Memory - P1 Flashcards
What is Short-term memory? - AO1
The limited-capacity memory store. In STM, coding is mainly acoustic (sounds similar), capacity is between 5-9 items, duration on average is about 18 seconds
What is long-term memory? - AO1
The permanent memory store. In LTM, coding is mainly semantic (similar meaning), it has unlimited capacity and can store memories for up to a lifetime
What is Coding? AO1
The format in which information is stored in the various memory stores
What is Capacity? - AO1
The amount of information that can be held in a memory store
What is Duration? - AO1
The length of time information can be held in memory
Who researched coding at what was the procedure? - AO1
Baddeley researched coding in 1966
- acoustically similar words (e.g. cat, cab, can) or dissimilar(e.g. pit, few, cow)
- semantically similar (e.g. great, large, big) or dissimilar (e.g. good, huge, hot)
What were the results of Baddeley’s coding experiment? - AO1
- he found that immediate recall was worse with acoustically similar words, STM is acoustic
- recall after 20 mins worse with semantically similar words, LTM is semantic
What were the strengths of coding? - AO3
One strength is it identified to memory stores
- later research showed there are exceptions to Baddeley’s findings
- but STM is mostly acoustic + LTM is mostly semantic
- this led to the development of multi-store model
What were the limitations of coding? - AO3
One limitation is that it used artificial stimuli
- the words used had no personal meaning to participants so tells us little about coding for everyday memory tasks
- when processing more meaningful info, people use semantic coding even for STM
- this means the findings of this study have limited application
Who researched capacity through testing digital span + what was the procedure? - AO1
Jacobs (1887) - testing digital span
- researcher reads 4 digits + increases until the participants can’t recall the order correctly. Final number = digit span
What were the results of Jacobs’ capacity experiment? - AO1
On average, participants could repeat back 9.3 numbers and 7.3 letters in correct order immediately after they were presented
Who researched capacity through observation + what was the procedure? - AO1
Miller (1956) - Magic number 7 + or -2
- Miller observed everyday practice, noted that things come in sevens - notes of musical scale, days of the week, deadly sins, etc.
What were the results of Miller’s capacity experiment? - AO1
The span of STM is about 7 items (plus or minus 2) but is increased by chunking - grouping sets of digits/letters into meaningful units
What were the strengths of capacity? - AO3
one strength of Jacobs’ study is that it has been replicated
- this is an old study + may have lacked adequate controls ( CVs, e.g. participants being distracted)
- despite this, Jacobs’ findings have been confirmed in later controlled studies (e.g. Bopp + Verhaeghen 2005)
- this shows that his study is a valid measure of STM digit span
What were the limitations of capacity? - AO3
one limitation of Miller’s research is it may overstimulate STM capacity
- for example, Cowan (2001) reviewed other research
- he concluded the capacity of STM was only about 4 (+ or - 1) chunks
- this suggests that the lower end of Miller’s estimate (5 items) is more appropriate than 7 items
Who researched duration through consonant syllables + what was the procedure? - AO1
Peterson and Peterson (1959) - consonant syllables
- 24 students were given a consonant syllable (e.g YCG) to recall + 3-digit number to count backwards from. The retention interval was varied: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 seconds
What were the results of Peterson & Peterson’s duration experiment? - AO1
After 3 seconds - average recall was about 80%. After 18 secs it was about 3%. STM duration without rehearsal is up to 18 seconds
Who researched duration through yearbook photos + what was the procedure? - AO1
Bahrick et al. (1975) - yearbook photos
- participants were 392 Americans aged 17-74
1. recognition test - 50 photos from high school yearbooks
2. free recall test - participants listed names of their graduating class
What were the results of Bahrick et al.’s duration experiment? - AO1
- recognition test - 90% accurate after 15 years, 70% after 48 years
- free recall test - 60% recall after 15 years, 30% after 48 years
What were the strengths of duration? - AO3
one strength of Bahrick et al.’s study is it had high external validity
- everyday meaningful memories (e.g. of people’s faces + names) were studied
- when lab studies were done with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates were lower (e.g. shepard 1967)
- this means Bahrick et al.’s findings reflect a more ‘real’ estimate of the duration of LTM
What were the limitations of duration? - AO3
one limitation of Peterson + Peterson’s study is the meaningless stimuli
- we sometimes try to recall meaningless things so the study isn’t completely irrelevant
- but recall of consonant syllables doesn’t reflect meaningful everyday memory tasks
- therefore the study lacked external validity
Which 2 people created the multi-store memory model (MSM) in 1968? - AO1
- what does the MSM describe
- it was created by Atkinson + Shiffrin
- the MSM describes how information flows through the memory system. Memory is made of 3 stores linked: the sensory register, short-term memory, and long-term memory
What is the sensory register (SR)? - AO1
All stimuli from the environment (e.g. sound of someone talking) pass into the SR. This part of memory is not 1 store but 5, 1 for each sense
- Coding; modality-specific, depends on the sense
- Capacity; very high, e.g. over 100 million cells in one eye, each storing data
- Duration; very brief, less than 1/2 a second
