Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology > Memory L5 - 9 > Flashcards

Memory L5 - 9 Flashcards

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

Forgetting:

A

Inability to access/recover info previously stored in the memory (inaccessible at time of attempted retrieval)

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

Interference theory:

A

One or both memories are forgotten/distorted because two memories are in conflict

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

When is forgetting (according to interference theory) more likely to happen and why does it happen at this point (refer to types of interference)?

A
  • If memories are similar
  • PI –> Previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store
  • RI –> New info overwrites previous similar memories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Types of interference:

A

1) Proactive –> Old memory interferes w/ recall of new memory (forward)
2) Retroactive –> New memory interferes w/ recall of old memory (backwards)

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

What research support is there for interference and what was its aim?

A
  • McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
  • Aim: Does interference have an impact on forgetting?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Procedure of McGeoch and McDonald’s study:

A

Task 1: 6 grps of participants learning word list until 100% accurate
Task 2: 5 of these grps learn another list, each under varying degrees of similarity (interference task)
Task 3: All pps required to recall first list

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

List the conditions of all 6 grps:

A

1) No new list (control condition)
2) Synonyms
3) Antonyms
4) Unrelated words
5) Nonsense syllables
5) 3 digit numbers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Results and conclusion of McGeoch and McDonald study (+why?):

A
  • Control grp had best recall score as they had no interference task
  • Out of those given another task, those who had numbers recalled best as numbers do not interfere with words
  • Group given list of synonyms had lowest recall score as both lists had similar meaning
  • Interference is most likely when 2 pieces of info are similar
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was the aim of Baddeley and Hitch (1977) study?

A

Investigate interference in everyday life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Procedure of Baddeley and Hitch (1977):

A
  • Players asked to recall names of teams they had played against in the season
  • Sample included rugby union players, some of whom had missed some games due to injury whereas others had played every match in the season
  • Length of season same for all players
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Results of Baddeley and Hitch (1977) study:

A
  • Players who had played most games forgot proportionately more games more than those who had played less games
  • Equally accurate recalling the last team played regardless of whether it was 3 days or 3 weeks ago
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Conclusion of Baddeley and Hitch (1977) study:

A

Result of retroactive interference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Evaluation of interference theory:

A

+ Supported by many controlled lab studies eg. McGeoch and McDonald’s study was standardised and matched on levels of difficulty
+ Some realistic studies have been conducted eg. Baddeley and Hitch (1977) –> shows it occurs in everyday life
- Most supporting evidence lacks ecological validity (mundane realism)
- Time period between learning and recall usually short in lab study (lacks mundane realism)
- Effects of interference can be overcome w/ cues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Which study supports the fact that interference can be overcome w/ cues?

A

Tulving and Psotka (1971)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Procedure of Tulving and Psotka (1971) study:

A

Gave pps 5 lists of 24 words organised into categories

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Results of Tulving and Psotka (1971) study(+ why?):

A
  • Recall was about 70% for first list w/ decreasing accuracy (due to interference)
  • After reminder of category (cue) of word list, recall increased back to 70%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Conclusion of Tulving and Psotka (1971) study:

A

Cues needed to access some memories in LTM, showing interference is not a strong theory of forgetting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What does the retrieval failure theory argue and why?

A
  • Info in LTM cannot be retrieved due to lack of cues
  • Associated cues are stored when info is placed in memory, which are then needed to trigger the memory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the encoding specificity principle and when and who was it designed by?

A
  • Suggests that cues will help retrieval if the same ones are present at coding and retrieval
  • Closer the cue is to og cue, the more effective it is in triggering the memory
  • Tulving (1983)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Types of cues supporting ESP:

A
  • Cues linked meaningfully to info remembered
  • Cues that are not linked meaningfully but may relate to the context in which learning occurs (external cues)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What research supports the role of ESP in improving recall?

A

Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)

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

Procedure of Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) study:

A
  • Recall 48 words belonging to one of 12 categories
  • Each word was preceded by its category (cue) eg. Gem: ruby
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Results of Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) study:

A
  • If cue is present, overall recall is 60%
  • If cue is not present, recall falls to 40%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Conclusion of Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) study:

A

Retrieval is much better when there are cues to trigger the memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Context-dependent forgetting:

A

This can occur when the environment during recall is different from the environment during learning (absence of correct cue)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Which studies supports context-dependent forgetting?

