Memory essay plans

Question 1

MSM

Answer 1

Atkinson n Shiffrin 1968

sensory register,STM, LTM

Support is Clive Wearing had disease couldn’t rmbr info more than 30s but rmbr wife name. Couldn’t transfer effectively bw stores but could retrieve info well

add Baddeley coding
Miller stm capacity
Bahrick et al ltm duration
studies that all support that each store has a different function coding n duration so supports MSM

counter that w however, MSM relies on the above studies so is experimental reductionist. rely on iso variables in lab etc
then say complex blah blah n argue against it

Question 2

WWM

Answer 2

Baddeley n Hitch 1974

stm has diff stores n WMM stores things on the go during complex tasks eg multi step math q

central executive: allocates tasks to resources n coordinates slave systems
1. Phonological loop- capacity, ltm link, acoustic code, made of phonological store n articulatory process which allows rehearsal
2. VSS- stores visual/spatial info in inner eye. Spatial info is rs make bw thing u visualise
3. Episodic buffer- brings acoustic n visuo info together to make a memory n bridge bw WMM n LTM. acts as extra storage but limited capacity

• baddeley n hitch dual tasks study
  then counter that w lab task so low eco validity
• then counter eco w irl eg n state KF motorbike case so amnesia n rmbr info when seeing himself over hearing. supports they’re diff stores
  counter that w support for WMM relies on patients w brain damage so can’t est cause n effect cos patient is only participant after damage so conclusions can’t be made
  eg is the damage to brain that caused impairment or where the damage was? eg motorbike one

Question 3

Forgetting: interference theory

Answer 3

Proactive: forget new memory cos of old eg teacher forgets new names cos mix w old

support is keppel n underwood 1962 trigrams w diff interval n rmbrd first

Retroactive: forget old cos of new
eg teacher forget old students cos of new

support is McGeoch n Mcdonald 1931 list a n b

Evaluation
•support is 1000s done in lab so EV can say reliable explanation
•counter that w cos lab low eco cos artificial tasks n may not explain forgetting irl
•counter that w irl example of Baddeley n Hitch 1977 rugby example so shows can apply irl
•counter that w theory ignores impact of time n other memories
eg bw learning n recall time short in studies but irl we don’t learn n recall asap n also doesn’t explain how theory works w memories that we got stored n if it’ll help us rmbr or forget

Question 4

forgetting: Retrieval failure

Answer 4

cue dependant forgetting so if cue not present during learning n recall then forget eg doorbell
then say Tulving n Thompson 1973- encoding specificity principle which is if cue not present during coding n retrieval then forget

then forgetting can be context n state dependant

evaluate context dependant w Godden &baddeley1975 diver study then contrast w Baddeley1977 contradicted this saying context link exaggerated n not real example eg class n hall
counter w Abernethy 1940 found being in room can help during test n having same teacher n smith found even thinking of room helps

then say forgetting theories are nomothetic n try est general laws of forgetting. Idio should be done cos maybe diff for eveurone n tests shouldn’t rely on small samples n use diff age culture n education cos that may affect it so
is limited

Question 5

EWT

Answer 5

Loftus n Palmer 1974 affects of misleading language is speed of car n effect of misleading info is broken glass

• low eco validity: seeing crime vid diff from irl n wouldn’t produce same effect eg emotion wise. acknowledge for ethical n practical reason, recreating realistic crime to witnesses not possible n hard to do but still limits findings n cant generalise to irl EWT
• support this more by saying short time to interview in study whereas testimony in court irl long time to so may forget n limits EWT
• counter despite this Her study made contributions to understanding limits of EWT n changed way feds interview ppl irl so positive impact

could add as last point individual differences no considered (Roberts n Lamb 1999 kids child abuse case n didn’t correct interviewer in 2/3 cases n misinterpreted) shows child vulnerable to adult n adult may interpret wrong individual differences affect accuracy of EWT

Question 6

post event discussion

Answer 6

Gaberts et al 2003 investigated post-event discussion n found it alters memory in witnesses.
•ps watched same vid alone (control) n w co-witness
•told they saw same vid diff details
• experiment grp told to discuss n found that they recalled 71% wrong info compared to control

shows post event discussion weakens accuracy of EWT

• internal valid high but artificial low eco valid
• replicable cos lab
• demand characteristics

Question 7

anxiety affecting EWT

Answer 7

Johnson n Scott 1976 weapon focus effect

evaluate this w Peters 1998 nurse n researcher injection thing n injection acted like weapon so affect recall
counter w J&S lab so low eco n coulda guess aim n display demand character

christianson n hubbinete 1993 bank robbery n increased recall

evaluate w Yuille n cutshall 1986 fatal shooting

Deffenbacher yerkes dodson law explains differences

Question 8

Cognitive interview

Answer 8

Geiselman et al 1985
developed cog interview to enhance accuracy of EWT

1. report everything
2. context reinstatement
3. Change perspective
4. reverse order

1&2 based on retrieval failure theory n cues n consistency bw event n recalling helps acc recall what happened cos of the cue
3&4 takes diff approach in mind n uses diff schemas to acc recall what happened. Schema= info we use to interpret world n since own schema based on stereotypes which limits EWT accuracy

support w Geiselman 1985 students watched crime n group interviewed w cog recalled more info better than standard interview
further support is fisher et al 1989 detectives divided into 2 grps where one is cog n other standard n cog grp elicited 46% more info n it was 90% more accurate showing CI is highly effective n increasing accuracy of recall

counter w Meimon et al found adv w CI depends on detective experience n experienced detectives didn’t have any sig improvement in their results so effects of CI j depends on the ppl

then can say CI needs training n explains why not used often cos pricey n timely