How is information transferred from SR to STM? - AO1
information passes further into memory only if attention is paid to it (attention is the key process)
What is the short-term memory store (STM)? - AO1
A limited capacity store of temporary duration
- Coding; acoustic (based on sound)
- Capacity; between 5-9 (7 + or - 2) items before some forgetting occurs (Cowan argues for around 5)
- Duration; about 18s unless the info is rehearsed
How is memory transferred from STM to LTM? - AO1
Maintenance rehearsal occurs when we repeat (rehearse) material to ourselves. We can keep information in STM as long as we rehearse it
- if we rehearse it long enough, it passes into LTM
What is the long-term memory store (LTM)? - AO1
A permanent memory store
- Coding; mostly semantic (i.e. in terms of meaning)
- Capacity; potentially unlimited
- Duration; potentially up to a lifetime
What is one strength of the MSM of memory? - AO3
One strength is research support showing STM and LTM are different
- Baddeley (1966) found we tend to mix up words that sound similar when using our STMs; so STM coding = acoustic
- but we mix up words that have similar meanings when we use our LTMs; shows LTM coding = semantic
- this supports the MSM’s view that these 2 memory stores are separate + independent
What is a counterpoint to a strength of the MSM of memory? - AO3
- Despite apparent support, the studies tend not to use everyday info (e.g. faces, names). They use digits/letters (Jacobs) or meaningless consonant syllables (Peterson + Peterson)
- therefore the MSM may not be a valid model of how memory works in everyday life where memory tends to involve meaningful information
What is one limitation of the MSM of memory? - AO3
One limitation is evidence suggesting there is more than one STM store
- KF had amnesia (Shallice + Warrington 1970), STM recall for digits was poor when he heard them, but much better when he read them
- other studies confirm there may also be separate STM store for non-verbal sounds (e.g. noises)
- therefore the MSM is wrong to claim there is just one STM store processing diff. types of information
What is another limitation of the MSM of memory? - AO3
Another limitation is prolonged rehearsal is not needed for STM->LTM transfer
- Craik + Watkins (1973) argued there are 2 types of rehearsal called maintenance (amount of rehearsal, described in MSM) + elaborative
- elaborative rehearsal is needed for long-term storage. This occurs e.g. when you link info to your existing knowledge, or think about its meaning
- suggests that the MSM doesn’t fully explain how long-term storage is achieved
What are the 3 types of long-term memory? - AO1
- episodic
- semantic
- procedural
What is episodic memory? - AO1
It’s a long-term memory store for personal events
- it includes memories of when the events occurred + of people, objects, places + behaviours involved
- memories from this store have to be retrieved consciously and with effort
What is semantic memory? - AO1
It’s a long-term memory store for our knowledge of the world
- this includes facts + our knowledge of what words and concepts mean
- these memories usually also need to be recalled deliberately
What is procedural memory? - AO1
It’s a long-term memory store for our knowledge of how to do things
- this includes our memories of learned skills
- we usually recall these memories without making a conscious or deliberate effort
What is one strength of the types of long-term memory? - AO3
One strength is case study evidence of different types of LTM
- clinical studies of amnesia (HM + Clive Wearing) showed both had difficulty recalling events that had happened to them in their pasts (episodic memory)
- but their semantic memories were relatively unaffected (e.g. HM did not need the concept of ‘dog’ explained to him). Procedural memories were also intact (e.g. Clive Wearing still played the piano)
- suggests the view that there are diff. memory stores in LTM because one store can be damaged but other stores are unaffected
What is a counterpoint to a strength of the types of long-term memory? - AO3
Researchers lack control in clinical case studies - they don’t know anything about the person’s memory before brain damage
- therefore clinical studies are limited in what they can tell us about different types of LTM
What is a limitation of the types of long-term memory? - AO3
One limitation is conflicting findings about types of of LTM and brain areas
- Buckner + Peterson (1996) reviews research findings + concluded that semantic memory is located in the left prefrontal cortex and episodic with right prefrontal cortex
- but other studies (e.g. Tulving et al. 1994) found that semantic memory was associated with the right prefrontal cortex + the reverse for episodic memory
- this challenges any neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory as there’s poor agreement in where each type might be located
What is another strength of the types of long-term memory? - AO3
Another strength is helping people with memory problems
- memory loss in old age is specific to episodic memory - it is harder to recall memories of recent experiences although past episodic memories are intact
- Belleville et al. (2006) devised an intervention for older people targeting episodic memory, which improved their memory compared to a control group
- this shows that distinguishing between types of LTM enables specific treatments to be developed
Which 2 people created the working memory model (WMM) in 1974? - AO1
- what does the WMM describe
The WMM is a model of STM
- Baddeley + Hitch created this model
- the WMM is concerned with the ‘mental space’ that is active when, for example, working on an arithmetic problem or playing chess or comprehending language, etc.
