Paper 1 - Memory Flashcards
Forgetting studies
Context-dependent
Godden and Baddeley
Used sea divers and learnt words underwater and on land.
- 40% had lower recall accuracy in non-matching environments
Forgetting studies
State-dependent
Cartert
Used anti-histamines when learning words.
- if they learnt in the same state as recall, they had better accuracy
Forgetting studies
Proactive interference
Underwood (1957)
Found a group that learnt 15 words the day previous, recalled the second set of 15 words less (20%)
- old words interfered with new
Forgetting studies
Retroactive interference
Underwood (1960)
Found a group that learnt 1 set of word pairs performed better than those who had learnt 2 sets
- new words interfered with old
Patient studies
Clive wearing
Man with extreme amnesia could no longer create new LTMs but could create new STMs
- LTM and STM are separate stores
Patient studies
Patient KF
After motocycle accident, he damaged his STM. Had a normal digit span for visual information but limited for verbal information.
- STM is more than one store
Patient studies
Patient HM
Had his hippocampus removed and was unable to make new explicit LTMs (e.g facts) but could learn new procedural LTMs (e.g skills)
- LTM is more than one store
Multi-store memory model A03
+ Clive wearing
+ Baddeley found STM and LTM are coded differently
- Patient KF
- Craik and Tulvig, found participants learned better semantically
Working memory model A03
+ Patient KF
+ Gathercole and Baddeley, found participants that did dual tasks of the same system performed worse e.g both visuo-spatial or one visuo-spatial and one phonological loop
- Patient HM, long term memory is more than 1 store
EWT studies
Misleading info - post event discussion
Gabbert et al. 2003
Participants were paired and watched different videos of a girl stealing money from a wallet, however only one of the pair actually saw the crime (money being stole) the partner did not. They were told they’d seen the same video.
- 71% co-witness group recalled false info
- 60% said the girl was guilty when they hadn’t seen it
EWT studies
Misleading info - leading questions
Loftus and Palmer (1984)
45 participants split into 5 groups and watched 7 videos of car accidents. Each participants what asked: “how fast were the cars going when they … into each other?” Each group used a different verb (e.g smashed, bumped)
- smashed - 40.5mph
- collided - 39.3mph
- bumped 38.1mph
- contacted - 31.8mph
EWT studies
Anxiety
Johnson and Scott (1976)
Split into 2 groups: weapon and no weapon.
1. Overhead heated exchange, crashing and breaking glass. Individual ran from room carrying bloodied knife
2. Overheard a conversation about equipment failure, left holding a pen with hands covered in grease
Both shown 50 photographs and had to identify the individual who left the room
1 - 33% answered correctly
2 - 49% answered correctly
EWT studies
Leading questions
Loftus and Palmer A03
+ volunteer sample, cheap and easy
+ objective
- lab study
- volunteer sample, students are less experienced (may not drive?)
- Yuille and Cutshall
EWT studies
Post-event discussion
Gabbert et al. A03
+ population validity, varying ages
- low ecological validity, aware they’re being tested and paying close attention to videos doesn’t reflect everyday
- volunteer sample
EWT studies
Anxiety
Johnson and Scott A03
+ ecological validity, would occur in real life
- unethical, unprotected from harm
- Christianson and Hubinette, higher anxiety levels had better recall
- Pickel
- Deffenbacher