A
  • Abenerthy (1940)
  • Godden and Baddeley (1975)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Procedure of Abenerthy (1940) study:

A
  • Arranged students into 4 diff grps to be tested weekly before a certain course began. Conditions:
    1) Same teaching room, same instructor
    2) Same teaching room, diff instructor
    3) Diff teaching room, same instructor
    4) Diff teaching room, diff instructor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Results of Abenerthy (1940) study:

A
  • Grp 1 performed the best because the familiar things acted as memory cues
  • ‘Able’ students were least affected by changes and vice versa
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Procedure of Godden and Baddeley (1975) study:

A

18 divers from diving club asked to learn lists of 36 unrelated words w/ 2 or 3 syllables + recall. Conditions were:
1) Learn + recall on beach
2) Learn on beach, recall under water
3) Learn under water, recall on beach
4) Learn + recall under water

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Results of Godden and Baddeley (1975) study (mean scores):

A
  • Recall is much better when environment of learning and recall matched
    1) Learn + recall on beach –> 13.5
    2) Learn on beach, recall under water –> 8.6
    3) Learn under water, recall on beach –> 8.5
    4) Learn + recall under water –> 11.4
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Conclusion of Godden and Baddeley (1975) study:

A
  • Shows context dependent forgetting as info was forgotten when context at recall did not match that at learning
  • Caused retrieval failure due to lack of cues
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Evaluation of context-dependent forgetting:

A

+ Proved normal real life contexts are important cues for remembering info
- Effect may not be very strong in real life as contexts must be very different for this to be seen. In real life, differences in context are only small
- May depend on type of memory being tested

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

How might context-dependent forgetting depend on the type of memory being tested?

A
  • When Godden and Baddeley repeated the same experiment but asked pps if they recognised the words rather than free recall, performance was same in all conditions
  • No context-dependent effect
  • Shows retrieval failure due to absence of cues only occurs for recall of info not recognition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

State-dependent forgetting:

A

Retrieval failure is due to the absence of the same state of mind at learning and recall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Which studies support state-dependent forgetting?

A
  • Carter and Cassaday (1998)
  • Goodwin et al (1969)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Procedure of Carter and Cassaday (1998) study:

A
  • Gave pps anti-histamines (drug) to control their hay fever –> made them feel slightly drowsy Groups were:
    1) under the influence, under the influence
    2) sane, under the influence
    3) sane, sane
    4) sane, under the influence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Results of Carter and Cassaday (1998) study:

A
  • Recall was best when internal states matched eg. grp 1 + 3 vice versa
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Conclusion of Carter and Cassaday (1998) study:

A
  • When internal cues are absent, forgetting is more likely
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Procedure of Goodwin et al (1969) study:

A
  • Male volunteers asked to remember a word list when either drunk (3x above UK drink driving limit) or sober
  • Recall after 24 hrs when some were sober and others were drunk again
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Results of Goodwin et al (1969) study:

A

Those who had learnt the words under the influence were more likely to remember the words in that same state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Overall evaluation of retrieval failure explanation:

A

+ Range of research including lab studies + real life situations
+ Real life applications –> both principles of state and context dependent forgetting used in the Cognitive interview, where witnesses add asked to recall context of scene (context reinstatement) to help memory recall
- Do not always work as learning is related to a lot more than cues
- Lacks mundane realism as there is are word list tasks
- Difficult to test ESP, as it is unknown what cues are meaningful to individuals and are responsible for enhancing learning

42
Q

Eyewitness testimony:

A

The ability of people to remember the detail of events which they themselves have observed

43
Q

What affects the accuracy of EWT?

A

Misleading info such as leading questions and post-event discussions

44
Q

Leading question:

A

Question that suggests to the witness what answer is desired or them to give a certain answer due to the way it was phrased

45
Q

Which study supports the impact of misleading questions on EWT?