What is the Central executive (CE)? - AO1
It allocates subsystems
- supervisory role- monitors incoming data, directs attention + allocates subsystems to tasks
- it has a very limited storage capacity
What is coding and capacity like in the CE? - AO1
Coding is flexible
capacity is very limited
What is the Phonological loop (PL)? - AO1
Consists of a phonological store and an articulating process.
PL deals with auditory info and preserves the order in which the info arrives. It’s subdivided into:
- phonological store; stores the words you hear
- articulating process; allows maintenance rehearsal (repeating sounds to keep them in WM while they are needed)
What is coding and capacity like in the PL? - AO1
Coding is acoustic
Capacity is about 2 seconds’ worth of what you can say
What is the Visuo-spatial sketchpad loop (VSS)? - AO1
Stores visual and/or spatial info when required (e.g. recalling how many windows your house has). Logie (1995) subdivided the VSS into:
- visual cache; stores visual data
- inner scribe; records arrangement of objects in visual field
What is coding and capacity like in the VSS? - AO1
Coding is visual and spatial
Capacity is 3 or 4 objects
What is the Episodic buffer (EB)? - AO1
It is a temporary storage
It was added in 2000. Its is a temporary store for info. Integrates visual, spatial + verbal info from other stores
- maintains sense of time sequencing - recording events (episodes) that are happening
- links to LTM
What is coding and capacity like in the EB? - AO1
Coding is flexible
Capacity is about 4 ‘chunks’
What is a strength of the WMM? - AO3
One strength is support from clinical evidence
- for example, Shallice + Warrington (1970) studies patient KF who had a brain injury
- his STM for auditory info was poor (damaged PL) but he could process visual info normally (intact VSS)
- this supports WMM view that there are separate visual + acoustic memory stores
What is a counterpoint for a strength of the WMM? - AO3
KF may have had other impairments which explained poor memory performance, apart from damage to his PL
- this challenges evidence from clinical studies of brain injury
What is another strength of the WMM? - AO3
Another strength is that dual task performance studies support the VSS
- Baddeley et al.’s (1975) participants found it harder to carry out 2 visual tasks at the same time than do a verbal + visual task together (same for 2 verbal tasks)
- this is because both visual tasks compete for the same subsystem (VSS). There is no competition with a verbal + visual task
- therefore there must be a separate system that processes visual input (VSS) + also a separate system for verbal processes (PL)
What is a limitation of the WMM? - AO3
One limitation is a lack of clarity over the central executive
- Baddeley (2003) said the CE was the most important but least understood component of working memory
- there must be more to the CE ‘attention’ e.g. it’s made up of separate subcomponents
- therefore the CE is an unsatisfactory component + this challenges the integrity of the model
What is interference? - AO1
It is forgetting because one memory blocks another, causing one or body memories to be distorted or forgotten
What is the interference theory? - AO1
As interference is when two pieces of information disrupt each other, forgetting occurs in LTM because we can’t get access to memories even though they are available
What is proactive interference (PI)? - AO1
It is when forgetting occurs when older memories, already stored, disrupt the recall of newer memories
- the degree of forgetting is greater when the memories are similar
What is retroactive interference (RI)? - AO1
It is when forgetting occurs when newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories already stored
- the degree of forgetting is again greater when the memories are similar
Why may interference be worse when memories are similar? - AO1
This may be because:
- in PI previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store
- in RI new info overwrites previous memories which are similar
Which 2 people researched the effects of similarity on interference in 1931?
