Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology > Memory - Studies > Flashcards

Memory - Studies Flashcards

1
Q

Baddeley and Hitch

A

Working Memory
- made the model

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

KF (Working memory evaluation)

A
  • brain damage
  • only p.l. was affected
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Hitch and Baddeley (Working memory evaluation)

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

EVR (Working memory evaluation)

A
  • brain damage
  • c.e. is too vague
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Jacobs

A

STM & LTM
- capacity of STM
- 7 plus or minus 2 (5-9)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Peterson and Peterson

A

STM & LTM
- duration of STM
- trigrams

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

Bahrick

A

STM & LTM
- duration of LTM
- yearbooks

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

Baddeley

A

STM & LTM
- coding of STM and LTM
- word lists (either semantic or visually similar)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Beardsley (STM & LTM evaluation)

A
  • stm using prefrontal cortex
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Squire (STM & LTM evaluation)

A
  • Ltm uses hippocampus
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Atkinson and Shiffrin

A

MSM
- made the model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

HM (MSM evaluation)

A
  • brain damage
  • STM was fine; LTM was not
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

KF (MSM evaluation)

A
  • brain damage
  • LTM was fine, STM was not
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Craik & Tulving (MSM evaluation)

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

HM (LTM types evaluation)

A
  • brain damage
  • couldn’t make new episodic or semantic memories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hodges and Patterson (LTM types evaluation)

A
  • found brain damage patients who could form episodic but not semantic memories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Irish (LTM types evaluation)

A
  • found brain damage patients who could form semantic memories but not episodic ones
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Muller

A

Interference
- paintings

19
Q

Underwood

A

Interference
- meta analysis

20
Q

McGeoch and McDonald

A

Interference
- word lists

21
Q

Baddeley and Hitch (interference evaluation)

A
  • rugby players
22
Q

Danaher (interference evaluation)

A
  • advertisements
23
Q

Tulving and Psotka (interference evaluation)

A
  • word lists
24
Q

Anderson (interference evaluation)

A
  • interference is not the only explanation for forgetting
25
Q

Kane and Engle (interference evaluation)

A
  • individual differences
26
Q

Abernathy

A

Retrieval failure
- classroom
- contextual cues

27
Q

Godden and Baddeley

A

Retrieval failure
- scuba divers
- contextual cues

28
Q

Goodwin

A

Retrieval failure
- drunk people
- state based cues

29
Q

Tulving and Psotka (retrieval failure evaluation)

A
  • word lists
30
Q

Loftus and palmer

A

EWT - misleading info
- car accident
- ‘contacted vs. smashed’

31
Q

Braun (misleading info evaluation)

A
  • bugs bunny
32
Q

Yuille and Cutshall (misleading info evaluation)

A
  • bank robbery
33
Q

Poole and Lindsay (misleading info evaluation)

A
  • primary school kids
34
Q

Gabbert (misleading info evaluation)

A
  • post event discussion
35
Q

Christiansen and Hubibette

A

EWT - anxiety
- victims vs. bystanders of a bank robbery
- anxiety improving EWT

36
Q

Johnson and Scott

A

EWT - anxiety
- weapon focus effect
- knife vs. pen
- anxiety reducing EWT

37
Q

Deffenbacher (anxiety evaluation)

A
  • Christianson and Hubinette’s study had the best anxiety levels for EWT
38
Q

Fazey and Hardy (anxiety evaluation)

A
  • anxiety doesn’t lead to a gradual decline in performance
  • ‘the catastrophe’ effect
39
Q

Bothwell (anxiety evaluation)

A
  • individual differences
40
Q

Geiselman

A

Cognitive Interview Technique
- devised it

41
Q

Kohnken (C.I.T evaluation)

A
  • gains more correct info
  • but also gains more irrelevant info
42
Q

Milnet bull (C.I.T evaluation)

A
  • only need 2 of the 4 techniques
43
Q

Kebbell and Wagataff (C.I.T evaluation)

A
  • observed police use only 2 of the techniques
44
Q

Geiselman (C.I.T evaluation)

A
  • individual differences

Psychology (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions