Memory AO1 and AO3 Flashcards
Outline research on coding of memory
Word recall of similar/dissimilar words
Baddeley: acoustic in STM, semantic in LTM
Evaluate research in coding of memory
Strength
Separate memory stores
-Identified STM and LTM, suporting multi store model
Limitation
Artificial stimuli
-Word lists had no personal meaning
Outline research into capacity of memory
Digit span, Jacobs, 9.3 digits, 7.3 letters
Span of memory and chunking, Miller, 7+_ 2 span, putting items together extends STM capacity
Evaluate research into capacity of memory
Strength
Valid study
-Later studies replicated findings, valid test of digit span
Limitation
Not so many chunks
-Miller overestimated STM, only four chunks
Outline research into duration of memory
Duration of STM, Peterson and Peterson, around 18 seconds without rehearsal
Duration of LTM, Bahrick, yearbooks, face recognition 90%, free recall 60% after 15 years, down to 70% and 30% after 48 years
Evaluate research into duration of memory
Strength
High external validity
-Meaningful material in Bahrick, better recall than meaningless
Limitation
-Petersons used nonsense trigrams, lacks external validity
Outline the theory of the multi-store model of memory (MSM)
Sensory register, modality specific coding, brief duration, high capacity, transfer to STM by attention
STM, mainly acoustic coding, limited duration and capacity, transfer to LTM by rehearsal
LTM, mainly semantic, unlimited duration and capacity, created through maintenance rehearsal, retrieval from LTM via STM
Evaluate the multi store model of memory (MSM)
Strengths
Research support
-Shows STM and LTM use different coding, different capacity (eg, Baddeley)
HOWEVER
-studies do not use every day materials, low validity
Limitations
More than one STM store
-Studies of amnesia (KF case study) show different STMs for visual and auditory material
Elaborative rehearsal
-Transfer to LTM more about elaboration than maintenance rehearsal
Bygone model
-Supporting evidence but also evidence of more than one type of STM and LTM
Outline the three types of long term memory
Episodic memory, memory for events in our lives, time stamped
Semantic memory, memory for knowledge of the world, like an encyclopaedia and dictionary
Procedural memory: memory for automatic and often skilled behaviours, unconscious recall
Evaluate types of long term memory
Strengths
Clinical evidence
-Clive Wearing and HM had damaged episodic memories but semantic and procedural memories relatively fine
HOWEVER
-clinical studies lack control of variables
Real world application
-Old age memory loss improved by intervention to target episodic memory
Limitations
Conflicting neuroimaging evidence
-Research links semantic to left prefrontal cortex and episodic to right, but different in other studies
Same or different?
-Tulving suggests episodic may be specicialised subcategory of semantic, but Alzheimers patients could form episodic but not semantic memories
Outline the working memory model (WMM)
Central executive, supervisory, allocates slave systems to tasks, limited capacity
Phonological loop, auditory information - phonological store and articulatory process (maintenance rehearsal) Coding is acoustic, capacity of 2 seconds of speech
Visuo-spatial sketchpad, visual information - visual cache (store), inner scribe (spatial arrangement), coding visual, capacity 3 or 4 objects
Episodic buffer, integrates systems together, records order of events, flexible coding, 4 chunk capacity, linked to LTM
Evaluate the working memory model
Strengths
Clinical evidence
-KF had poor auditory memory but good visual memory, damaged PL but fine VSS
HOWEVER
-May be other impairments that affected the WM
Dual-task performance
-Difficult to do two visual/verbal tasks at same time, one visual and one verbal okay (Baddeley)
Limitations
Nature of CE
-Not well specified, needs to be more than just attention
Validity of model
-Controlled artificial tasks used as the evidence for theory
Outline interference as an explanation for forgetting
Proactive: old memories disrupt new memories
Retroactive: new memories disrupt old ones
Effects of similarity, McGeoch and McDonal - six groups learned lists, similar words had more interference
PI makes new information difficult to store, RI overwrites old information
Evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting
Strengths
Real-world interference
-Rugby players remembered less if played more games over a season (Baddeley and Hitch)
HOWEVER
-interference unusual in everyday situations
