P1: Memory Flashcards
Describe an experiment conducted investigating the coding in STM and LTM
Method: Memorise - acoustically similar/dissimilar words - semantically similar/dissimilar words Found: -STM = acoustic, LTM = semantic
Describe 2 experiments conducted investigating the capacity of STM
Method: Memorise digit span, 4 numbers increasing
Found: (1887)
Immediate recall = 9.3 numbers, 7.3 letters
Method: Everyday observations e.g. 7days in a week
Found:
STM memory =7(+/-2), can be upgraded via chunking
Describe an experiment conducted investigating the duration of STM
Method: 24 students given constant e.g.YCG n 3 digits to count back from
Found:
STM without rehearsal = 18-30s, recall in 3s = 80%
recall after 18s = 3%
Describe an experiment conducted investigating the duration of LTM
Method: Americans asked to recognise 50 yearbook photos n recall name of graduate class Found: after 48yrs = 70% n free recall test was even worse
Evaluate the study about coding in STM n LTM
- No meaningful data used = artificial material ∴ cannot generalise. More meaningful data in STM = semantic maybe
Evaluate the studies about capacity of STM
- Temporal validity: old study = lack a control over extraneous ∴ not valid ∵ confounding variables but we know its true n supported now
- STM overstated: study reviewed suggested 5 items more accurate vs 7. cap is 4 chunks
Evaluate the study about Duration of STM
- Artificial Material = low ecological validity but we do try to remember useless shit sometimes e.g. phone number or licence plate
Evaluate the study about Duration of LTM
+ Ecological validity = Real life memories studied but no control over confounding variables
Describe the Multi-store memory model in detail
plus on another sheet draw the skeleton model
–Stimulus -> Sensory Registor(SR)
5 stores(for each sense), Duration: V short(half a sec), Capacity: High(∵ lots of cells), Coding: Varies on the sense
–Sensory Registor(SR) -> STM
V little goes to memory unless attention is paid = transfer to LTM
–STM: Limited Capacity(5-9), limited duration(18-30s) unless rehearsed, Coding: Acoustic
–STM -> LTM
Rehearsal = STM unless long enough = LTM
LTM: Unlimited Capacity, lifetime duration, semantic coding
Evaluate the Multi-store memory model
+ Research Support:STM n LTM coding = we mix up similar acoustic words in STM ∴ separate n independent
- Multiple STM stores: KF case study(Amnesia),reads digits n memorise but cannot hear n memorise ∴ theory incomplete
- Artificial Materials: Meaningless syllables/constants = lack ecological validity. Everyday we assign value to everything
- Oversimplifies LTM: Research suggests LTM is not unitary. Multiples sections.e.g.semantic, episodic…
Describe and explain the 3 types of LTM stores
- Episodic Memory:Stores life events. Like a diary. Time stamped. Conscious effort made to recall. Multiple elements woven into 1.e.g. ppl,place
- Semantic Memory: Stores world knowledge. Like a dictionary. Not time stamped. Less personal, more general knowledge.
- Procedural Memory: Stores motor skills, unconscious recall without effort
Evaluate the types of LTM stores
+ Case Study(Episodic): Clive Wearing(Amnesia) Plays piano, understand what a piano is. cannot remember kids name
- Lack of control(Clinical Studies): Hard to pinpoint nature of LTM for Clive Wearing
+ BrainScans: PET Scanner found Episodic n semantic memory in prefrontal cortex via doing shit = good validity
+ Real-life application: allows specific treatments to be developed = helps society.e.g. Old ppl with mild cognitive impairments
Describe the Working Memory Model, Plus draw on another sheet the skeleton model
–Central Executive(CE): ‘attention process’ = monitors data. allocates slave systems, v limited storage
–Phonological Loop(PL): Preserves auditory info + order
Phonological Store: Stores words heard
Articulatory Process: Allows maintenance rehearsal
– Visuo-spatial sketchpad(VSS): Stores visual n spatial info.
Visual Cache: Stores visual data.
Inner Scribe: Records arrangement of obj in visual field.
–Episodic Buffer(EB): Temporary storage for all. Maintains time sequencing n integrates all info from other stores
Evaluate the Working Memory Model
+ Research Support(KF patient): STM = weak. PL damaged, but visual process = normal ∴ visual n acoustic = separate stores. But only 1 case study. V unique + big lack of control
+ Research Support(Dual-task) for VSS: 2 visual tasks= hard. 1 visual n 1 verbal = easier ∵ not competing for same resources ∴ VSS =real so MSM model = false
- CE Lack Clarity: CE undefined. Just labelled ‘attention’. not fully explained
+ Brain Scans: Tasks involving CE done = activity in prefrontal cortex. Harder task = x2 activity there ∴ CE has a physical form
Explain the reason for forgetting in terms of interference
–Interference theory:2 pieces of info are in conflict.
Occurs when new cannot access memory in LTM.
–Proactive Interference(PI): Old interferes with new
Old stores make new info hard to store
–Retroactive Interference(RI): New interferes with old
New overwrites old info.
Describe a study performed investigating the ‘effects of similarity’ - Interference
Task: Learn 2 different lists of words to recall. 6 different groups e.g.1 synonymous, 1 antonyms, 1 nonsense, 1 control group.
