Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology Semester 1 > Memory & Cognition Psychology > Flashcards

Memory & Cognition Psychology Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Construction and Reconstruction

A
  • Construction = what we perceive

- Reconstruction = what we remember later

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Reconstruction remember information

A
  • It may be the right information but you will never tell exactly what happened
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Encoding

A
  • The information we take in, the information around us which we will later remember
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

In Change blindness

A
  • Failure of attention
  • During an interruption to viewing/attention (e.g. whodunnit video)
  • Changes in the world around you as you moved your viewpoint
  • Don’t notice a change when it happens out with out viewing due to the interruption
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Inattentional Blindness

A
  • Failure of attention
  • Happens in plain sight but missed
  • Trace back to Mack and Rock (1998)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Mack and Rock (1999)

A
  • Showed an imagine to participants of two lines like a cross with a block in the right hand bottom corner
  • This imagine was in the centre of the screen
  • They had to decide which line was longer (horizontal or vertical)
  • Continued with the trial until the black block appeared on the screen, then it disappeared
  • Asked if they had seen anything
  • 25% failed to notice even when it was right in their viewing field
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Mack and Rock (1999) changed experiment

A
  • Had someone focus directly on the centre of the screen
  • Exactly the same but the imagine was moved off to the left
  • Off centre and people have to pay attention to it
  • They are looking at one point but paying attention to something else
  • Block appears again and asked if they had seen anything
  • 40% of people failed to notice it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Neisser and colleagues (1970s)

A
  • Influenced Mack and Rock
  • Overlaid two videos of a team of players with white shirts and a team of black shirts playing basketball
  • Each team were passing amongst themselves
  • Participants were asked to count the amount of passes a certain team made
  • A women with an open umbrella walks across the middle of the screen
  • Large numbers didn’t see her
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Neisser and colleagues (1999): reasons for not seeing the woman

A
  • People thought it might be that people had forgotten about her
    > No: longer time periods before asking question did not change the number who detected
  • People thought that maybe participants did not fixate their eyes in regions where the woman was
    > No: if everyone fixates eyes in centre of screen (where women walks across) still poor detection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Selective Attention

A
  • Influence of the viewer’s task (and the task demands) override saliency/visibility of a stimulus
  • (Simons & Chabris) & (Neisser and Colleagues)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Simon & Chabris (1999)

A
  • Gorilla experiment
  • Inattentional Blindness
  • If focusing on the white team <50% of people detected gorilla
  • If focusing on black team >80% do detect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Weapon focus

A
  • Eyewitnesses pay attention to crucial aspects of the situation at the expense of others, more peripheral or inconsequential details
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Eyewitness memory

Loftus et al. (1987)

A
  • Showed people a film of activity
  • Either seen someone hold up a bank with a gun or someone with a cheque
  • Both were exact same scenes
  • Then asked what happened: details of person, surrounds
  • Much poorer at giving details when gun was involved
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Eyewitness memory

Loftus et al. (1979)

A
  • Had people in a scenario where they overhear an incident
  • Someone outside an office and inside the office something happens
  • The person outside the office seen someone leave with grease hands holding a pen or what looked like blood holding a knife
  • Asked if they could identify the person from a series of images
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Eyewitness memory

Loftus et al. (1979): results

A
  • 49% identified the person (pen situation)
  • 33% identified the person (knife situation)
  • Poorer recall for those who had a weapon involved
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Pickel (1999)

A
  • Looked at why the presence of a weapon influences how much we remember
  • They suggested that we are scared
  • Suggested that it could be ‘unexpected’ item - expect pen not knife
  • Showed participants a video of a man going up to a women with either holding a baseball bat or a gun
  • Manipulated the video so either gun range or baseball field
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Pickel (1999): Results

A
  • If the person with the gun was on the baseball ground this had a much bigger effect on memory compared to if it happened on the gun range (negative effect)
  • It is the unexpected context that is drawing people’s attention towards the weapon
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Long term memory

A
  • Anything linger than seconds/milliseconds

- If it’s not something you are currently working with it’s LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Different types of LTM

A
  • Declarative

- Nondeclarative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Declarative

A
  • Personally experienced events (episodic memory)

- Facts: general knowledge (semantic memory)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Nondeclarative

A
  • Skills: motory and cognitive

- Classical conditioning effects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Nondeclarative examples

