Memory descriptions

Question 1

Digit span technique
(aim, brief procedure + results)
3 points

Answer 1

Jacobs
-measure capacity of STM
-asked pps to remember lists of numbers or digits in increasing length
-found average STM span 5-9 items

Question 2

Chunking
(describe)

Answer 2

Miller
-amount of info STM can hold is increased by chunking
-chunk takes up only one space in STM so can hold 7 chunks at a time

Question 3

Trigrams (durations STM- 18-30 seconds)
(procedure, results- percentages)

Answer 3

Brown; Peterson and Peterson
-pps shown trigram of consonants
-pps counted backwards in 3s from a given number (prevent rehearsal)
-after intervals of 3,6,9,12,15,18 seconds pps had to recall original trigram
-pps recalled 80% trigrams after 3 seconds
-pps recalled under 10% trigrams after 18 seconds

Question 4

Year books (LTM duration)
(pps, procedure + results-percentages)

Answer 4

Bahrick et al.
-400 student pps
-free recall of classmate names
-photo recognition
-name recognition
-photo and name matching
-after up to 34 years pps remembered 90% of classmates
-after 48 years declined to 70%

Question 5

Encoding
(procedure + findings)

Answer 5

Baddeley
Procedure:
-STM test pps recalled list of 5 words immediately
-LTM test pps recalled 10 words after 20 mins
-Acoustically similar (cat, mat)
-Acoustically dissimilar (dog, box)
-Semantically similar (big, large)
-Semantically dissimilar (tree, pen)
Findings:
-STM encodes acoustically
-LTM encodes semantically

Question 6

Sensory register
(capacity, duration, coding)

Answer 6

Ca- unlimited (all that is sensed)
D- 250 milliseconds
Co- modality specific

Question 7

Multistore model of memory
(describe)

Answer 7

Atkinson + Shiffrin
-memory made of series of stores
-information flows through a linear system

SENSORY REGISTER->attention->STM<->transfer/retrieval->LTM

Question 8

Glancer + Cunitz
(procedure + results)

Answer 8

-asked pps to immediately recall list of words
-words at beginning were recalled (primacy effect)
-words at end were recalled (recency effect)
-words in middle forgotten (asymptote)

Question 9

Henry Molaison

Answer 9

-severe epileptic
-surgeon took out hippocampi
-seizures reduced
-severe memory impairment eg. couldn’t learn new LTMs
-could learn motor skills like drawing a path through a picture of a maze

Question 10

Clive Wearing

Answer 10

-viral encephalitis
-damaged temporal lobe, frontal lobe and hippocampus

Question 11

Semantic memory
what branch (Declarative/implicit) + definition

Answer 11

Declarative
-knowing facts that aren’t time stamped

Question 12

Episodic memory
what branch (Declarative/implicit) + definition

Answer 12

Declarative
-knowing about life events + is time stamped (eg. 9th bday party)

Question 13

Procedural memory
what branch (Declarative/implicit) + definition

Answer 13

Implicit
-know how without conscious awareness (eg. riding a bike)

Question 14

Working model of memory
(describe)

Answer 14

Baddeley + Hitch
-active nature of STM
-central executive and 2 slave systems: phonological loop (articulatory control loop-voice + phonological store- ear) + visuo-spatial sketchpad
-phonological loop for acoustic encoding (2 second time based capacity)
-visuo-spatial sketchpad is the inner eye
-episodic buffer links info across systems eg. a movie scene

Question 15

Proactive interference (definition)

Answer 15

earlier learning interferes with what you are trying to learn
eg. fluent in spanish trying to learn french

Question 16

Retroactive interference (definition)

Answer 16

recent learning interferes with recall of earlier material
eg. knowing your new phone number but forgetting your old one

Question 17

Retroactive interference (research)
method + results

Answer 17

Underwood and Postman
-pps divided into 2 groups
-group A had to remember two word pair lists and recall first list
eg. cat-tree + cat-glass
-group B only had to remember one list
group B recall was more accurate than group A