A

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

46
Q

Procedure of Loftus and Palmer study:

A
  • 45 students shown vid of car accident
  • 1 group was asked ‘How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’
  • For other pps, the verb changed to collided, smashed, bumped or contacted
47
Q

Results of Loftus and Palmer study:

A

Verb ‘contacted’ lead to lowest estimated speed (mean of 31.8 mph) whereas ‘smashed’ had the highest (mean of 40.5mph)

48
Q

Conclusion:

A

Some of the verbs used in the experiment were misleading and encouraged pps to believe the cars were going faster than they were

49
Q

What was the second experiment conducted in 1974 and by who?

A
  • Loftus and Palmer (1974)
  • See if wording of a leading question actually changes pps’ memory of the film clip
  • Those who heard ‘smashed’ were more likely to report seeing broken glass compared to those who heard ‘hit’
50
Q

Procedure and results of Loftus and Zanni (1975):

A
  • Pps shown vid of car accident
  • Asked if they had seen ‘a’ broken headlight, 7% said yes
  • Asked if they had seen ‘the’ broken headlight, 17% said yes
51
Q

Post-event discussion:

A

When witnesses to an event discuss what they have experienced after the event

52
Q

In what two ways is post-event discussion argued to affect accuracy of EWT and what are these?

A

1) Memory contamination –> Witnesses mix info from other witnesses into their own memories
2) Memory conformity –> Witnesses pick up details from EWT due to social approval (NSI) or the belief that the others are right and they are wrong (ISI)

53
Q

Which research was carried out to test the effects of post-event discussion on the accuracy of EWT?

A

Gabbert et al (2003)

54
Q

Procedure of Gabbert et al (2003) study:

A
  • Sample consisted of 60 students from University of Aberdeen + 60 older adults recruited from a local community
  • Watched vid of girl stealing money from wallet
  • Tested individually (control grp) or in pairs (co-witness grp)
  • Pps in co-witness grp were told they had watched the same vid, however they had actually seen different perspectives of it and only one saw the girl stealing
  • Pps in co-witness grp discussed the crime
  • All pps had to complete questionnaire testing their memory of the event
55
Q

Results of Gabbert et al (2003) study:

A
  • 71% of witnesses in co-witness grp recalled info they had not seen (compared to 0% in control grp)
  • 60% said girl was guilty, even tho they had not seen her commit a crime
56
Q

Strengths and weaknesses of effects of misleading info on EWT:

A

+ Mostly well-controlled lab studies eg. Loftus and Zanni used standardised procedure
+ Important real life applications –> shows police must be careful with wording + importance of no post-event discussion
- Watching a vid of an event is very different to it happening in real time
- Watching a staged event does not cause anxiety, where a small amount has been shown to increase accuracy
- In real life, EWT may have serious consequences
- Risk of demand characteristics in lab studies
- Many of Loftus’ experiments involved students –> lacks population validity

57
Q

Procedure and results of Yuille and Cutshall (1986) study:

A
  • 13 witnesses of armed robbery interviewed 5 months after event
  • Asked 2 leading questions to see if accuracy would be affected
  • Recall was accurate + 2 leading questions had no effect on accuracy
58
Q

Conclusion of Yuille and Cutshall (1986) study:

A

EWT is less influenced by leading questions in real life

59
Q

What possibilities does research support in terms of effects of anxiety?

A

Research supports the fact that anxiety makes eyewitness recall better/worse

60
Q

What did Yerkes and Dodson propose, when and what is this?

A
  • 1908
  • Inverted U theory
  • Performance can increase w/ stress only up to a certain point before it decreases drastically
61
Q

Who applied the Yerkes-Dodson law to EWT and what did they suggest?

A

Deffenbacher (1983):
- Lower levels of anxiety –> lower recall accuracy
- As anxiety increases, memory becomes more accurate
- Optimal level of anxiety –> max accuracy
- Any further anxiety –> drastic decline in recall
- Medium amount of anxiety–> most accurate recall

62
Q

Give an example of high anxiety producing negative effects in EWT:

A
  • Weapon focus effect
  • Anxiety levels rise after witnessing a weapon
  • Causing focus to shift from crime to weapon
63
Q

What study supports the weapon focus effect?