A
  • Learning to ride a bike

- Putting your keys in same place everyday

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Declarative examples

A
  • Memory that you can explicitly recall
  • Facts
  • General knowledge
  • Things that have happened
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Tulving’s (1972): Functional distinction

A
  • Episodic/ semantic distinction
  • EPISODIC
    > remembering coherent episodes/events in the context, stored with ‘tags’ relating to time and place
    > He calls this ‘mental time travel’
  • SEMANTIC
    > general conceptual knowledge, stored without reference to time or place of acquisition
    > remembering facts; mental thesaurus
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Deese (1959), Roediger & McDermott (1995)

A
  • DRM paradigm
  • Wanted to see how our general knowledge influences our memory
  • Read a list of words that would be related to something
  • Asked them to remember as much as possible
  • Often people would say the word that you never said (critical lure)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Deese (1959), Roediger & McDermott (1995): example

A
  • Think of the word ‘cold’
    > you generate a list of words associated with this word
    > snow, winter, icy etc
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Critical lure

A
  • Words that we think people will say even though we never said them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Deese (1959), Roediger & McDermott (1995): Results

A
  • Showed that people remember the critical lure just as much as studied words
  • Showed them a list of words and asked them what words they remember (recognition) shows that there is an extreme likely hood someone will say they seen the word that wasn’t there
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Deese (1959), Roediger & McDermott (1995): warning

A
  • People were warned BEFORE studying the list
    > did reduce ‘false memories’
  • People were warned AFTER studying the list
    > did not reduce ‘false memories’
  • Part of effect happens at encoding/ when taking memory in
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Bartlett (1932)

A
  • Interested in the complexities involved in memory
  • Investigated the errors participants made when recalling complex stories
  • The role of meaning and organisation on encoding and retrieval
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Bartlett (‘effort after meaning’)

A
  • Participants actively strive to gain meaning from the material to be learned, and to organise effectively
  • Postulated the role of schemas
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Schemas

A
  • Long-term knowledge structures that participants use to make sense of new information when encoding and recalling it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

War of the ghosts - Bartlett (1932)

A
  • He got a story from Native American time and changed them slightly so they didn’t make sense
  • Presented to students that don’t have the same knowledge of that time
  • Asked them to recall story
34
Q

War of the ghosts - Bartlett (1932): Results

A
  • People made mistakes
  • They would try and fill in the blanks where they didn’t understand
  • Things they’ve heard from other paces they’d try to match
  • They’d also add and leave things out
35
Q

War of the ghosts - Bartlett (1932): Replicated

A
  • By Bergman & Roediger (1999)
    > done exact same experiment
    > found over time people missed things out
36
Q

Effects during encoding: schemas

A
  • Schemas are not only used when things are difficult to comprehend
  • They are flexible and differ across individuals
  • We have them for everything
  • Happen without you knowing
37
Q

Bransford and Johnson (1972)

A
  • Gave participants (1/3 of them) a passage with no description about the text
  • Asked to reproduce it when participants but weren’t great (remembered 3 things roughly)
  • Another group (1/3) were told that the text was about doing laundry
  • Telling them this the participants recalled nearly double of information
  • Another group (1/3)
  • They were given the passage then told it was about laundry
  • Didn’t help > didn’t increase performance relative to those who hadn’t been told anything
38
Q

Bransford and Johnson (1972): schema

A
  • Telling someone its about laundry helped to activate their schema
  • Their schema of what its like to do laundry
  • As they take the information in they can filter it, pay attention to important parts making it easier to remember
39
Q

Brewer & Treyens (1981)

A
  • Graduate students office
  • Participants waiting in a room before an experiment
  • Naturalistic setting & incidental learning situation
  • Waited 35 seconds and then interviewed about what they say
40
Q

Brewer & Treyens (1981): Objects

A
  • There was objects that were consistent with the surrounding, inconsistent and then
    some things that you would expect to be there were not present
41
Q

Brewer & Treyens (1981): What participants seen

A
  • Higher recall and recognition of schema
  • Poorer recall of inconsistent
  • Higher false recall & recognition (and confidence) for scheme consistent
42
Q

Naturalistic incidental learning

A
  • Took in information around you, used it in a schema and then able to reproduce over testing
43
Q

Schemas & confirmation bias

A
  • Schema effect (Bartlett, 1932): remembering what you expect to see: memory distortions caused by influence of expectations
44
Q

Tucky & Brewer (2003)

A
  • Recall of bank robbery (from video) contained more information relevant to bank robbery schema
  • Ambiguous conditions in simulated crime reveal bias: gender of masked robber assumed male
45
Q