Found:
2 similar list = worse recall. V different list = Better
Interference strongest when memories are similar
Evaluate the explanation for forgetting : interference
+ Research Support: Many Lab studies = backed = both types of interference likely, Good control of extraneous variables = valid
- Artificial Material: Word list used. Compared to IRL =meaningful items ∴ probs not cause of ‘everyday forgetting’
+ Real-life studies: Asked Rugby players ; names of teams competed against. Time period = irrelevant. Frequency = important
- Time Allocated to learn: Experiment condensed to 20 mins of learning. not accurate of IRL ∴cannot generalise.
Explain the theory for forgetting. In terms of Retrieval Failure
Absence of Cue = Retrieval Failure.
Associated Cues made when memory is made.
Encoding Specificity Principle(ESP): cue present at recall n learning = retrieval. Closer cue to OG = better.
-Context-dependent forgetting: Retrieval dependent on environment
-State-dependent forgetting: Retrieval depended on mood
Describe a study preformed investigating context-dependent forgetting
Task: 4 groups learn list. 1)Learns n recall on land, 2)Learn n recall in sea,3)learn on land, recall in sea…..
Found:
40% decrease in recall in different environment ∴context-dependent forgetting proved.
Evaluate the explanation for forgetting in terms of retrieval failure
+ Research Support(Context-Dependent study): Good validity n control for lab study. suggested = main reason for forgetting.
- Real-Life application: different environments = not different enough.e.g. 2 different rooms ∴ not applicable too much IRL
- Context effects only apply to recall: When repeated for recognition = no context dependent effect ∴ cues only affect recall so limited explanation
- Issue proving ESP: successful recall = assume cue present both times n vice versa. But no way of independently proving cues were really encoded.
Describe the effects Misleading information can have on an eyewitness testimony
- -Leading Q:
- Response-bias explanation: Wording of Q = no effect on memory but affects answer given
- Substitution explanation: Wording of Q affects memory ∴ distorts accuracy
- -Post-event discussion (PED):
- Memory Contamination: Co-witness discusses crime n mix (mis)information.
- Memory Conformity: Witness goes along to win social approval.
Describe a study preformed investing the effects of leading questions
Task: 45ppl watched a vid of car crash = answer Q but with a different ‘verb’
Found:
Verb ‘contact’ = 31.8mph
verb ‘smashed’ = 40.5mph
Describe a study preformed investing the effects of Post-event discussions
Task: 2 groups of ppl watch crime from different perspectives then chat
Found:
71% mistakenly recalled info they didn’t see. Picked up from PED.
vs 0 from the control
Evaluate EWT: Misleading information
+ Real-life application: Police aware of consequences of inaccurate EWT ∴ improve legal system
- Artificial Material: Watching vs witnessing crime = V different. IRL witness of traumatic armed robbery = accurate recall after 4months ∴ cannot generalise
- Demand Characteristics: Participants maybe guessed ∴ think they being helpful.e.g.Yes/no Q ∴ challenges validity, may not reflect true participants memory.
- Ecological Validity: Lab study = no consequence. IRL = Consequences ∴ IRL ppl search their brain harder ∴ greater accuracy IRL ∵ of responsibility of role
Explain the study about anxiety having a negative impact on Eyewitness testimonies
Task: 2 arguments heard next door then man walks into room. 1 low, 1 high. After being asked to identify man from 50 photos.
Found:
49% in low anxiety identified him.
33% in high anxiety, suggested
Tunnel theory of memory: Witness’ attention is on the weapon (for high anxiety) ∵ source of danger
Explain the study about anxiety having a positive impact on Eyewitness testimonies
Task:(IRL crime studied) Gun-shop owner killed thief. 21witness, 13 interviewed 4-5 months later.
Found:
Still V accurate report when compared to police report. Most stressful participant = most accurate (88%)
Less stressful = 75%
What is the suggested/best way to describe the contradictory findings found about anxiety affecting EWTs
Inverted U theory: Relationship between performance n stress is curvilinear not linear. (Like a ‘n’)
Evaluate EWT for anxiety
- Weapon focus irrelevant: Focus on weapon, possibly due to surprise. Replicated with ‘weird’ items e.g.chicken ,gun = poor EWT ∴ focus not due to anxiety
- Lack of Control: Too many variables occurred via PED n accident .e.g.newspaper ∴ (in)accurate recall ∵ to extraneous variables. not anxiety
- Ethics: Creating anxiety within ppl is harmful ∴ raise Q about about conducting research ∴ IRL studies better
- Demand Characteristics:(Lab studies vid). Awareness being watched ∴ may lessen anxiety/stress or maybe guess Q
Describe how a cognitive interview is conducted and how it effects EWT
-5 key points
Based on psychological understanding on memory.
- Report everything: encourages all details ∵ may trigger other memories.
- Reinstate context: Returns to crime(in head). Based on context-dependent forgetting ∵ may trigger other memories
- Reverse order: Recall events in different order ∴ avoids expectations of how event must have occurred vs how it did happen + prevents dishonesty.
- Change Perspective: Witness recalls events from others perspective ∴ avoids influence of schema
- Enhanced Cognitive interviews(ECI): Adds focus on social dynamics.e.g. eye contact. Ideas of reducing anxiety…
Evaluate Cognitive interviews in terms of EWT
+ ECI support: meta-analysis from 50 studies = consistently = more info vs standard = practical benefit
- Time consuming: reluctant ∵ time factor n requires special training ∴ proper version may not be used
+ Useful elements: Combo of ‘report everything’ n ‘reinstate context’ = most effective ∴ at least 2 should be used
- Increased amount of inaccurate info: ECI =
correct info = 81%
incorrect info = 61% ∴ all info must be treated with caution