Support from drug studies
-Taking diazepam after learning reduced interference and forgetting, retrograme facilitation
Limitations
Interference and cues
-Interference effects overcome using cues (Tulving and Psotka)
Validity issues
-Lab studies have high control yet artificial materials and unrealistic procedures
Outline retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting
Encoding specificity principle, Tulving: cues more effective if present at coding and at retrieval, link between cues and material may be meaningful (“STM” for example) or meaningless (context and state)
Context-dependent forgetting, Godden and Baddeley deep sea divers, recall better when external contexts matched
State-dependent forgetting, Carter and Cassaday antihistamine, recall better when internal states matched
Evaluate retrieval failure an explanation for forgetting
Strengths
Real world application
-Cues are weak but worth paying attention to as strategy for improving recall
Research support
-Wide range of support suggests this is main reason for forgetting
HOWEVER
-no forgetting unless contexts are very different (on land vs underwater, Baddeley)
Limitations
Recall vs Recognition
-No context effects when memory assessed using recognition test
Problems with ESP
-Research support for principle but no independent measure of cue encoding
Outline misleading information as a factor affecting eyewitness testimony
Leading questions, speed estimated affected by leading questions (smashed, contacted, for example, Loftus and Palmer)
Response bias - no change to memory
Subsitution explanation - supported by report of seeing broken glass
Co-witness discussion affects memories of events (Gabbert et al)
Memory contaminated, mix misinformation from others
Memory conformity, responses for social approval
Evaluate misleading information as a factor affecting eyewitness testimony
Strengths
Real world application
-Insights applied to police interviewing and expert witnesses
HOWEVER
-film clips in labs less stressful than every day life, no consequences, EWT more reliable
Limitations
Evidence against subsitution
-Central details not much affected by misleading information
Evidence challenging memory conformity
-Post event information on hair colour blended, supporting contamination
Demand characteristics
-Lab studies have control but influenced by desire to be helpful
Outline anxiety as a factor affecting eyewitness testimony
Anxiety has a negative effect on recall, Johnson and Scott, high knife anxiety condition led poorer recall, tunnel theory of memory
Anxiety has positive effect, Yuille and Cutshall, high anxiety associated with better recall when witnessing shop keeper shoot thief, real crime
Explaining contradictory findings, Deffenbacher reviewed 21 studies, Yerkes-Dodson inverted U theory suggests both low and high anxiety lead to poor recall
Evaluate anxiety as a factor affecting eyewitness testimony
Strengths
Support for negative effects
-London Dungeon, anxiety reduced accurate recall of an individual
Support for positive effects
-Most anxious eyewitness of bank robbery had most accurate recall
HOWEVER
-interviews long after event, lacks control of confounding variables
Limitations
Unusualness, not anxiety
-Poor recall due to unusualness (chicken and handgun in hairdresser), not anxiety
Problems with inverted U theory
-Explains contradictory findings but focuses just on physical arousal, ignores cognitive aspects
Outline the cognitive interview for improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
- Report everything, include even unimportant details
- Reinstate the context, picture the scene and recall how you felt, avoids context-dependent forgetting
- Reverse the order, recall from the end and work backwards, disrupts expectations
- Change perspective, put yourself in shoes of someone else present, disrupts schema
- Enhanced cognitive interview (ECI), adds social dynamics, such as establishing eye contact
Evaluate the cognitive interview for improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Strengths
Support for the effectiveness
-CI produce 41% more accurate recall than standard interview
HOWEVER
-CI also increases inaccurate information, even more true for ECI
Limitations
Some elements may be more useful
-Report everything and reinstating context used together produced best recall
Time consuming
-Takes longer and needs special training, full CI not realistic for police
Variations of CI
-‘Pick and mix’ approach makes hard to compare effectiveness, but more flexible
