the effects of surprise rather than anxiety. For example, Pickel found that the highest levels of accuracy of EWT were experienced in the condition with high
unusualness i.e. a raw chicken in a hairdressing salon. This suggests that the weapon focus effect can only be used to explain certain influences of anxiety on the accuracy of EWT.
What is cognitive interviews
The cognitive interview is a method of interviewing eyewitnesses, which is thought to be particularly effective in increasing the rates of accurate recall, by considering the theories discussed previously. The stages are as follows:
Stages of cognitive interview:
Report everything
• 1. Report everything = Even seemingly insignificant details may be important or trigger the recall of larger events, by acting as a ‘cue’ (think back to retrieval failure!).
Stages of cognitive interview:
Reinstate the context
- Reinstate the context = Recalling the weather, location and mood of the day prevents context dependent forgetting by reminding the eyewitness of their external cues at the time.
Stages of cognitive interview:
Change the perspective
• 3. Change the perspective = Recalling events from the perspective of the victim or persecutor prevents the eyewitness’ account from being affected by their own schemas or pre-conceived perceptions of how the crime, in their opinion, happened.
Stages of cognitive interview:
Reverse the order
• 4. Reverse the order = Recalling events in a different order, other than chronological, reduces the ability of the eyewitness to lie (as it is simply difficult) and also reduces the impact of schemas on their perception of events.
Enhance cognitive interview
• The enhanced cognitive interview was developed by Fisher et al (1987) and focuses on the social dynamics of the interactions between the eyewitness and the interviewer e.g. knowing when to make eyecontact and when to diminish it (increases the likelihood that the eyewitness will be calm and comfortable) as well as increasing rapport with the eyewitness (increases the likelihood that they will answer truthfully about personal or sensitive topics).
AO3 cognitive interview:
The entire CI need not be used to reap the benefits
+ The entire CI need not be used to reap the benefits, as Milne and Bull (2002) suggested, where context reinstatement and report everything produced the greatest accuracy of recall of correct information as compared to any other combinations of steps. This means that even if police forces do not have enough time to train the entire force for all of the 4 steps involved in the CI, even gradual changes from the standard police interview can increase the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness testimony
AO3 cognitive interview:
CI also increases recall of information
— The CI does not only increase the recall of correct information by 81%, but also increases the recall of incorrect information by 61%, as suggested by Kohnken et al (1999).
This appears counterintuitive when considering that the chief aim of the CI was to improve the accuracy of recall of correct information and so increase the reliability of eyewitness testimonies as a whole.
AO3 cognitive interview:
Little practical value
The cognitive interview may have little practical value, due to being too time-consuming and requiring specialist skills.
For example, Kebbel and Wagstaff argued that only a few hours of training, as is possible for many police forces, is insufficient to adequately train interviewers, especially for the enhanced social understanding required for the enhanced cognitive interview.
Therefore, this lack of time for training may explain why some forces may be unimpressed with the CI.
Strength of MSM
A major strength of the MSM is that it is supported by research studies that show that STM and LTM are indeed qualitatively different.
For example, Baddeley found that we tend to mix up words that sound similar when we are using our STMs , but we tend to mix up words that have similar meaning when we are using our LTMs
The strength of this study is that it clearly shows that coding in STM is acoustic and in LTM is semantic. So they are different, and this supports the MSM’s view that these two stores are separate an independent
Limitation of MSM:
There is more that one type of STM
The MSM states that STM is unitary store, in other words, there is only one type of short term memory. However evidence from people suffering from amnesia shows that this cannot be true.
For example, Shallice and Warrington (1970) studied a patient with amnesia known as KF. They found that KF’s short term memory for digits was very poor when they read the out loud to him. But his recall was much better when he was able to read digits to himself. Further studies of KF and other people with amnesia showed that there could be another short term store for non verbal sounds (such as noises)
The unitary STM is a limitation of the MSM because research shows that at the very least there must be one short term store to process visual information and another one to process auditory information. The WMM includes these separate stores
Limitation of MSM:
There is more than one type of rehearsal
The MSM suggests that the amount of maintenance rehearsal determines the likelihood that the information will pass into the LTM. On the other hand, Craik and Watkins (1973) suggest that it is the type of rehearsal which is more important.