A
  • Johnson and Scott (1976)
64
Q

Procedure of Johnson and Scott (1976) study:

A

Pps sat outside lab and heard 1 of 2 convos:
1) Friendly convo followed by man emerging carrying pen w/ grease (low anxiety condition)
2) Argument w/ smashing glass + overturned furniture followed by man emerging w/ blood-stained paper knife (high anxiety condition)
Man had to be identified on basis of 50 photos

65
Q

Results of Johnson and Scott (1976) study:

A
  • 49% accurate identifying man w/ pen
  • 33% accurate w/ knife
66
Q

Conclusion of Johnson and Scott (1976) study:

A

Anxiety generated by weapon diverted attention away from man’s face

67
Q

Give research support showing weapon focus effect

A

Steblay (1992) found in meta-analysis that presence of weapon significantly reduces chances of pp accurately identifying the person holding it

68
Q

Give a study showing high anxiety to produce positive effects in EWT:

A

Christianson and Hubinette (1993)

69
Q

Procedure of Christianson and Hubinette (1993) study:

A

Questioned 58 real witnesses (either victim/bystander) to bank robbery in Sweden 4-5 months after event

70
Q

Results of Christianson and Hubinette (1993) study:

A
  • 75% or more accuracy for all witnesses
  • Most anxious (victims) had most accurate recall
71
Q

What did Christianson conclude and in what year?

A
  • Memory for negative emotional events is better than neutral events
  • 1992
72
Q

Give further support showing high anxiety to produce positive effects in EWT:

A
  • Yuille and Cutshall (1986)
  • Found most distressed witnesses at time of irl shooting in Canada gave most accurate results after 5 months
73
Q

Weaknesses of anxiety as factor of EWT:

A
  • Weapon focus may not be caused by anxiety
  • Field studies lack control
  • Ethical issues
  • Yerkes-Dodson Law is too simplistic
  • Individual differences
74
Q

What study shows weapon focus may not be caused by anxiety and what was the hypothesis?

A
  • Pickel (1998)
  • Hypothesis: Reduced accuracy could be due to surprise rather than anxiety
75
Q

Procedure of Pickel (1998) study:

A

4 conditions of thief walking into hairdressing salon carrying:
- Scissors (high threat, low surprise)
- Handgun (high threat, high surprise)
- Wallet (low threat, low surprise)
- Chicken (low threat, high surprise)

76
Q

Results and conclusion of Pickel (1998) study:

A
  • Identification least accurate in high surprise conditions rather than high threat
  • Suggests weapon focus effect is related to surprise rather than anxiety
77
Q

In what ways do field studies sometimes lack control (also give a strength) and which studies have this weakness?

A
  • Yuille and Cutshall
  • Christianson and Hubinette
  • Strength: Naturalistic studies
  • Weakness: Confounding variables may have affected eg. those w/ highest level of anxiety may have been closer to incident so would’ve been able to see more clearly, post-event discussion + info read about event
78
Q

What are the ethical issues with these studies?

A
  • Subjects pps to psychological harm eg. bloody knife, hearing an argument they couldn’t see
  • Deception as argument + bloody pen was staged
79
Q

How is the Yerkes-Dodson Law too simplistic?

A
  • Anxiety is difficult to define + measure accurately
  • Many elements eg. cognitive, behavioural, emotional, physical
  • This law only links it to physiological arousal which is not accurate, as it could be linked to worry (eg), which is cognitive
80
Q

Which study shows the impact of individual differences on the effects of anxiety on a person’s accuracy and how?

A
  • Bothwell et al (1987)
  • Found neurotic (high anxiety) individuals were less accurate w/ increased stress levels compared to stable ones
81
Q

Who developed the cognitive interview, when and what does it aim to do?

A
  • Gieselman et al
  • 1984
  • Aims to increase accuracy of witness’ recall by providing them w/ cues to help retrieval
82
Q

What features of a standard police interview have been criticised?

A
  • Use of brief, direct and closed qs
  • Witnesses often interrupted
  • Use of leading qs
83
Q

Why did Gieselman criticise this and in what situation does he believe recall would be better?

