Memory Evaluation Flashcards
Evaluate Research on Coding
1-
Limitation: Artificial stimuli.
-Baddeley’s Study used artificial stimuli rather than meaningful material.
-Word lists had no personal meaning to participants.
-Cannot generalize findings to different tasks.
-Eg. When processing meaningful info, people may use semantic coding even for STM.
-Findings have limited application.
Evaluate Research on Capacity
2-
Limitation: lacking Validity.
-Conducted a long time ago (1887).
-Early research lacked osten lacked control.
-Eg. Some participants may have been distracted during study, so they did not perform as well as they could.
-Confounding variables not controlled.
-However, results of study have been conformed in other research, supports validity.
Limitation: Not so many chunks.
-Miller’s research may have overestimated the capacity of STM.
-Cowan (2001) concluded that capacity of STM was only about 4 chunks.
-Suggests lower end of Millers estimate (5 chunks) was more accurate than 7.
Evaluate Research on Duration.
1- And 1+
Limitation: Meaningless stimuli in STM study.
-Peterson and Peterson.
-Artificial Stimulus material.
-memorizing consonant syllables does not reflect real life memory activities.
-Lacked external validity.
-However, sometimes we must remember meaningless things like phone numbers, so they are not totally irrelevant.
Strength: Higher External Validity.
-Bahrick et al.
-Real-life, meaningful memories studied.
-When LTM studies with artificial material studied, recall was lower (e.g. Shepard 1967).
-However, in real-life material, confounding variables are not controlled.
-E.g. Bahricks participants may have looked through their yearbook photos and rehearsed their memory over the years.
Evaluate the Multi-store model of memory.
1+ and 2-
Strength: Supporting research evidence.
-Research studies support LTM and STM are qualitatively different.
-Baddeley, found we mix up wors that sound similar when using STM. But mix up words with similar meanings when usings LTM.
-Clearly supports Semantic encoding of LTM and Acoustic encoding of STM.
-Shows there different, supports MSM’s view that they are separate stores and independent.
Weakness: More than 1 type of STM.
-MSM states 1 STM unitary store.
-Evidence from patients with amnesia, E.g. Shallice and Warrington’s study, 1970, Studied patient KF.
-KF’s STM with digits was poor when red them out-loud, his recall was much better when he read them himself.
-Further studies on KF and others even showed other potential STM store for non-verbal sounds.
-Thus, research disproves the unitary STM shown in MSM, as there is at least one to process auditory and one to process visual.
Weakness: more than 1 type of rehearsal.
-MSM says the more you rehearse info, the more likely you are to transfer it to LTM.
-Craik and Watkins (1973), found this prediction is wrong.
- 2 types of rehearsal, maintenance, the type described in MSM, which they found only maintains information in the STM, does not transfer.
-And Elaborative rehearsal, needed for long term storage. Occurs when you link information to your existing knowledge or think about what info means.
-Serious limitation of MSM as it cannot be explained by the model.
Evaluate the types of long-term memory.
3+
Strength: Real-life applications.
-Ability to recognize different LTM types, psychologists can target certain types of memory to improve lives.
-Belleville et al. (2006), episodic memories could improve in older people who had mild cognitive impairments.
-Trained participants performed better on tests of episodic memory after training than control group.
-Episodic memory is most affected by mild cognitive impairments, so beneficial to be able to distinguish between them, enables specific treatments to be developed.
Strength: Clinical evidence.
-Case study: HM and Clive wearing, severely impaired episodic memory, consequence of amnesia.
-Semantic memories were completely unaffected.
-HM could not recall ever owning a dog but would not need the concept of dog explained to him ever.
-Their procedural memories were also intact (could tie shoelaces ect.)
-Clive wearing, previously a professional musician could read music, play piano and sing.
-Supports theory, not only are these types of memory different, but they are stored in different parts of the brain.
Strength: Neuroimaging evidence.
-Evidence from Brain scans show different types of LTM stored in different parts of the Brain.
-Tulving et al. (1994) used PET scans on participants whilst they performed memory tasks.
