MEMORY AO3 Flashcards
Evaluate memory topics
Strength of the multi-store model
Evidence of seperate stores: BADDELEY showed STM encoded acoustically, but LTM encoded semantically therefore they are different
2 limitations of the multi-store model
1) Evidence of multiple LTM stores: CLIVE WEARING case study showed episodic LTM can be damaged but procedural and semantic intact
2) Evidence of multiple STM stores: KF case study showed auditory STM can be damaged but visual intact
2 strengths of multiple LTM store theory
1) Neuroimaging: brain scans shows procedural LTM is stored in the cerebellum whereas semantic and episodic are in prefrontal cortex ∴ are different stores
2) Evidence of multiple LTM stores: CLIVE WEARING case study showed episodic LTM can be damaged but procedural and semantic intact ∴ multiple LTM stores
Limitation of multiple LTM store theory
Lack of clarity: Episodic and semantic stores are interrelated, and there is conflicting research on the location of these stores within the brain
2 strengths of the Working Memory Model
1) Evidence of subsystems: BADDELEY’s dual-task performance study showed 2 tasks at once are completed better when they don’t compete for the same WMM subsystem
2) Evidence of multiple STM stores: KF case study showed auditory STM can be damaged but visual intact
2 limitations of Working Memory Model
1) LIEBERMAN pointed out that blind people have great spatial memory but no visual memory ∴ challenges idea of visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS)
2) Lack of clarity on central executive: we only know it controls attention, needs to be more clearly specified
2 strengths of interference explanation of forgetting
1) Evidence for similarity worsening interfernece: MCGEOCH and MCDONALD showed the most semantically similar info caused the most interference to original word list
2) Evidence for retroactive interference: BADDELEY + HITCH showed that the higher the number of rugby games played, the less likely players are to remember team names (irrespective of time)
Limitation of interference explanation of forgetting
Evidence that interference is temporary and is overcome by cues: TULVING and PSOTKA showed that effects of interference on word lists recall is nullified by a one-word cue ∴ memory is not gone due to interference, just hidden, not predicted by this theory
2 strengths of retrieval failure (cues) explanation of forgetting
1) Evidence for context-dependent forgetting: GODDEN and BADDELEY showed recall 40% lower when info is learned on land then recalled underwater than if learned and recalled in same location
2) Evidence for state-dependent forgetting: CARTER and CASSADAY showed recall is better when the internal state (drowsiness due to drug or not) is the same for learning and recall than if is different
Strength of cognitive interview technique
Evidence that it works: KOHNKEN meta-analysis found 41% increase in accurate information over the standard police interview, however also found an increase in inaccurate information§
2 limitations of cognitive interview technique
1) It is time-consuming: takes much more time to train officers and then implement techniques than standard interview
2) Not all elements are equally useful: MILNE and BULL found combination of report everything and reinstate context more useful than any other elements ∴ casts doubts on effectiveness of interview
2 studies on effect of anxiety on eyewitness testimony
1) Johnson and Scott study says it makes recall harder as it found recall of incident details were 20% less in high anxiety group, may be due to Weapon focus
2) Canadian shooting study says it assists recall, those who reported more anxiety had 15% better recall
Study on leading questions
Loftus and Palmer changed verb for car accident: “smash” vs “contacted”, when asked on mph it was on average 9mph higher for those who saw smashed.
Study on post-event discussion
Gabbert found those who witnessed crime, and had PED with those from a different perspective reported 70% more inaccurate details than those who had no PED