A
  • Interruption can break concentration + short answers generate less detail
  • Recall is better when witnesses are provided w/ retrieval cue and rapport is built w/ witness
84
Q

4 principles of cognitive interview:

A

1) Context/Mental reinstatement of original context
2) Report everything
3) Recall in changed order
4) Recall from changed perspective

85
Q

What is context reinstatement and how does it improve recall?

A
  • When interviewer encourages interviewee to mentally recreate both physical and psychological environment of incidents
  • Offers appropriate contextual and emotional cues to trigger memory
86
Q

How does reporting everything improve recall?

A
  • Recalling everything means interruption is avoided
  • Trivial info mentioned that witness may think is irrelevant may aid recall
  • This is because memories are interconnected so small details could help to piece together a clearer pic of event
87
Q

How does recalling in a changed order improve recall?

A
  • Prevents pre-existing schema influencing what the person recalls
  • Often triggers extra memories
  • Prevents dishonesty (harder to lie in reverse)
88
Q

How does recall from a changed perspective improve recall?

A

Disrupts effect schemas have on recall

89
Q

Who developed the enhanced cognitive interview and what 8 principles does it include?

A

Fisher 1987 (AOPILJD):
1) Actively listen
2) Open-ended qs
3) Pause after each response
4) Interruption (avoid it!)
5) Imagery (encourage it!)
6) Language adapted to suit witness
7) Judgemental comments (avoid it!)
8) Distractions to be minimised

90
Q

Which study shows CI generates more info?

A

Gieselman et al (1985)

91
Q

Procedure of Gieselman et al (1985) study:

A
  • Showed pps vids of staged crime
  • Tested diff grps w/ CI, standard police interview & interview under influence of hypnosis
92
Q

What research support shows CI generates more accurate info?

A
  • Gieselman et al (1986)
  • Milne and Bull (2002)
  • Meta-analysis
93
Q

Procedure of Gieselman et al (1986) study:

A
  • Intruder wearing blue rucksack enters Classroom 2 and steals a slide projector (staged)
  • 2 days later, pps either questioned w/ CI or standard interview
  • Early in questioning, pps asked misleading q ‘was the guy w/ green backpack nervous?’
  • Later on in interview, pps asked to recall colour of rucksack
94
Q

Results and conclusion of Gieselman et al (1986) study:

A
  • Those in CI condition less likely to recall the rucksack as being green
  • CI reduces effect of leading qs
95
Q

What did the meta-analysis find?

A

Meta-analysis of 53 studies found on avg there was 34% increase in amount of correct info generated in CI compared to standard interview (Kohnken et al (1999))

96
Q

Procedure of Milne and Bull (2002) study:

A
  • Interviewed pps using combo of ‘report everything’ and ‘context reinstatement’ from CI
97
Q

Conclusion and results of Milne and Bull (2002) study:

A

Found recall was significantly higher compared to just using one technique

98
Q

Strengths and weaknesses of CI:

A

+ Research suggests CI is effective, as it generates more info that is also more accurate
- Time-consuming
- Interviewer requires a lot of training
- Many studies tested EWT in lab (staged) –> lacks ecological validity
- Less successful in improving recall w/ children

99
Q

Which study shows that interviewers require a lot of training to see results in CI?

A
  • Memon et al (1994)
  • Reported experienced detectives w/ little training of 4 hrs in CI did not produce any significant increases in amount of info generated
100
Q

Which study shows CI to be less successful in improving recall w/ children and how did it show this(+ evaluation)?

A
  • Gieselman (1999)
  • Children under 6 reported less accurately w/ CI techniques (possibly due to lack of understanding)
  • Effective w/ children above 8
101
Q

Which study shows the success of CI in older pps compared to younger pps and how did it show this (+evaluation)?

A
  • Mello and Fisher (1996)
  • More successful in older pps w/ mean age of 72 than younger pps w/ mean age of 22
  • Difficult to test its effectiveness in real life as police use it selectively –> use some principles and not others
102
Q

Give one study showing the difference of impact of leading questions in real life compared to lab studies

A

Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

Psychology (30 decks)

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