Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AS AQA Psychology > Memory Studies > Flashcards

Memory Studies Flashcards

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

Conrad Aim

A

STM coding

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

Conrad Setting

A

Lab

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

Conrad Procedure

A

Acoustically similar and dissimilar lists of letters
Told to learn letter sequences e.g. PCTVDB
Acoustic confusion task

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

Conrad Findings

A

Most people made more mistakes on acoustically similar letters

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

Conrad Conclusion

A

STM codes acoustically

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

Conrad Evaluation

A

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity

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

Conrad Evaluation- research support

A

Baddeley- increases reliability

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

Baddeley STM Aim

A

Effects of acoustic and semantic encoding in stm

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

Baddeley STM Setting

A

Lab

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

Baddeley STM Procedure

A

4 groups
List of 5 words: acoustically similar/ dissimilar, semantically similar/ dissimilar
Asked to recall in correct order
Repeated x4

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Baddeley STM Findings

A

Acoustically similar = 55% accuracy, dissimilar = 75% accuracy
Semantics only a slight difference

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

Baddeley STM Conclusion

A

Support Conrad- STM is acoustically coded

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

Baddeley STM Evaluation

A

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity

Cannot explain how pictures or facts are learnt- decreases internal validity

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

Baddeley STM Evaluation- research support

A

Supported by Conrad- increases reliability

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

Baddeley LTM Aim

A

Effects of acoustic and semantic coding in LTM

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

Baddeley LTM Setting

A

Lab

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Baddeley LTM Procedure

A

Same as STM but 10 words and interval of 20 mins where they did a different task

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

Baddeley LTM Findings

A

Recall worse for semantically similar= 55%, dissimilar= 85% accuracy, same for acoustic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Baddeley LTM Conclusion

A

LTM primarily coded semantically

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Baddeley LTM Evaluation

A

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity

Cannot explain how pictures or facts are learnt- decreases internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Jacobs Aim

A

STM capacity

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

Jacobs Setting

A

Lab

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Jacobs Procedure

A

Serial digit span test
Recall in order
Fail on 50% of words (cannot recall order)- reached capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Jacobs Findings

A

Mean span for digits was 9.3 items, letters was 7.3

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

Jacobs Conclusion

A

STM capacity limited to 7-9 items

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

Jacobs Evalution

A

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity

Easy to replicate, increases reliability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Standing Aim

A

Capacity of LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Standing Setting

A

Lab

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Standing Procedure

A

Presented with 2,560 pictures over a number of days
Shown for 10 seconds each
Tested by showing old one and new one- which one had they seen before?

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

Standing Findings

A

90% recognised if there was a new picture that wasn’t originally shown

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Standing Conclusion

A

Almost unlimited capacity of LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Standing Evaluation

A

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity

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

Peterson and Peterson Aim

A

Duration of STM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Peterson and Peterson Setting

A

Lab

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

Peterson and Peterson Procedure

A

Isolated STM
Trigram e.g. wct
No rehearsal- given a 3 digit number and asked to count down from it
On each trial given increasingly longer amount of time to count
Recall trigram after

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Peterson and Peterson Findings

A

76% correct at 3 secs, 10% at 18 secs

90% recall at 3 secs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Peterson and Peterson Conclusion

A

STM has a short duration unless rehearsed, sensitive to interference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Peterson and Peterson Evaluation

A

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity
Standardised, increases internal validity
Alternative explanation, displacement, decreases internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Bahrick Aim

A

Duration of LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Bahrick Setting and Sample

A

Lab, 392 graduates who all went to same high school in America, span of 50 years

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

Bahrick Procedure

A

Shown photos from yearbook
Recognition group: list of names to match photos to
Recall group: name without cue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Bahrick Findings

A

Recognition 15 years- 90%
Recognition 48 years- 60%
Recall 15 years- 60%
Recall 48 years- 30%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Bahrick Conclusion

A

LTM lifetime duration, better in recognition tests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Bahrick Evaluation

A

Meaningful stimulus, increases external validity
May have looked at yearbook- confounding variables- decreases internal validity
Worse memory with old ages?- internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Clive Wearing

