MEMORY A03 Flashcards
coding capacity duration strengths
+Bahrick et al= high external validity (yearbook)
+Research support of Jacobs (digit span)
weaknesses of coding, capacity, duration
-Cowan= STM capacity overestimate, 5 items
-Artificial stimuli in Baddeley, Peterson and Peterson
-Alt explanation of Peterson and Peterson= displacement of STM pushes out info instead of lack of rehearsal causing disappearance.
-Bahrick et al’s study- pp’s may have looked back at yearbook= confounding
Strength of multi store model - baddely
+Baddeley research support- Mix up similar sounding words using STM but similar meanings using LTM. Shows semantic and acoustic coding difference in LTM and STM. Supports separateness.
Weaknesses of multi store model - elaborating rehearsal.
-Craik and Watkins= Rehearsal type is what matters not how often info is rehearsed. 2 types- maintenance and elaborate. Elaborate is needed for LTM storage, links info to existing knowledge, think of meanings. Not explained by MSM
strengths of types of LTM
+Tulving et al= PET scan while pp’s carried out memory tasks. Episodic and semantic recalled from prefrontal cortex (right and left). Scientific, validity.
weaknesses of types of LTM - clinical studies
-using clinical studies to explain wider pop causes problems, lack of control - problem before amnesia, generalisability.
strengths of WMM
+Baddeley et al= Word length effect supports limited capacity in articulatory process. Disappears when given articulatory suppression task - rehearse long words than short. phonological loop capacity.
+Shallice and Warrington= KF had poor STM for verbal info but visual info was processed normally. Suggests issue w/ phonological loop, rest is intact. Supports separate auditory and visual stores
+Baddeley et al= Dual task performance- PP’s had more difficulty doing 2 visual tasks simultaneously than doing a visual and a verbal task simultaneously. This is because there is no competition for the same slave system so there must be separate stores
weaknesses of WMM
-KF may not be reliable= unique, traumatised person
strengths as interference as an explanation of forgetting
.
+Baddeley and Hitch= Rugby players. Worse memory of previously played team names when they had played other games in between rather than having not played at all. Time is not an issue of forgetting, more so interference= real life application
+Lab studies of McGeoch and McDonald= control of influences, validity
weaknesses of interference as an explanation for forgetting
-Lab studies not real info, artificial stimuli, never used again- doesn’t reflect real life learning/knowledge such as faces and dates
- interference overcome using cues, Tulvng and psotka (1971) gave PP 24 words, 6 categories. Recall fell 70% list fell overtime - additional lists: interference. Cued recall test rose 70%. not valid explanation.
strength of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting
+Supporting evidence (Carter and Cassaday, Godden and Baddeley) & = Eysenck= RF is main reason of LTM forgetting- validity, especially real lifesituuations outside a lab setting.
+Baddeley= it is worth going back to original setting
weknesses of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting
- Baddeley= Context effects not as strong in real life- obviously with land and underwater there will be a difference due to the extremes but room changes (real life situations) don’t have much difference.
-Godden and Baddeley= Replicated underwater test w/ recognition test instead of recall. PP’s had to say whether they recognise word from list, not recall. No context dependent effect. All 4 conditions= same results. So cues only affect certain types of memory
Strengths of factors affecting EWT- Misleading info
+Legal system real life application. Loftus= leading Qs in police interviews can distort memory
weaknesses of factors affecting EWT- Misleading info
-Anastasi and Rhodes- Individual differences. Age groups 55-78 less accurate. All age groups better at identifying other people from own age group= own age bias.
-Foster et al= Consequences of EWT is more serious in real world. PP’s are more relaxed in these studies, may not try as much bc stakes aren’t as high. Lacks external validity
-Zargosa and McCloskey= Demand characteristics in lab studies. PP’s don’t want to let researcher down so when asked unknown Q they may just guess (esp. yes/no responses). Social desirability bias.
-Artificial tasks- clips of car accidents are different to witnessing one in real life- anxiety effects. Tells us little about how leading Qs affect real life EWT. Or may be too pessimistic and EWT doesn’t have much effect.
Strengths of factors affecting EWT- Anxiety
+Benefits of data outweigh the costs of any ethical problems
+Lab studies are reliable, have high control
+ anxiety negative effect on recall, Valentine 2009, supports research on weapon focus, heart rate to divide participants to high, low anxiety, effected recall of actor in london
Weaknesses of factors affecting EWT- Anxiety
-Weapon focus effect may not be relevant= Pickel- seeing scissors in a hairdresser has low anxiety because it is expected but to see raw chicken in hairdressers it may produce anxiety as it is out of place. So shock of seeing a knife in a lab setting may have been the cause of reduced EWT.
-Ethical issues- produce anxiety in pp’s= psychological harm.
Strengths of improving EWT accuracy- cognitive interview
+Kohnken et al= meta analysis of 50 studies showed that there was a 34% improvement in recall of police interviews when using CI= Real life application and benefits.
+Milne and Bull= Each element is valuable, produces more info/recall however report and context combo had best recall than other condition. Suggests that only 2 are needed to enhance= reduced training time, increases versatility/adaptability
Weaknesses of improving EWT using CI
-Variations= police use own methods, what is real use of full CI then?
-Kohnken et al= 61% increase in false positives compared to standard interviews= inaccurate,
-Time consuming to train officers and to conduct (e.g. to establish rapport, allow relaxation for witness).
-Kebbel and Lagstaff= Some police forces only had a few hours (4) of training. Proper version not being used effectively so there will be little results
weakness of MSM - different LTM stores
-Shallice and Warrington- KF- Must be different visual and auditory stores (like in WMM) as he could remember better when reading words himself rather than listening
weakness of MSM - different LTM stores
Ltm isn’t unitary store -Shallice and Warrington- KF- Must be different visual and auditory stores (like in WMM) as he could remember better when reading words himself rather than listening
strength of LTM - Clive wearing and HM
+Research support of Clive Wearing and HM= couldn’t remember past (episodic) but semantic was unaffected so was procedural. Episodic destroyed. Shows diff memory stores in LTM and that one can be damaged but others unaffected (diff parts of brain support)
weakness of MSM - 2 types of LTM only
- Choen and squire: 2 stypes of LTM, Eposodic and semantic stored together: declarative memory as cosiousilly recalled. Proceduaral memory own store: non-declerative not cousiouslly recalled. Distictions are important - apply knowlege to people with amnesia, also scientific POV: accept theory best matches the evidence.