McGeoch and McDonald (1931) - effects of similarity
- participants were asked to learn a list of word to 100% accuracy (i.e. could recall them perfectly)
What was the procedure of McGeoch and McDonald’s (1931) experiment on interference? - AO1
Participants were given a new list to learn. The new material in the degree to which it was similar to the old:
- Group 1; synonyms - same meaning as OG
- Group 2; antonyms - opposite meaning as OG
- Group 3; unrelated - unrelated to OG
- Group 4; consonant syllables
- Group 5; three-digit numbers
- Group 6; no new list - participants just tested (control condition)
What were the findings of McGeoch and McDonald’s (1931) experiment on interference? - AO1
- performance depended in the nature of the second list. The most similar material (synonyms) produced the worst recall
- this shows that interference is the strongest when the memories are similar
- as to progress down the group, interference became weaker
What is a strength of interference being an explanation for forgetting? - AO3
One strength is some support from interference in real- world situations
- Baddeley + Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall names of teams they’d played against during a rugby session
- players didn’t play same num of games (injuries). Those who played most (more interference) had poorest recall
- shows that interference operates in some everyday situations, increasing validity of theory
What is a counterpoint of a strength of interference being an explanation for forgetting? - AO3
- interference in everyday situations is unusual because the necessary conditions are relatively rare e.g. similarity of memories/learning doesn’t occur often
- therefore most everyday forgetting may be better explained by other theories (e.g. retrieval failure due to lack of cues)
What is a limitation of interference being an explanation for forgetting? - AO3
One limitation is that interference effects may be overcome using cues
- Tulving + Psotka (1971) gave participants lists of words organised into categories (not told what they were)
- recall of first list was 70% but fell with each new list (interference). When given a cues recall test ( names of categories) recall rose again to 70%
- shows that interference causes just a temporary loss of access to material still in LTM - not predicted by theory
What is another strength of interference being an explanation for forgetting? - AO3
Another strength is support from drug studies
- material learned just before taking diazepam recalled better than a placebo group one week later - this is retrograde facilitation (Coenen + Van Luuhtelaar 1997)
- drug stopped new info reaching brain areas that processes memories, so it could not retroactively interfere with stored info (Wixted)
- shows the forgetting is due to interference - reducing the interference reduced the forgetting
What is retrieval failure? - AO1
A form of forgetting. It occurs when we don’t have the necessary cues to access memory
- the memory is available but not accessible unless a suitable cue is provided
What is a cue? - AO1
It’s a ‘trigger’ of info that allows us to access a memory
- such cues may be meaningful or may be indirectly linked by being encoded at the time of learning
- indirect cues may be external (environmental context) or internal (mood or degree of drunkenness)
What is the Encoding specificity principle and who created it? - AO1
• created by Tulving in 1983
Cues help retrieval if the same ones are present both at encoding (when we learn the material) and at retrieval (when we are recalling it)
- if cues available at encoding + retrieval are different ( or if cues are entirely absent) there will be some forgetting
What are the links between encoded cues + material to-be-remembered? - AO1
Meaningful links - the ‘cue’ STM leads you to recall lots of material about short-term memory
Not meaningful links:
- Context-dependent forgetting; recall depends on external cue (e.g. weather or a place)
- State-dependent forgetting; recall depends on internal cue (e.g. feeling upset, being drunk)
What was the procedure of Godden + Baddeley’s (1975) context-dependent forgetting experiment? - AO1
Deep-sea divers learned word lists + were later asked to recall them:
• condition 1; learn on land + recall on land
• condition 2; learn on land + recall underwater
• condition 3; learn underwater + recall on land
• condition 4; learn underwater + recall underwater
What were the findings of Godden + Baddeley’s (1975) context-dependent forgetting experiment? - AO1