A 
Viral infection damaged brain and hippocampus
Severe amnesia
Can’t transfer from stm to ltm
Still understands world
Shows separate memory store
46
Q

HM

A

Hippocampus removed to prevent epilepsy
Severe memory loss
Unable to learn new memories, still knew old memories

47
Q

CW Evaluation

A

Not sure of exact damage, decreases internal validity

48
Q

HM Evaluation

A

Know exact damage- increases internal validity

Can’t repeat, decreases reliability

49
Q

Tulving Aim

A

Different types of LTM

50
Q

Tulving Setting

A

Lab

51
Q

Tulving Procedure

A

Perform various memory tasks while brains were scanned- PET scanner

52
Q

Tulving Findings

A

Episodic and procedural from prefrontal cortex- left= semantic. Right= episodic

53
Q

Tulving Conclusion

A

Supports view that there are different types of LTM

54
Q

Tulving Evaluation

A

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity

55
Q

Tulving Evaluation- research support

A

HM and Clive Wearing, increases reliability

56
Q

Atkinson and Shiffrin

A

Sensory Memory - Attention - STM - Rehearsal - LTM - Retrieval - STM - Recall

57
Q

Atkinson and Shiffrin Evaluation- research support

A

Capacity of LTM- Wagenaar/Standing, increases reliability

58
Q

Atkinson and Shiffrin Evaluation- research conflict

A

Unitary LTM store- Tulivng, decreases reliability

59
Q

Atkinson and Shiffrin Evaluation

A

Most research to support uses artificial tasks, decreases ecological validity

60
Q

Baddeley and Hitch

A 
STM model
Central executive
Episodic buffer
Visuospatial sketchpad
Phonological loop
Task duality
61
Q

Baddeley and Hitch Evaluation- research support

A

Different systems-Shallice and Warrington 1970: patient KF had brain damage, poor STM ability but good visual, increases reliability

62
Q

Baddeley and Hitch Evaluation- research support

A

Braver 1998: tasks for central executive whilst having brain scan, activity increased, increases reliability

63
Q

Baddeley and Hitch Evaluation- research support

A

Baddeley 1975: visuo-spatial sketch-pad, track light and class angles in letter F at same time, increases reliability

64
Q

Baddeley and Hitch Evaluation

A

Little known about central executive- unfalsifiable, decreases internal validity
Doesn’t mention smell or taste, decreases internal validity
Artificial tasks supporting, decreases ecological validity

65
Q

Henk Schmidt Aim

A

Assess influence of retroactive interference on memory

66
Q

Henk Schmidt Setting and Sample

A

Lab, 211 participants ranging from 11 to 79 years

67
Q

Henk Schmidt Procedure

A

700 names randomly selected from database of school student at Dutch elementary school
Given map of Molenberg where they went to school, road names replaced with numbers
Questionnaire collected other details e.g. how many times they have moved house
Amount of retroactive influence assessed by how many times moved house

68
Q

Henk Schmidt Findings

A

Positive association between number times moved and accuracy of names

69
Q

Henk Schmidt Conclusion

A

Supports retroactive interference as explanation of forgetting

70
Q

McGeoch and McDonald Aim

A

Test whether interference was worse when memories were similar

71
Q

McGeoch and McDonald Setting

A

Lab

72
Q

McGeoch and McDonald Procedure

A

Leant 10 words until 100% recall

Learnt new set of words and had to recall original list

73
Q

McGeoch and McDonald Findings

A

Types of interference- synonyms= lowest recall
Antonyms= 2nd lowest
No relationship= highest recall

74
Q

McGeoch and McDonald Conclusion

A

Interference strongest when memories are similar

75
Q

McGeoch and McDonald Evaluation

A

Artificial tasks, decreases ecological validity

Standardised, increases internal validity

76
Q

Godden and Baddeley Aim

A

Prove context dependent forgetting

77
Q

Godden and Baddeley Setting

A

Field

78
Q

Godden and Baddeley Procedure

A

Divers learnt words underwater or on land
Recall underwater or on land
Learn on land/ recall on land, learnt underwater/ recall underwater, learn on land/ recall underwater, learn underwater/ recall on land