-Episodic and sematic memories recalled in prefrontal cortex.
-Left prefrontal cortex recalled semantic.
-Right recalled episodic.
-Supports view that there is a physical reality to the different types of LTM.
-Supports validity of this finding.
Evaluate the working memory model (WMM).
2+ and 1-
Strength: Clinical evidence.
-Shallice and Warrington’s (1970) case study on KF who had brain damage.
-KF had poor STM ability for verbal information but could process visual information normally.
-Suggests that the phonological loop (which processes verbal information) had been damaged, leaving other areas of memory intact.
-Supports the existence of separate visual and acoustic stores.
-However, unique case, cannot be generalized as it concerns patients with traumatic/unique experiences
Strength: Dual Task performance.
-Dual-task performance studies support the existence of visual-spatial sketchpad.
-Baddeley (1975), participants had more difficulty doing 2 visual tasks at the same time than a verbal and visual task.
-Because the 2 visual tasks compete for the same slave system, visual and verbal do not compete, meaning there must be a separate slave system that processes each.
Weakness: Lack of clarity over the central executive.
-Cognitive psychologists claim the component of central executive is unsatisfactory and does not explain anything.
-Baddeley recognized that it was the most important but least understood component of the WMM.
-Central executives need to be better explained than just simply being ‘attention’. Some psychologists believe it may consist of separate components.
-This means WMM hasn’t been fully explained, making it difficult and less useful to real-world applications.
EVALUATE EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE.
2+ AND 1-
STRENGTH: EVIDENCE FROM LAB STUDIES.
-Intereference: Consistently demonstrated finding.
-thousands of lab experiments on this area of forgetting.
-E.g. McGeoch and McDonald’s study.
-Studies Show LTM both types of interference are very common ways to forget info in LTM.
-Strength, as lab experiments control confounding variables, meaning interference is a valid explanation for some forgetting.
STRENGTH: REAL-LIFE STUDIES.
-Baddeley and Hitch (1977), aimed to discover if interference was a better explanation that time for forgetting.
-Rugby players asked to remember names of teams they played, week by wee.
-Some players missed games, so had been a few weeks since they played.
-Results showed accurate reca did not depend on how. Long it had been since match.
-More important was the number of games played in the meantime.
-Players recall of a team 3 weeks ago was better if they hadn’t played matches in between.
-Shows interference explanation can apply to some everyday situations.
WEAKNESS: ARTIFICIAL MATERIALS.
-Greater chance of interference beiung represented in a lab than in real life, because stimulus materials used are words lists, participants are told to learn these lists.
-distant from things we try to remember in everyday life (people’s faces, birthdays, ingredients.)
-limitation, due to artificial material interference may not be as likely an explanation for forgetting in everyday life as it is in a lab study.
EVALUATE EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: RETRIEVAL FAILUIRE.
2- AND 1+
STRENGTH: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
-Impressive range of research support.
-Godden and Baddeley’s study, Carter and Cassaaday’s study, just 2 examples.
-Michael Eysenk 2010 (prominent memory researcher), argues retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting LTM.
-Strength, supporting evidence increases validity.
-Especially true, studies show retrieval failure occurs in real life situations as well as highly controlled lab conditions.
WEAKNESS: QUOESTIONING CONTEXT EFFECTS.
-Baddeley (1997), argues context affects are not very strong, especially in real life.
-Different contexts must be extreme to have an effect.
-Land and water are very extreme examples of context.
-Learning in one room and recalling in another is unlikely to result in forgetting, not different enough.
-limitation, real-life application of retrieval failure due to contextual cues don’t actually explain much forgetting.
WEAKNESS: RECALL VERSUS RECOGNITION.
-Context effect may be related to the kind of memory being tested.
-Baddeley (1980), replicated underwater experiment, but used recognition test instead of recall.
-Participants had to state whether they recognized a word, not recall it themselves.
-They found no context-dependent effect.
-Performance remained the same in all 4 conditions.
-Limitation of context effects, the presence or absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in a certain way.
EVALUATE FACTORS AFFECTING EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: MISLEADING INFORMATION.
