Memory Flashcards
Coding and capacity
It is believed that memory is stored (coded) in different memory stores
STM - 18 - 30 seconds and 7+-2 items and acoustic
LTM - permanent and unlimited capacity, coded semantically
Baddeley showed support of this in 1966 in which he told participants a list of words in which participants had to recall. When given the acousitcally similar words, in the list, participants did worse in STM whilst semantically similar words were confused 20 minutes later in LTM suggesting STM is coded acoustically and LTM is coded Semantically
Jacobs (1887) conducted a study on capacity in which he told people 4 digits and they were then to recall them. Afterwards, he moved to 5 digits and continued until people had difficulty. Found that the average digit capacity was 9.3 whilst letter capacity was 7.3
Miller (1956) bleieved that many things came in sets of sevens. When conducting a study, he found that people remembered 5 - 9 items meaning that STM was believed to be 7 +- 2 items. He also noticed that people could recall 5 letters + 5 digits by grouping them up (chunking)
Duration of memories 1
Duration of STM was studied by Peterson and Peterson (1959) in which 24 undergraduate students were assigned a 3 digit number and a letter ( consonant syllable) . They were then told to count down from that 3 digit number and then after a certain period of time, told to recall the letter. They found that as the retention interval increased, the % of correct responses decreased by 30 seconds meaning unless repeated, STM is very short
Bahrick in (1975) conducted a study with participants aged 17 - 74 and they were told to identify people that looked familiar in their school when given images. They ere then told to recall names of people in their class. They found that in 15 years of graduation , identification of photos was 90% accurate and after 48 years it was 70%. For recalling names, 15 years of graduation, recalling was 60% accurate whilst after 48 years it dropped to 30%. This suggests that LTM can last a very long time
Coding , capacity , duration (Evaluations)
One limitation of Baddeley’s study is that it used artificial stimuli and this meant there was no personal connection to these words and therefore we must be caution when generalising since it has been later found we can encode STM semantically as well
One limitation of Jacobs digit span study is that it was conducted in 1887 meaning it may have lacked adequate control and may have also been distracted when conducting this study and thus confounding variables are not controlled - could be argued that it has been repeated later on and results are accurate
A limitation of Millers study is that STM is believed to be smaller than believed. More than 5 items than 7 items and also believed to only be in 4 chunks
A limitation of P&P(1959) study is that memorising consonant syllables is not reflective of real life memories since we may memorise things meaningful to us. This means there is a lack of internal validity
A strength of Bahrick’s study is that it did study real life memories and compared to meaningless pictures, recall rates were lower meaning this study shows the true potential of LTTM and thus has strong external validity
Multi Store model
The multi-sore model is a representation of how memory is separated into 3 stores called Sensory register, STM and LTM. It als describes how long term information is stored to another and how it’s remembered or forgotten
The sensory register stores information gathered from our senses. IConic memory from visual information and Echoic memory from Acoustic information. The sensory register has a large capacity and short duration but only key information is encoded into the STM
The STM in the Multi store model is a limited capacity model and can only contain 5-9 items at one single time. The duration only lasts about 30 seconds unless it is rehearsed and by doing maintenance rehearsal, it passes into the LTM
The LTM is the permanent memory store which was found to have an unlimited capacity and last for a lifetime found by Bahrick in 1975. LTM is encoded semantically and we can recall it via retrieval into the STM.
Multi Store model Evaluations
One strength of the MSM is that research studies such as Baddeleys show that memories are encoded differently, acoustically and semantically meaning that STM and LTM are two quantitatively different stores and this supports the MSM because it believes that these memory stores should be separate.
One limitation of the MSM is that when Shallice and Warrington did experiments on a patient KF who had Amnesia, they found when KF was given a list of words, the STM for digits was poor but when KF read it, the recall was much better meaning there must be another store for non verbal sounds. This means that there must be at least 2 types of memory stores in STM however the MSM states it as a unitary component
Another limitation is that there is more than one type of rehearsal. Originally it was suggested that memories move from STM to LTM via Maintenance rehearsal however other studies suggest that it’s the wrong type and instead it is elaborating Rehearsal that moves STM to LTM whilst maintenance rehearsal keeps it in STM. This is a limitation because research findings can’t be explained by this model.