- Accurate recall was 40% lower in conditions 2 and 3 (mismatched contexts) than in conditions 1 and 4 (matched contexts)
- Retrieval failure was due to absence of encoded context cues at time of recall - material was not accessible (i.e. forgotten)
What was the procedure of Carter + Cassidy’s (1998) state-dependent forgetting experiment? - AO1
Participants learned lists of words/phrases + later recalled them:
* condition 1; learn on drug + recall on drug
* condition 2; learn on drug + recall not on drug
* condition 3; learn not on drug + recall on drug
* condition 4; learn not on drug + recall not on drug
What were the findings of Carter + Cassidy’s (1998) state-dependent forgetting experiment? - AO1
- Recall was significantly worse in conditions 2 and 3 (mismatched contexts) than in conditions 1 and 4 (matched contexts)
- When cues at encoding are absent at retrieval (e.g. you’re drowsy when recalling material but had been alert when you learned it) then there is more forgetting
What is a strength of retrieval failure being an explanation for forgetting? - AO3
One strength is that retrieval cues have real-world application
- people often go to another room to get an item but forget what they wanted, but they remember again when they go back to original room
- when we have trouble remembering something, it’s probably worth renaming effort to recall environment in which you learned it first
What is another strength of retrieval failure being an explanation for forgetting? - AO3
Another strength is the impressive range of supporting evidence
- E.g. Godden + Baddeley (divers) and Carter + Cassidy (drugs) show the lack of cues at recall leads to everyday forgetting
- Eysenck + Keane (2010) agree retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting in LTM
- this evidence shows retrieval failure due to lack of cues occurs in everyday life as well as in highly controlled labs
What is a counterpoint of a strength of retrieval failure being an explanation for forgetting? - AO3
- Baddeley (1997) argues that different contexts have to be very different indeed before an effect is seen (e.g. on land vs underwater). Learning something in one room + recalling in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because the environments aren’t different enough
- this means retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not explain much everyday forgetting
What is a limitation of retrieval failure being an explanation for forgetting? - AO3
One limitation is that context effects vary in recall and recognition
- Godden + Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment using a recognition test instead of recall
- there was no context-dependent effect. Findings were the same in all 4 conditions whether the contexts for learning + recall matched or not
- suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies when a person has to recall info rather than recognise it
What is an eyewitness testimony (EWT)? - AO1
The ability of people to remember the details of events such as accidents + crimes, which they themselves have observed. Accuracy of EWT can be affected by factors such as misleading information and anxiety
What is misleading information? - AO1
Incorrect info given to an eyewitness usually after the event (hence called ‘post-event information). It can take many forms, such as leading questions and post-event discussion between co-witnesses and/or other people
What is a leading question? - AO1
A question which, because of the way it’s phrased, suggests a certain answer
What is post-event discussion (PED)? - AO1
Occurs when there’s more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with a co-witness or with other people
- this may influence the accuracy of each witness’ recall of the event
What was the procedure of Loftus + Palmer (1974) leading question experiment? - AO1
- 45 participants (students) watched film clips of car accidents and then answered questions about speed. Critical question: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’
- 5 groups of participants, each given a different verb in the critical question: hit, contacted, bumped, collided or smashed
What were the findings of Loftus + Palmer (1974) leading question experiment? - AO1
- the verb ‘contacted’ produced mean estimated speed of 31.8 mph. For verb ‘smashed’, mean was 40.5 mph
- the leading question (verb) biased eyewitnesses recall of an event. The verb ‘smashed’ suggested a faster speed of the car than ‘contacted’
What are 2 reasons why leading questions affect EWT?