They suggest that elaborative rehearsal, instead of prolonged rehearsal, is needed to transfer information from the STM into the LTM, by making links with existing knowledge.
This is a very serious limitation of the MSM because it is another research finding that cannot be explained by the model
Strength of LTM
Clinical evidence
+The cases of HM and Clive Wearing show how one type of LTM may be impaired (episodic in their cases), but the other types of LTM will be unaffected (i.e. procedural and semantic).
For example, Clive Wearing was still able to skilfully play the piano and understand the concept of music (procedural and semantic) but was unable to remember his wife visiting him 5 minutes previously (episodic).
This gives strong support to the idea that different areas of the brain are involved in the different types of LTM, and confirms the classification of different types of LTM as separate.
Strength of LTM:
Neuroimaging evidence
There is also evidence from brain scan studies that different types of memory are stored in different parts of the brain.
For example, Tulving et al (1994) got their participants to perform various memory tasks while their btains were scanned using a PET scanner. They found that episodic and semantic memories were both recalled from an area of the brain known as the prefrontal cortex. The left prefrontal cortex was involved in recalling semantic memories and episodic memories were recalled from the right prefrontal cortex
The strength of this finding is that it supports the view that there is physical reality to the different types of LTM, within the brain. It has also been confirmed many times in later research studies, further supporting the validity of this finding
Strength of WMM:
Clinical evidence
Support for the WMM comes from Shallice and Warrington’s (1970) case study of patient KF who had suffered brain damage.
After this damage happened KF had poor STM ability for verbal information buy could process visual information normally. This suggests that just his phonological loop had been damaged leaving other areas of memory intact.
This supports the existence of a separate visual and acoustic store. However, evidence from brain -damaged patients may not be reliable because it concerns unique cases with patients who have had traumatic experiences
Strength of WMM:
Dual task performance
Studies of dual task performance support the separate existence of the visuo-spatial sketchpad.
Baddeley et al (1975) showed that ps had more difficulty doing two visual; tasks than doing both a visual and verbal tasks at the same time.
This increased difficulty is because both visa tasks compete for the same slave system whereas, when doing a verbal and visual task simultaneously, there is no competition.
This is a strength of the WMM as it means that there must be a separate slave system (the VSS) that processes visual input
Limitation of WMM:
Lack of clarity over the central executive
Cognitive psychologists suggest that this component of the WMM is unsatisfactory and doesn’t really explain anything.
Alan Baddeley himself recognised this when he said ‘The central executive is the most important but the least understood component of the working memory’ Baddeley (2003)
The central executive needs to be more clearly specified than just simply being ‘attention’. For example, some psychologists believe it may consist of separate components.
This is a limitation of the WMM as it means that the WMM hasn’t been fully explained
Encoding specificity principle
Tulving (1983) proposed the encoding specificity principle which states that if a cue is to help us to recall information it has to be present at encoding and retrieval
Limitation of retrieval failure theory:
Recall versus recognition
Godden and Baddeley repeated their underwater, deep-sea diver experiment (1975) but tested for the recognition of learnt words, as opposed to recall, and found no significant difference in accuracy of recognition between the matched and non-matched conditions.
This is a limitation of the retrieval failure theory as it suggests that retrieval failure may only explain forgetting for some types of memory, tested in specific ways and under certain conditions, hence not being a universal explanation.
This further suggests that the findings from studies of retrieval failure suffer from poor generalisability.
Limitation of retrieval failure theory:
Questioning context effects
Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are actually not very strong, especially in real life. Different contexts have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen.
For example, it would be hard to find an environment as different from land as underwater. In contrast, learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because these environments are generally not different enough.
This is a limitation because it means that the real life applications of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting
Strength of retrieval failure theory:
Supporting evidence
An impressive range of research supports the retrieval failure explanation for forgetting. The studied by Godden and Baddeley and Carter and Cassaday are just two examples of this research.
In fact one prominent memory researcher, Michael Eysenck (2010) goes so far as to argue that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM.
This is a strength because supporting evidence increases the validity of an explanation. This is especially true when the evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real life situations as well as in highly controlled conditions of the lab