Types of LTM
Tulving (1985) stated that the MSM was insufficient for LTM and believed that LTM was separated into 3 types.
Episodic memory is memory that refers to the ability to recall personal and rela life events. These memories are timestamped unlike semantic memories and this could be events that include several elements such as objects, behaviour and places. Finally, Episodic memories are recalled via conscious effort.
Semantic memories is a memory stories for odour knowledge of the world and this may include facts such as what day it is or the taste of an orange. These semantic memories can also consist of concepts not just facts. Semantic memories aren’t time stamped and information is constantly being added and so we must recall them deliberately.
Procedural memory is memory that relates to our skill and actions such as learning hobbies or sports and we can recall these without conscious awareness or a great deal of effort.
LTM types evaluations
ONe strength of types of LTM come from clinical evidence in case studies of Clive Wearing and HM who had their episodic memory impaired but semantic memory still unaffected meaning whilst they couldn’t recall events, they could still remember the concepts. Procedural memories were also intact and this evidence supports Tulving’s view that there are different LTM memory stores and that they are stored in different parts of the brain
Another strength is that when PET brain scans were done on participants performing various memory related tasks, episodic memories were found to be recalled from the right prefrontal cortex whereas semantic memories were recalled from the left prefrontal cortex. This is a strength since it shows here is a physical reality to the different stores and it has also been studies further on meaning strong internal validity
A limitation is that some psychologists such as Cohen and squire(1980) disagree saying that whilst procedural memories is one type, episodic and semantic memories are stored in one store called Declarative memory and procedural memory being non declarative.
The working memory model
The working memory model is a representation of STM an how it is a dynamic processor of information using sub components controlled by a central decision making system.
The central executive is the master component that slaves 3 sub components and is responsible for allocation processing resources to the components whilst co ordinating activity
The phonological loop is the component responsible for dealing with sounds, written and spoken. This contains the phonological store (sores words) and the articulatory process that allows maintenance rehearsal
The Visuo-Spatial sketchpad is the component that processes visual and spatial information in a mental space. It has been divided into the visual cache and the inner scribe
The episodic buffer is the component that brings the mmeories from other components and integrates the information into a single memory rather than separate strands whilst also providing a beige between working memory and LTM
Working memory model evaluation
One strength of the WMM is that there is clinical evidence from Shallice and Warrington (1970) in which patient KF, who suffered brain damage and had poor STM, was tested. KF troubled with processing verbal information but could process visual information normally suggesting only the phonological loop was damaged. This supports the existence of multiple memory stores for different types of memory.
Another strength is when Baddeley conducted a dual task study. When participants were given 2 visual tasks, performance from participants was poor. However when given a visual and verbal task, participants performed with no difficulty suggesting that visual and verbal information processed by different slave systems (VSS)
One limitation is that whilst existence of the Central executive is present via brain making techniques, the Central executive is the least understood (Baddeley) and needs to be fully understood for the WMM to explain anything. This means that WMM is flawed or incomplete.
Interference as an explanation for forgetting
Interference theory states that forgetting occurs when two pieces of information conflict which can make one or both of the memories distorted or forgotten. This is mainly for LTM and forgetting means you can’t access them even if they are available
Two types of interference. The degree of forgetting depends on how similar memories are and there are two Proactive interference (PI) - occurs when an older memory interferes with newer memories meaning we can’t recall new memories. Retroactive Interference (RI) - occur when new memories interfere with older memories
The effects of similarity are studied by McGeoch and McDonald (1931) in which they studied retroactive interference by giving a list of 10 words until they could remember it 100%, each then learnt new different lists and then tested recall. People were given new lists such as Semantically opposite/similar/digits or unrelated. It was found that people recalled best with digit lists and that their recall was worst when the next list was the most similar
Evaluations for interference (forgetting)
One strength is that there is evidence from several lab studies such as McGeoch and McDonald which have found that both types of interference as a reason for forgetting. It is a strength since the replication and use of lab studies means that interference is a valid explanation for forgetting
One limitation of interference is that whilst the stimuli is potentially realistic by using words instead of consonants, artificial stimuli is still used and we can’t generalise it to everyday life where more than just words must be remembered. A major downside to this theory is that it may only be able to explain forgetting in a lab not real life
Tulving and Psotka(1971) conducted a study with 6 lists of similar semantics and participants were told to remember these lists. On the first word list, recall was 70% but as more lists were given, recall dropped due to interference however when given a cue - reference to previous lists, the memory was recalled meaning interference may not be a valid explanation for forgetting.
