Memory AO3 Flashcards
1
Q
MSM Evaluation Points
( Multi-store Model )
A
- Supporting Evidence- Lots of evidence for STM and LTM e.g. Baddeley, Jacobs, Primacy-Regency
- Counterpoint- Most evidence is lab experiments/ conditions so lacks ecological validity
- Real-World Application- Can use it to help revise e.g. the importance of attention ( no music/ phone ) and rehearsing and repeating information e.g. flashcards
- Model being too simple- The STM and LTM are likely to be more complex than one store
- Also ‘prolonged’ or continued rehearsal is not the only way to transfer information into LTM
2
Q
Types of LTM Evaluation
A
- Clinical evidence from case studies- The case of HM ( Another possibility is Clive Wearing ). Episodic memory was unaffected meaning he could understand the meaning of words and his procedural memory was intact
- Suggests that they are all separate stores as once can be damaged and the others continue working - Counterpoint- The evidence is not generalisable and case studies have a lack of control due to only being studied after incident occurs
3.Another Counterpoint- Scientists use brain scans to identify where memory is stored as some have found semantic memory is stored on the left of the pre-frontal cortex and episodic on the right HOWEVER other research shows how left side of prefrontal cortex is for semantic encoding and the right is for retrieval
- Real- world Application- As people grow older it is more likely that memory loss occurs with the episodic memory but some people can have cognative therapy which works on deficits linked and people trained with this therapy perform better
3
Q
Evaluation of the Working- Memory Model
A
- Supporting Evidence- The clinical trial of patient KF who suffered brain damage after a motorcycle accident that caused STM impairment, mainly for verbal information but his visual memory was largely unaffected - Shows VSS and PL are seperate stores as one was damaged while the other intact
- Counterpoint - The evidence is not generalisable because he is just one person and we cannot assume this to the population - Undermines validity and is unique in some ways due to the motorbike accident
- More Supporting Evidence- Dual Task evidence by Baddeley where he got participants to carry out either a visual or verbal task together or two visual tasks together - participants performed much better when the tasks were visual and verbal
- Real- World Application- Applies to education and teaching e.g. teachers should not talk to the class while also expecting them to copy from the board as both tasks require PL so it is hard to process information
- Anything it cannot explain- Lack of clarity over the nature of the Central Executive as it is the most important but most misunderstood - others may suggest it has multiple components and vague and hard to test so reduces credibility as one of the main aspects is least understood
4
Q
Evaluation of Interference Theory
A
- Real-World Application- Baddeley and Hitch ( 1977 ) asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against during the season. The number of intervening games varied due to some players missing matches due to injury. Players who played the most games had the poorest recall This study shows that interference can operate in at least some real-world situations ( increases the validity)
- Supporting Evidence- McGoeh and McDonald (1931) studied retroactive interference by changing the amount of similarity between two sets of materials. Participants had to learn a list of 10 words and be able to accurately recall them. The groups of participants then learned a new list which had differing amount of similarity. In their findings they discovered the most similar material produced the worst recall ( supporting interference theory )
- Counterpoint- Interference may cause some forgetting in everyday situations but it is unusual. This is because the necessary conditions for interference to occur are relatively rare which is very unlike lab studies which has a high degree of control. So for interference to occur in real-life two memories have to be fairly similar e.g. revising similar subjects close in time
- Alternative Theory- One limitation is that interference is temporary and can be overcome by cues. This shows how interference causes temporary loss of material which is not predicted by the theory. A better explanation may be Retrieval Theory
5
Q
Evaluation of Retrieval Failure Theory
A
- Supporting Evidence- Godden and Baddeley and their Deep Sea Divers (1975) + Carter and Cassaday and the Antihistamines (1998)
- Counterpoint- Both researchers did tasks that would not normally be done in that setting in real-life e.g. divers do not learn words underwater. Also the findings may not reflect forgetting words in real- life and natural settings.
- Real-World Application- This theory can benefit us with exam situations and suggests we should have the same conditions when learning ( revising ) and recall ( exam ) e.g. No music or background noise, using the same kind of pens and having a clean desk with nothing but your resources.
- Anything it cant explain- Retrieval Failure may depend on the type of memory being studied. Godden and Baddeley recreated experiment but did a recognition test. Performance was all the same and there were no context- dependent effects. This means Retrieval Failure only applies when a person has to recall and not recognise
6
Q
Evaluation of Leading Questions in EWT
A
- Supporting Evidence- Loftus and Palmer (1974) watching a film of an accident and being asked questions. This supports the idea that leading questions do influence accuracy of EWT
- Counterpoint- Lacks ecological validity and has high demand characteristics. It also shows the study doesnt study real-life witnesses and their memory as lots of the evidence does not relate to the criminal justice sysytem
- Real- World Application- Police should not ask leading questions e.g. ‘ Did you see the gun’ which suggests a gun was present. Leading questions can have a distorting effect on memory that police officers must be careful about
- Alternative Theory- Central details of an event have been found to recall better that excess information when asked misleading questions. This goes against the substitution explanation and shows central details are less likely to be distorted
7
Q
Evaluation of Post-Event Discussion
A
- Supporting Evidence- Gabbert et al (2003) shows clear example of PED
- Counterpoint- Gabbert was a lab experiment so lacks ecological validity and real-life EWTs are a lot more stressful and the consequences are more serious
- Real- World Application- We cannot realistically stop witnesses from talking BUT we can warn them of the impact of post-event discussion and this helps to increase accuracy e.g. police can warn them when interviewing to only give their account
- Alternative Theory- Anxiety or leading questions may be more likely to impact EWT accuracy
8
Q
Evaluation of Anxiety in EWT
A
- Supporting Evidence- Johnson and Scott (1976) knife or pen weapon focus
- Counterpoint- They did not measure the participants anxiety levels and made on assumption based on what they saw and also we cant say for certain it was anxiety that affected recall
- Real-World Application- Knowing that anxiety can affect recall can help officers when interviewing witnesses e.g. we can use techniques such as a cognitive interview to try and help improve accuracy
- Alternative Theory- Leading questions and post-event discussion can also affect situations
9
Q
Evaluation of the Cognitive Interview
A
- Supporting Evidence- Kahken et al (1999) combined 55 studies comparing the two interviews. It showed that the CI gave an average of 41% increase in accurate recall compared to the standard interview. This shows it is an effective technique in helping witnesses
- Counterpoint- The study also found an increase in the amount of inaccurate information recalled. It shows the sacrifice of accuracy of EWT over quantity of details and we should treat with caution
- Some elements that may be more useful- Not all of the elements are equally effective as a study showed that a combination of techniques work better than all four combined. This casts some doubt over the credibility of the CI
- Time- Consuming- Police officers may be reluctant to use it because it requires more time and training. It requires special training and not all stations have the resources to provide it. It may also be better on key elements and is not a realistic method