Sulin and Dooling (1974)

A
  • Provided people with passages of text
  • Containing either Gerald Martin or Adolf Hitler
  • Then they were asked if the sentence “He was obsessed to conquer the world”
  • Right after they all said “no”
  • After a week people that had heard Hitler said “yes” and Martin “no”
  • Schematic knowledge effect at longer retention interval
  • Long as the statement is consistent with your schema and what you know about that person > increase in effective schemas over time
46
Q

Effects during encoding & Anxiety

Pickel (1999) (experimental)

A
  • Trying to find out how much anxiety or arousal contributed to weapon focus
  • Found unusualness of the context determined what individuals took in
  • Found it didn’t matter where the weapon was aimed at > on what people remembered
47
Q

Effects during encoding & Anxiety

Yuille & Cutshall (1986) (real life)

A
  • People were witnesses to a very violent crime in Canada
  • People were interviewed immediately afterwards and also a number of weeks later
  • People were pretty consistent with their information despite being in a high anxiety condition
48
Q

Deffenbacher 1983

A
  • Looked at a series of tasks where it was a moderate complexity as eye witness tasks are
  • There seemed to be a benefit to levels of anxiety then it tapered off
49
Q

Clifford and Scott (1978)

A
  • They had videos of crimes that were either violent or less violent between two conditions
  • They found that actually people were quite impaired when there was a violent version
50
Q

Loftus and Burns (1982)

A
  • They found the more anxious it made people feel the more impaired memory was for details prior to incident
  • Violent version of crime
  • Affected what they had taken in as well as after
51
Q

Deffenbacher et al (2004)

A
  • From real-life studies
  • Higher % of correct identification in low anxiety or stress
  • Higher anxiety levels > less likely to remember
  • Holds for identification, scene details and actions
52
Q

Effects during encoding: reduced attention

A
  • Ira Hyman study
    > asked participants to walk across campus and they were in a variety of conditions
    > some were just walking, some were with someone else and some were talking on the phone
  • They had a unicycling clown go past
53
Q

Effects during encoding: reduced attention: Ira Hyman results

A
  • Found if a participants was on their phone and asked if they had seen anything strange only 8.3% did
  • 25% of people said yes they seen a clown if asked
54
Q

Information after the event

Loftus & Palmer (1974) (EXP 1)

A
  • Showed a series of videos of car crashes
  • To show just how fragile our representatives are even by just watching a video
  • Asked them how fast the car was when it either hit, smashed, bumped, collided
  • Hit= 34mph smashed= 42%
55
Q

Information after the event

Loftus & Palmer (1974) (EXP 2)

A
  • After one week they asked them if they had seen the broken glass
  • Control= 12%, hit=14%, smashed=32%
  • BY varying one word after someone has seen a video, you almost double the answer of ‘yes I seen the broken glass’
  • Misinformation acceptance (observer’s likelihood of acceptance incorrect information) increases with time since event
56
Q

Effects of wording & suggestibility

Loftus & Zanni (1975)

A
  • “Did you see THE broken headlight”
  • “Did you see A broken headlight”
  • Affect the response people gave
57
Q

Effects of wording & suggestibility

Loftus (1975)

A
  • “Do you get headaches… and if so how often”
  • …= frequently vs occasionally
  • estimate per week 2.2 vs 0.71
58
Q

Effects of wording & suggestibility

Crombag et al (1996)

A
  • “Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building?”
  • > 50% said yes
  • However, no footage existed/shown on TV but people could give details about it
59
Q

Lost in the mall (loftus & Pickrell, 1995)

A
  • People were able to give details about going missing in a mall even when it did not happen when they were younger
  • People have suggested that we have schema for what it is like to be lost in a mall/ be in a mall
  • So are willing to expect this information to fall into our schema
60
Q

McClosky & Zaragoza (1985) Testing the idea

A
  • Tests like “did you see this” create issues
  • To find out if something is permanently lost or inaccessible but retained then we need to incorporate guessing
  • Its not that the knowledge is gone its just that they can mistakenly access the newer information
61
Q

Guessing when you know you are or not

A
  • May not be influenced by what you have seen
62
Q

Applied issue: Children as eyewitnesses

Bruck & Ceci (1997)

A
  • Said a story about another child who ate eggs and got a stomach ache
  • Then asked them later about the child who ate cereal and got a headache
  • These kids are more likely to go along with the new story
  • Tend to be suggestible, affecting their recall of events
63
Q