Explanations for forgetting (retrieval Failure)
Retrieval failure theory suggests that we may forget due to insufficient cues not alllowing us to access the memory. Tulving (1983) suggested the encoding specificity principle which means that we must have sufficient cues at the time of encoding and recall in order to remember. If the cues are different, we will forget. These cues can be remembered via mnemonic techniques or context dependent forgetting or state dependent forgetting
Context dependent forgetting was studied from Golden and Baddeley (1975)who conducted a study using deep sea divers who had experimental conditions of learning on land and recalling on sea ,the same place or vice versa. They found that where they learnt a list in one place and recalled in another, the external cues were different and this led to 40% worse accurate recall compared to the same environment.
State dependent forgetting was conducted with Carter and Cassaday (1998) in which people were told to encode and recall in different states of consciousness. This was done on a drug that made people drowsy and they found that when there was a mismatch of internal states, performance on memory tests was worse.
Retrieval failure evaluation
One strength of retrieval failure theory is that there are actually many more studies like Golden and Baddeley or Carter and Cassaday that suggest that retrieval failure is the reason we forget. The ample research support mean there is strong validity in the theory explanation in labs or real life situations
One limitation is that the effects of context are in doubt since with Baddeleys study, using contexts of above land and underwater is very polar. People would hardly be in such different situations. In reality it may be similar to learning something in one room and recalling in another room. This means the contextual cues don’t explain much about forgetting
Another limitation is that the ESP can not be tested because it leads to a form of circular reasoning meaning the ESP can not be falsified since it relies on the assumption that a cue is stored the same time as a memory. However it should be said that it still explains much about forgetting
Factors affecting EWT(Misleading information)
Eye witness testimony (EWT) is when there is an eye witness to an event/crime. The accuracy of this EWT (and recall) can decrease with misleading information , leading questions and entirety
Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted a study where they showed students a film clip of a car crash. They were then asked a question which suggests a certain answer (Leading question) and depending on the word used , hit , contacted or smashed etc, the answer varied. When the coach was decried as a contact the speed was 31.8mph whilst the speed for smashed was 40.5mph.
The reason for this is because of two proposed explanations…Response bias explanation which suggest that wording doesn’t affect the memory but does influences how they decide to answer. The other explanation is Substitution explanation in which the wording did actually affect memory and Loftus and Palmer (1974) tested this and found that when words such as smashed were used, people saw broken glass when there wasn’t.
Post event discussion (PED) is when there is more than one eye witness and they may discuss the events which may affect the recall of events. This was shown from Fiona Gabbert Et al (2003) in which a pair of participants were shown different angles of a crime and then told to discuss the event. After discussing they had to recall events and they found that with discussion 71% of participants recalled events not in the video they were shown whereas the control group had 0% - this is called memory conformity and happens when they believe other witnesses are right and they’re wrong
EWT - Misleading Information Evaluation
Loftus and Palmers study has strong real life application since the study on misleading information makes us acknowledge the importance of leading questions and the accuracy of EWT’s. This means the study can have a. Positive impact on the lives of real people by improving the legal system and expert witnesses
A limitation of Loftus and Palmers study is that they watched film clips of car crashes which differs greatly from real life car crashes which may cause emotions such as stress or fear. Studies have already showed that emotions can influence our memory meaning that EWT’s may actually be better than the artificial tasks. This means EWT’s are actually more reliable then Loftus and Palmer found
Zaragoza and McCloskey (1989) argued that the lab studies of EWT may show demand characteristics. The reason for this is because that participants may want to appear as helpful and cooperative and so may say an answer which is incorrect but is what the researcher wants meaning it decreases the validity of research studies
