Memory AO3 Flashcards
Evaluate the nature of memory
(baddley)
P- Badddley not meaningful material
E- words no meaning to ppts
E- info meaningful semantic in stm
evaluate the nature of memory
(Jacobs)
P- lacked control
E- ppts distrated
E- reduces internal validity
evaluate the nature of memory
(Conflicting)
P- conflicting research to miller
E- cowan reviewed and only 4 chuncks
E- accpected capactity wrong
evaluate the nature of memory
(peterson and perterson)
P- artificial stimuli
E- trigrams don’t reflect life
E- lacks mundane realism and external validity
evaluate the nature of memory
(Bahrick)
P- high external validity
E- used real memories of school
E- findings accurtley represent life
C- confounding variables uncontrolled
evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(Support)
P- large support distinct stm ltm
E- KF stm damage
E- exsist as seperate stores
evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(logic)
P- Makes sense LTM semantic
E- eg, remeber idea of a speach
E- effective face validity
evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(inspiration)
P- pioneering model inspired
E- shortcomings led to WMM
E- Beneficial contribution
evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(ecological)
P- little ecological validity
E- peterson and peterson nonsense trigrams investigating STM
E- findings may not be accurate reflecting life
evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(Types LTM)
P- evidence for different types of LTM
E- Clive wearing struggled semantic fine procedural
E- Ltm one stor inaccurate
evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(Types stm)
P- Evidence suggest types of stm
E- KF stuggle verbal fine visual
E- Stm one store inaccurate
evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(rehersal)
P- argued two types rehersal
E- msm descibes only maintenance
E- elaborative needed ltm when linked to existing knowledge
evaluate long term memory
(types LTM)
P- evidence support different ltm
E- HM learn procedural but not others. Got better at tasks he couldn’t remember doing
E- Showing LTM stores damage seperately.
C- However lack of control in case studies. Unrepresentative
evaluate long term memory
(brain scans)
P- brain scans differnt types differnt parts
E- Episodic and Semantic in same place but diffent sides
E- showing different types ltm different stores suggesting accurate
evaluate long term memory
(not seperate)
P- Episodic and semantic not seperate
E- instead should be decterative and non-declerative
E- difficult to seperate. Stored close together
evaluate long term memory
(treatments)
P- identifying types allows development treatments
E- Episodic memory improve on cognitive imparment when trained compared to control
E- real life applications, positive outcome
Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(disorders)
P- centeral executive explain psychological disorders
E- schizophrenic patients shows baddleys disexecutive syndrome compared control. Handled by CE
E- Raises possibility Schizophrenia caused by CE
I- Active reaserch. Potential treatments
Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(KF)
P- support comes form KF
E- Poor smt for verbal but not visual
E- suggesting viso-spatial sketchpad not damaged.
I- supports seperate stores.
Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(Case study)
P- evidence from supporting CS treated cautiously.
E- Conserns unique cases- unreliable
E- no baseline. no control
I- no population validity
Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(dual task)
P- dual task supports different sub systems
E- ppts struggle two tasks same system but not diff. Due to no competition for system
E- support exisitance seperate stm stores
Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(implications)
P- critisised vss suggests spatial info is first visual
E- blind people have spatial awareness
E- vss overly simplified
Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(lack clarity)
P- lack of clarity over CE
E- not explained
E- CE attentional process, role should be specified
I- WMM incomplete lacks internal validity
Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(brain scans)
P- brain scanning studies support
E- ppts did tasks involving CE greater activity in LPC. Task difficulty increase so did activity
E- demands on CE increase, so work harder to function
I- high internal validity, biological basis
Evaluate interference theory
(support retroactive)
P- Evidence support retroactive
E- ppts given 2 lists. If second was similar, recall of first was bad
E- shows interference stronger when similar. Valid explanation
Evaluate interference theory
(Lab xperiments)
P- more likely in lab, due to artificial nature
E- common task in studys not same as remebering faces, names
E- lacks generalisabiloty
I- reduces external validity. lacked mundane realism
Evaluate interference theory
(everyday situations)
P- reaserch support from everyday situations
E- rugby players asked to recall names of teams played often missed one out. Did not depend on how long ago but how many
E- can apply irl
I- increases external validity can use to prevent forgetting
Evaluate interference theory
(unrepresentative of life)
P- learning infomation for a study doesn’t represent everyday life
E- May learn 2 lists 20 mins appart then recall one a few mins after that
E- setup to cause max interference
I- studies overemphasise it’s effect. reduce applicability
Evaluate interference theory
(overcome)
P- interference effects overcome by cues
E- when given catagoried lists, recall dropped as learnt more but given cue it rised again
E- interference can be reduced
I- limits explanatory power as can be reversed
Evaluate retrieval falure theory
(different to real world)
P- very different to real life
E- context effects not strong irl. Must be extreme to see a difference
E- learning and recalling in seperate rooms won’t give same effect
I- limitation as not reflective. limited applicability
Evaluate retrieval falure theory
(applications)
P- real life applications
E- explains a common occourance
E- results used to help those with problems remebering
I: worth trying to remember where you learnt it- cognitive interview
Evaluate retrieval falure theory
(test)
P- impossible to test context dependent
E- Assume cue and memory formed at same time. If not we assume it was not encoded
E- expriments have low internal validity, not testing what they want
I: reducing validity of supporting reasearch
Evaluate retrieval falure theory
(range of experiments)
P- Lab, field and natural experiments support
E- Godden and Baddley context dependent carter and cassidey state dependent
E- increases likelihood it’s valid.