79
Q

Godden and Baddeley Findings

A

40% lower accuracy in non-matching conditions

80
Q

Godden and Baddeley Conclusion

A

Lack of external cues leads to retrieval failure

81
Q

Carter and Cassidy Aim

A

Investigate state dependent forgetting

82
Q

Carter and Cassidy Setting

A

Lab

83
Q

Carter and Cassidy Procedure

A

Gave anti-histamine drugs- slight sedative effect
Creates different internal and psychological state
Learn lists of words/ prose and recall
Learn on drug/ recall off drug, learn off/ recall on, learn on/ recall on, learn off/ recall off

84
Q

Carter and Cassidy Findings

A

Recall worse when mismatch between internal state of learning and recall

85
Q

Carter and Cassidy Conclusion

A

Lack of internal cues leads to retrieval failure

86
Q

Loftus and Palmer Aim

A

Do leading questions distort EWTs?

87
Q

Loftus and Palmer Setting

A

Lab

88
Q

Loftus and Palmer Procedure

A

Showed film of car crash

5 conditions- how fast were they going when the cars…? Hit/ smashed/ collided/ bumped/ contacted

89
Q

Loftus and Palmer Findings

A

Smashed said 40.8mph

Contacted said 31.8mph

90
Q

Loftus and Palmer Conclusion

A

Word altered memory

91
Q

Loftus and Palmer Variation

A

One week later asked if had seen broken glass (there was none)

92
Q

Loftus and Palmer Variation Findings

A

Said smashed- 32% said there was glass

Said hit- 14% said there was glass

93
Q

Loftus and Palmer Variation Conclusion

A

Changing word distorts memory

94
Q

Loftus and Palmer Variation Evaluation

A

Controlled setting, increases internal validity

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity

95
Q

Gabbert Aim

A

How post-event discussion affects memory

96
Q

Gabbert Setting

A

Lab

97
Q

Gabbert Procedure

A

Watched a video of same crime from different angles
Then discussed with other participants what they had seen
Individually completed recall test

98
Q

Gabbert Findings

A

71% mistakenly recalled aspects that were brought up in discussion, but hadn’t seen in video
Control group- 0% mistakenly recalled aspects

99
Q

Gabbert Conclusion

A

Memory conformity

100
Q

Gabbert Evaluation

A

Controlled setting, increases internal validity

Artificial task, decreases ecological validity

101
Q

Johnson and Scott Aim

A

Investigate effect of weapons on accuracy of EWTs

102
Q

Johnson and Scott Setting

A

Field

103
Q

Johnson and Scott Procedure

A

Condition 1: participants in waiting room, heard argument, man walked though holding pen and had grease on his hands
Condition 2 : participants hears argument with glass smashing, man walked through with paper knife covered in blood
Asked to pick out man from a selection of 50 photos

104
Q

Johnson and Scott Findings

A

49% in condition 1 were accurate

33% accuracy in condition 2

105
Q

Johnson and Scott Conculsion

A

Anxiety has a negative effect on recall

106
Q

Johnson and Scott Evaluation

A

Natural setting, decreased demand characteristics, increases internal validity
No consent / psychological harm, decreases reliability

107
Q

Yuille and Cutshall Aim

A

Effect of anxiety of EWT accuracy

108
Q

Yuille and Cutshall Setting and Sample

A

Natural, 21 witnesses- 13 took part

109
Q

Yuille and Cutshall Procedure

A

Gun shop, Vancouver Canada
Shop owner shot a thief dead
Interview held 4-5 months after/ compared to police interviews
Rate stress using 7-point scale

110
Q

Yuille and Cutshall Findings

A

Very accurate, most accurate in high stress- 85%, 75% for low stress

111
Q

Yuille and Cutshall Conclusion

A

Anxiety has a positive effect on recall

112
Q

Yuille and Cutshall Evaluation

A

No demand characteristics, increases internal validity

Ethical issues, decreases reliability

AS AQA Psychology (10 decks)

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