Question 18

Baddeley + Hitch
(procedure, conclusions)

Answer 18

-asked rugby players for names of teams recently played
-some players had missed games due to injuries etc.
-found recall wasn’t dependent on time, is dependent on no. of interfering games

Question 19

2 explanations of forgetting

Answer 19

Interference( retroactive + proactive), retrieval failure due to absence of cues

Question 20

Context dependent forgetting
(aim, pps, conditions + results)

Answer 20

Godden + Baddeley
-investigate effect of enviro. on recall
-18 divers learnt lists of 36 words in either 4 conditions:
-learn + recall on beach
-learn beach, recall water
-learn + recall in water
-learn water, recall beach
-recall is better if it takes place in same location it was learnt

Question 21

Evidence for state dependent forgetting
(pps, procedure, results)

Answer 21

Goodwin et al.
-48 male medical students
-random assigined to 4 groups:
-sober both days (SS)
-drunk both days (AA)
-sober day 1, drunk day 2 (SA)
-drunk day 1, sober day 2 (AS)
-drunk 111mg/100ml blood
-found more errors made on day 2 in SA and AS conditions.
-SS performed best in all tasks

Question 22

Overton
(pps, procedure)

Answer 22

-two groups of rats
-one given mild barbiturate
-placed in simple maze where they had to avoid electric shocks
-rats who were given the drug first time round couldn’t remember how to escape when without drug

Question 23

Yerkes Dodson law

Answer 23

Performance is related to arousal
-low arousal= low performance
-too high arousal= low performance
-medium arousal= best performance

Question 24

Weapon focus phenomenon
(aim, procedure, results)

Answer 24

Loftus
-test effect of anxiety on EWT
-2 situations
-either overhear a discussion about lab equipment failure and someone walks out with a pen
-or overhear an argument and hear glass smashing before someone appears with a bloody paper knife
-pps were given 50 photos and had to recognise the person who came out of the lab
-pen group identified 49% of times
-knife group identified 33% of times

Question 25

A real life event
(pps, procedure, findings)

Answer 25

Yuille + Cutshall
-interviewed 13 witnesses to a shooting in Canada
-misleading questions had no effect on accuracy
-closer to the event= more details
-found EWTs very accurate several months later

Question 26

Effect of leading questions on EWT
(pps, procedure, results)
experiment 1

Answer 26

Loftus + Palmer
-45 students split into 5 groups of 9
-‘how fast were the cars going when they…… each other’
-verbs: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted
-smashed gave highest estimated speed (41mph)
-contacted gave lowest (32mph)

Question 27

Effects of leading questions on EWT
(pps, procedure, results)
experiment 2

Answer 27

Loftus + Palmer
-150 pps split into 3 groups
-shown video of car accident
-‘how fast were the cars going when they….. each other’
-smashed or hit
-one group wasn’t asked for control
-1 week later asked was there broken glass (there wasn’t)
-smashed condition stated there was broken glass the most

Question 28

Post event discussion
(procedure, result)

Answer 28

Gabbert et al.
- 2 groups of pps
-watched crime scene from different angles
-led to believe they’d watched the same
-asked to recall event alone or in pairs
-71% of witnesses who had discussed reported at least one wrong detail

Question 29

Cognitive interview
(4 principles)

Answer 29

Geiselman (CRRR)
-Context reinstatement- recall image of setting including details like weather etc.
-Report everything- report any info. even if not relevant
-Recall in reverse order- start with most memorable thing and work backwards from there
-Recall form changed perspective- recall from other perspectives of people who were there

Question 30

Effectiveness of cognitive interview
(pps, procedure, results)

Answer 30

Geiselman
-51 pps
-shown police training videos of violent crimes
-48 hrs after interviewed either using standard interview or cognitive
-more correct items recalled when using cognitive interview