- Response-bias explanation
- Substitution explanation
What is the response-bias explanation? - AO1
Wording of a question has no enduring effect on an eyewitness’s memory of an event, but influences the kind of answer given
What is the substitution explanation? - AO1
Wording of a question does affect eyewitness memory, it interferes with the original memory, distorting its accuracy
What was the procedure of Gabbert et al. (2003) post-event discussion experiment? - AO1
- paired participants watched a video of the same crime, but filmed so each participant could see elements in the event that the other couldn’t
- both participants discussed what they had seen in the video before individually competing a test of recall
What were the findings of Gabbert et al. (2003) post-event discussion experiment? - AO1
- 71% of participants wrongly recalled aspects of the event they didn’t see in the video but had heard in the discussion
- control group; there was no discussion + no subsequent errors
- this was evidence of memory conformity
What are 2 reasons why post-event information affects EWT? - AO1
- Memory contamination
- Memory conformity
What is memory contamination? - AO1
When co-witnesses discuss a crime, they mix (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories
What is memory conformity? - AO1
Witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right
What was one strength of misleading info as a factor? - AO3
One strength is real-world applications in the criminal justice system
- consequences of inaccurate EWT are serious. Loftus (1975) argues police officers should be careful in phrasing questions to witnesses because if distorting effects
- psychologists are sometimes expert witnesses in trials + explain limits of EWT to juries
- therefore psychologists can improve how legal system works + protect innocent from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT
What was a counterpoint of a strength of misleading info as a factor? - AO3
- Loftus + Palmer showed film clips - a different experience from a real event (less stress). Participants are all less concerned about effects of their responses in a lab study (Foster et al. 1994)
- therefore researchers may be too pessimistic about effects of misleading info - EWT may be more reliable than studies suggest
What was one limitation of misleading info as a factor? - AO3
- a limitation of the substitution explanation
One limitation of the substitution explanation is evidence challenging it
- Sutherland + Hayne (2001) found their participants recalled central details of an event better than peripheral ones, even when asked misleading questions
- this is presumably because their attention was focused on ventral features + these memories were relatively resistant to misleading info
- therefore the original memory if even survived + was not distorted, which isn’t predicted by substitution explanation
What was another limitation of misleading info as a factor? - AO3
Another limitation is that evidence doesn’t support memory conformity
- Skagerberg + Wright’s (2008) participants discussed film clips they’d seen
- participants recalled a ‘blend’ of what they’d seen + what they’d heard from co-witnesses, rather than one or the other
- suggests that memory itself is distorted through contamination by post-event discussion and isn’t the result of memory conformity
What is anxiety? - AO1
A state of emotional + physical arousal
- the emotions include having worried thoughts and feeling if tension
- physical changes are an increased heart rate and sweatiness
Anxiety is a normal reaction to stressful situations, but can affect the accuracy + detail of eyewitness testimony
What is weapon focus? - AO1
When a crime involves a weapon, this creates anxiety. A witness’s attention is then focused on the weapon, leaving less attention for other details of the event
What was the procedure of Johnson + Scott’s (1976) experiment on anxiety? - AO1
Participants sat in waiting room believing they were going to take part in lab study
* low-anxiety condition - participants heard a casual conversation and then saw a man walk through waiting room carrying pen with grease on his hands
* high-anxiety condition - heated argument was accompanied by sound of breaking glass. A man walked through room holding knife covered in blood
- participants were later asked to pick man from a set of 50 photographs
What were the findings of Johnson + Scott’s (1976) experiment on anxiety? - AO1
- 49% of participants in low-anxiety condition + 33% of high anxiety participants were able to identify him
- the tunnel theory of memory argues that people have enhanced memory for central events. Weapon focus as a result of anxiety can have this effect
What was the procedure of Yuille + Cutshall’s (1986) experiment on anxiety? - AO1
In an actual crime a gun-shop owner shot thief dead. There were 21 witnesses, 13 agreed to participate in study
- participants were interviewed 4-5 months after incident. The info recalled was compared to police interviews at time of shooting
- witnesses rated how stressed they felt at time of the incident
What were the findings of Yuille + Cutshall’s (1986) experiment on anxiety? - AO1
- witnesses were very accurate in what they recalled + there was little change after 5 months. Some details were less accurate, e.g. age/weight/height
- participants who reported highest levels of stress were most accurate (~88% compared to 75% for less-stressed group)
- anxiety doesn’t appear to reduce accuracy of EWT for a real-world event + may even enhance it
What is the inverted-U theory? - AO1
Yerkes + Dodson (1908) argue that the relationship between performance and + arousal/stress is an inverted U on graph
How does anxiety affect memory? - AO1
Deffenbacher (1983) reviewed 21 studies of EWT with contradictory findings on effect of anxiety in recall
- he suggested the Yerkes-Dodson effect could explain this - both low + high levels of anxiety produce poor recall whereas optimum levels can lead to very good recall
What is one limitation of anxiety as a factor? - AO3