Evaluate loftus and Palmers reasearch
(mundane realism)
P- Lacked mundane realism
E- task involved watching a video, easy to geuss they’d be asked questions
E- Irl don’t know going to be a witness. Lack of emotions in lab
I- lacks internal validity
Evaluate loftus and Palmers reasearch
(population validity)
P- lacks population validity
E- all american students
E- not experienced drivers compared to older. Impact susceptibility. May not be generalisable
I- older less suseptable to leading questions as better judge of speed
Evaluate Gabbert et al’s reaserch
(Mundane realism)
P- lacked mundane realism
E- Partcipants watched a video, unusual
E- geussed they’d be questioned
I- lack of emotions. Decrease external validity
Evaluate Gabbet et al’s research
(population validity)
P- has good population validity
E- used a mix of students and adults
E- people of all ages impacted by PED
I- easy to generalise results
Evaluate Gabbet et al’s research
(Good control)
P- Good control
E- lab conditions
E- PED can change people’s memories
I- gives the research validity
Evaluate loftus and palmers reaserch
(Control)
P- good control
E- lab conditions
E- the verb impacts the answer
I- gives it internal validity
Evaluate Misleading infomation
(applications)
P- has practical applications
E- cognitive interview
E- retriveal accurate
I- benefits society, reduces false accusations
Evaluate misleading infomation
(artificial)
P- uses artificial tasks
E- Loftus and Palmer ppts watch video
E- different from witnessing irl reduces external validity
I- reaserch is limited in use. not generalise
Evaluate misleading infomation
(individual)
P- individual differences in accuacy of EWT
E- study show ppl between 18-45 more accuate than people 55-78
E- studies should test all age groups
Evaluate misleading infomation
(true irl)
P- dispite reaserch, may not have an impact IRL
E- ppts know they’re in study. Answers have no effect
E- Real EWT people aware of effect
I- lab studies have low extrenal validity
Evaluate misleading infomation
(lab experiments)
P- lab experiments low exernal valididty
E- Argue answers are demand characteristics
E- leads to please you screw you act unnaturally
I- eyewitness anticipate being subject to leading legal arguments.
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT
(wepon focus)
P- wepon focus effect caused by something else
E- Pickel found surprise conditions led to better identification of perpetrators than threataning ones
E- supports result of surprise rather than anxiety
I- limits our knowledge of cause due contradictory evidence. Reduced validity
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT
(real life applications)
P- real life applications to this research
E- help determine witness credibility. Optimal level of anxiety for max accuarcy
E- findings useful for those questioning witnesses
I- benefit to justice system anxiety accounted for less wrong accusations
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT
(feild studies)
P- feild studies lack control
E- reaserchers interview real eyewitnesses. No control over PED
E- extraneous variables, may measure something else
I- reduces internal validity, not useful determining effects
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT
(Inverted- U)
P- Focuses only on physiological effects
E- physcial changes affect accuracty
E- Anxiety is more complex. Ignores cognitive element
I- may have different effects on EWT due to individual needs. Cannot be generalised
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT
(ethics)
P- Ethical issues should be considered
E- creating anxiety in lab is unethical, psychological harm, purely for reaserch
E- does not challenge findings but questions need
I- issue in real life studies. Causes psychological harm recalling distressing events
Evaluate the cognitive interview
(helpful)
P- helpful when interviewees are older
E- produced more infomation if older. Due to over caution feeling like wasting time. CI importance of everything
E- more effective with older
I- allows them more accurate valid recounts
Evaluate the cognitive interview
(variations)
P- difficult to establish effectiveness as there’s many variations
E- collection of related techniques eg Thames Valley police don’t use changing perpectives
E- hard to conclude which areas are effective
Evaluate the cognitive interview
(valuble)
P- each element thought to be equal in value
E- used individually they all produce more info
C- found report everything and context reinstatement together produce better recall
E- some elelments more important. Pointless to use all 4
Evaluate the cognitive interview
(time)
P- time consuming
E- more time to establish rapport with witness
E- takes up more resources
I- reluctant to use. Less applicable
Evaluate the cognitive interview
(incorrect)
P- increase incorrect info
E- 81% increase correct. 61% increase incorrect
E- used carefully
I- police limited production of incorrect info. Discard the method