1+ AND 2-
STRENGTH: USEFUL REAL-LIFE APPLICATIONS.
-Important as it affects the consequences of inaccurate EWT, which can be very serious.
-Loftus (1975), believes leading questions have a distorting effect on memory, police officers can therefore know to be careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses.
-Research into EWT can make a positive difference to people’s lives.
-E.g. improving the legal system, expert psychologists on this topic can appear in court trials as expert witnesses.
WEAKNESS: ARTIFICIAL TASKS.
-Limitation of Loftus and Palmer’s study, participants only watched film clips of car accidents, different to witnessing one in real-life, clips lack stress of the real-life situation.
-This is a problem, as there is evidence that emotions can influence memory.
-Limitation, studies using artificial tasks tell us little about how leading questions really affect EWT in real accidents and crimes.
-Perhaps it is more reliable than these studies suggest.
WEAKNESS: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES.
-Evidence older people are less accurate than young when giving EWT reports.
-Anastasi and Rhodes (2006), people aged 18-25 and 35-45 are more accurate than people 55-78.
-However, all age groups are more accurate when identifying people their own age (called own age bias).
-Research studies often use young people as the target to identify, meaning some age groups may appear less accurate due to their own age bias, when in fact, that isn’t true.
EVALUATE FACTORS AFFECTING EYEWITNES TESTIMONY: ANXIETY.
3-
WEAKNESS: WEAPON FOCUS MAY NOT BE RELEVANT.
-Jhonson and Scott’s study (1976), on weapon focus may have tested surprise rather than anxiety.
-Could focus on the weapon out of surprise, not fear.
-Pickel’s (1998) experiment used scissors, a handgun, a wallet and raw chicken as handheld items in a hairdressing video.
-Eyewitness accuracy was poorer in unusual conditions, such as chicken and handgun.
-Therefore, weapon focus is due to surprise, so does not tell us anything specifically about the affects of anxiety on EWT.
WEAKNESS: FIELD STUDIES SOMETIMES LACK CONTROL.
-Researches interview real-life eyewitness testimonies sometime after the event.
-Many things will have happened in the meantime.
-researchers cannot control participants discussions about the event (with police or others), or accounts they may have read/ seen on the media, (post-event discussions.)
-Extraneous variables are a limitation of field research, as they. May be responsible for the accuracy of recall.
-Effects of anxiety may be overwhelmed by these factors, making it impossible to assess the participants properly.
WEAKNESS: EHTICAL ISSUES.
-creatin anxiety in participants may cause psychological harm.
-Why real-life studies are important, because they do not have to create stressful experiences.
-Whilst it does not question the findings, it questions whether the reasons for this type of study are good-enough.
-One reason, more controlled that field studies, so benefits may outweigh issues.
EVALUATE IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: COGNITIVE INTERVIEW.
1- AND 2+
WEAKNESS: THE CI IS TIME-CONSUMING.
-Police reluctant to use, takes up too much time.
-In CI, more time is needed to establish rapport with interviewees and maked them feel relaxed.
-CI requires special training, many forces have not provided more than a few hours for this. (Kebbell and Wagstaff (1996).
-Proper version of CI is likely not used, explains why police are not impressed by it.
STRENGTH: SOME ELEMENTS MAY BE MORE VALUABLETHAN OTHERS.
-Milne and Bull (2002) found each individual element of CI was equally important, each technique signly produce more information than standard police interview.
-However, they found that using a combination of report everything and context reinstatement produced better recall than any of the other conditions.
-Confirmed police suspicions: Some aspects are more useful than others.
-Strength, proves at least two items improve police interviews of Eyewitnesses, even if full CI isnt used.
-Increases credibility of CI among police officers.
STRENGTH: SUPPORT FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ECI (ENHANCED).
-Special benefits.
-meta-analysis by Kohnken et al (1999), combined data form 50 studies.
-enhanced CI provided more correct information than standard police interview.
-Indicates real, practical benefits of ECI.
-Give police a greater chance of catching and charging criminals, which is benefitial to society as a whole.