One limitation is that anxiety may not be relevant to weapon focus
- Johnson + Scott’s participants may have focused on the weapon not because they were anxious but because they were surprised
- Pickel (1998) found accuracy in identifying the ‘criminal’ was poorest when object in their hand was unexpected/unusual
- suggests the weapons effect is due to unusualness rather than anxiety/threat + so tells us nothing about the specific effects of anxiety on recall
What is one strength of anxiety as a factor? - AO3
One strength is supporting evidence for negative effects
-Valentine + Mesout (2009) used heart rate (objective measure) to divide visitors to the London Dungeon’s Labyrinth into low- and high- anxiety groups
- high-anxiety participants were less accurate than low-anxiety in describing + identifying a target person
- supports the claim that anxiety has a negative effect on immediate eyewitness recall of a stressful event
What is another strength of anxiety as a factor? - AO3
Another strength is supporting evidence for positive effects
- Christianson + Hübinette 1993) interviewed actual witnesses to bank robberies - some were direct victims (high anxiety) others were bystanders (low)
- found more than 75% accurate recall across all witnesses. Direct victims (most anxious) were even more accurate
- suggests anxiety doesn’t affect accuracy of eyewitness recall + may even enhance it
What is a counterpoint for a strength of anxiety as a factor? - AO3
- Christianson + Hübinette interviewed witnesses long after the event. Many things happened that the researchers couldn’t control (e.g. post-event discussions)
- therefore lack of control over confounding variables may be responsible for the (in)accuracy of recall, not anxiety
What is cognitive interview (CI)? - AO1
A method of interviewing eyewitnesses to help them retrieve more accurate memories. It uses 4 main techniques, all based on evidence based psychological knowledge of human memory
Which 2 people created the term CI, when and why? - AO1
- Fisher and Geiselman (1992) claim that EWT + could be improved if the police used techniques based on psychological insight into how memory works.
- They called it the cognitive interview to indicate its foundation in cognitive psychology.
- Rapport (understanding) is established with the interviewee using four main techniques.
What are the 4 techniques in cognitive interview? - AO1
Report everything, reinstate the context, reverse the order and change perspective.
Why must the interviewer report everything? - AO1
- Witnesses are encouraged to include every detail of an event, even if it seems irrelevant or the witness is not confident about it.
- Seemingly trivial details could be important and may trigger other memories.
Why must the interviewer reinstate the context? - AO1
- The witness returns to the original crime scene in their mind and imagines the environment, e.g. the weather, what they could see and their emotions, e.g. what they felt.
- This is based on the concept of context-dependent forgetting. Cues from the context may trigger recall.
Why must the interviewer reverse the order? - AO1
- Events are recorded in a different order (e.g. from the end back to the beginning or from the middle to the beginning)
- This prevents people basing their descriptions on their expectations of how the event must have happened, rather than the actual events
- It also prevents dishonesty (harder to produce an untruthful account if it has been reversed)
Why must the interviewer change the perspective? - AO1
- Witnesses recall the incident from other people’s perspectives. How would it have appeared to another witness or to the perpetrator?
- This prevents the influence of expectations and schema on recall. Schema are packages of information developed through experience. -
- They generate A framework for interpreting incoming information
What is the Enhanced Cognitive interview (ECI)? - AO1
- Fisher et al. (1987) developed additional elements of the CI
- This includes a focus on the social dynamics of the interaction (e.g. knowing when to establish and relinquish eye contact)
- The enhanced CI also includes ideas such as reducing the eyewitnesses anxiety, minimizing distractions, getting the eyewitness to speak slowly and asking open-ended questions.
What is one strength of the cognitive interview? - AO3
One strength is research support for the effectiveness
- A meta analysis by Köhnken et al. (1999) combined data from 55 studies comparing CI ( +ECI) with the standard police interview
- The CI produced an average of 41% more correct information than the standard interview. Only four studies showed no difference
- Shows that the CI is effective in helping witnesses recall information that is available but not accessible
What is a counterpoint of a strength of cognitive interview? - AO3
- Köhnken et al. also found increases in the amount of inaccurate information, especially in the ECI (quality over quantity
- Therefore police officers need to be very careful how they treat eyewitness evidence from CIs/ECIs
What is one limitation of cognitive interview? - AO3
One limitation is that some elements of the CI are more useful than others
- Milne + Bull (2002) found that each individual technique of the CI alone produced more information than the standard police interview
- But they also found that combining report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any other technique, individually or combined
- This casts doubt on the credibility of the overall CI because some of the techniques are less effective than the others
What is another limitation of cognitive interview? - AO3
Another limitation of the CI is that it is time-consuming
- Police are reluctant to use the CI because it takes more time than the standard police interview (e.g. to establish rapport and allow the witness to relax)
- The CI also requires special training, but many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours’ training (Kebbell + Wagstaff 1997)
- This suggests that the complete CI is not realistic for police officers to use, and it might be better to focus on just a few key elements