Applied issue: Children as eyewitnesses

Thompson et al (1997)

A
  • Had children witness either someone mistreating dolls or cleaning dolls
  • Asked children questions about what happened either asking questions on how bad the person was treating them or how acceptable
  • Results: The way children report of the actions of others can be lead by the line of questioning
64
Q

Applied issue: Children as eyewitnesses

Neutral questions

A
  • Can result in errors (Bruck & Ceci (1997)
65
Q

Applied issue: Children as eyewitnesses

Findings

A
  • Due to increase social compliance in children, and their limited cognitive ability:
    > Interviewers must avoid bias, context could be reinstated where possible and children should be allowed to produce drawings
    > Repeated testing can increase accurate recall (neutral questioning)
    > Repeated testing following misleading information can increase effect of misleading information
66
Q

Applied issue: Children as eyewitnesses

Findings: However

A
  • Misleading information van have a greater effect following early testing
  • Suggestibility effect is also affected by retention interval
67
Q

Familiarity v Recollection

A
  • The distinction between knowing and remembering (Tulving, 1985)
  • The extent to which you are just familiar with the item, rather than fully recollecting it
  • SO, familiarity = based recognition (fast automatic)
  • Recollection = (slow, attention -demanding)
68
Q

Misattribution & Transference

A
  • Source misattribution errors

- Unconscious transference

69
Q

Source misattribution

A
  • Failure of source monitoring = the process of examining contextual origins of a memory
  • Prevalence of perceptual detail can help identify ‘memory’ as real or imagined
70
Q

Unconscious transference

A
  • Tendency of eyewitnesses to misidentify an innocent face (or property) on the basis of familiarity
  • (Experimentally) effects can be reduced by informing witness that bystander is a distinct person from culprit (Ross et al 1994)
71
Q

CASE: Ronald Cotton

A
  • Someone who spent 11 years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit
  • Jennifer Thompson was raped and blamed Ronald Cotton
  • She studied the attackers face as she wanted to remember him
  • Bobby Pull in prison discussed the case and only by DNA evidence was Cotton exonerated and Pull charged
72
Q

Study by Gary Wells

A
  • Asked participants to watch a video and make an identification
  • Then one group got confirmation feedback and the other did not
  • They were asked questions about the identification on the video they watch
  • Huge differences in confidence between the two group (confirmation much higher)
73
Q

Valentine et al 2003

A
  • Eyewitness identification very poor
  • Found on average 40% identified suspect, 20% identified the non-suspect
  • 40% weren’t able to make confident judgment
74
Q

Steblay, 1997

A
  • Improved by earning that culprit may not be present

- Not choosing a ‘best of’

75
Q

Steblay et al 2001

A
  • Improved by sequential line-up and ‘no return’

- Seeing people one at a time is better

76
Q

Confidence later

A
  • Does not not correlate with accuracy

- blind or computer administration of line ups

77
Q

However recent research on EW

A
  • Suggest that sequential presentation isn’t the best idea
78
Q

The Cognitive Interview

A
  • The EW re-creates the context at the time of the crime including environmental and internal information
  • The EW reports everything he or she can think of about the incident, even if the information is fragmented
  • The EW reports the details of the incident in various orders
  • The EW reports the event from various perspectives
79
Q

Existing influences on identification

A
  • People are bad at remembering (unknown) faces in general (Bruce et al presented images as well)
  • More accurate working own race and age
  • Suggested it is based on familiarity?
    > Appears not entirely (shrivel et al 2008)
    > ‘Ingroup’ benefit can be based on economic and social factors (shrivel et al 2008)
80
Q

Belief in Eyewitness Testimony

A
  • 23% of 160 American judges say that only in exceptional circumstance should eyewitness testimony be solely used
  • Eyewitness is enough evidence to convict
    > 35.6% say yes with a degree
    > 48% say yes with no degree
81
Q

Levin et al 2002

A
  • Change blindness blindness
  • We overestimate our own abilities
  • People believe they’d see changes when changes happen not in view but reality 0% do not
82
Q

Laboratory vs Courtroom

A
  • Laboratory conclusions may underestimate eyewitness failures (Ihlebaek et al 2003)
  • Should jurors be informed of research findings?
    > evidence expect testimony can have extreme effects (leippe et al 2004)
    > otherwise EW testimony can have extreme effects!

Psychology Semester 1 (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions