Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Memory & Language > Social Effects on Memory > Flashcards

Social Effects on Memory Flashcards

1
Q

Social context: memories have a personal and social significance

A

Remembering is a social process - cultural transmission of memories involves repeated retelling

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

Memories can be constructed and reconstructed both by individuals and by larger groups

A

Subject to SAME SOCIAL PRESSURE as other behaviours, beliefs or decisions

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

Terminology for social effects on memory

A

Memory conformity
Social contagion of memory
Effects of co-witness information

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

Story telling tradition

A

Share stories with each other telling and retelling of a story - we introduce changes and distortions

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

Process of construction and reconstruction at level of individual can be generalised to larger groups

A

“CLASSIC ASCH EXPERIMENT” 1951 - HIGH LEVEL OF CONFORMITY
1 line and 3 lines (A, B, C) - Experiment introduced it as a “vision test”
Experiment in “groups” made up of 1 ppt and 3 confederates

Some confeds gave correct answer, some gave wrong answer
If all 4 confeds give wrong answer, ppts were seen to conform and also give wrong answer - PUBLIC CONFORMITY

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

The conformity effect (example 1)

A

Study - view scenes with high expectancy items and low expectancy items (e.g. kitchen)
Two conditions; 15 seconds and 60 seconds

Collaborative recall: in conformity studies, give out intermediate test with confederate - take turns recalling information for some scenes, confed starts introducing CONTAGION ITEMS (never studied items)

Final recall - do test individually - no-one to bias own answers

see conformity here - ppt has accepted answers that were given as contagion items by confederate

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

More contagion in which items?

A

HIGH expectancy items especially in FAST (15 second) trials

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

Why is this?

A

Participants are going to trust memories of someone else when they have had a shorter amount of time to look

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

Conformity depends on

A

Our own beliefs of the strength of the memory trace that . we have

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

Example 2 (same outcome as 1)

A

If you are going to tell participants to pay attention as you might be hearing incorrect information presented to you at some point during the experiment

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

Warning participants of recall errors potentially made by confederates - effect on social contagion

A

Warnings reduce but DON’T ELIMINATE social contagion

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

Example 3 (same procedure with exposure to confederate’s written responses)

A

Test: initial recall test

Contagion phase: participants asked to compare their recall to that of other participants

Final test

Experiment written protocols had 1-4 of protocols containing contagion items

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

Outcome of example 3

A

MORE FALSE CONTAGION
MORE EXPOSURE
STRONGER EFFECT

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

What is a remember judgement?

A

When participants can explicitly remember the exact time/moment where they acquired to knowledge (encoded item in study phase)

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

What is a know judgement?

A

Lower judgement - think you studied it but can’t recall exact moment - aren’t sure how they got this information but have a sense it was studied –> POWERFUL EFFECT

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

Adding/removing detail to memory

A

Is it possible to have participants ‘forget items’ they studied as well as falsely remember items that were never studied? YES
NO - easier to implant false memory than make them forget real memory

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

Study about adding/removing detail - take it in turns - different types of stimuli

A

Participants get a chance to follow different types of stimuli
words/pictures of cars/pictures of faces

Ex 1: study words and tested in presence of another person (or without person)
If you had a confed with you, they had a chance to recall a word and your turn to say whether a word had been . studied or not
Confed always went first - they had to say whether the given word had been studied previously or not

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

Results for this study adding/removing detail to memory

A

13% difference in recall if confederate said that the old word was new - if confederate said this was a new word, participant was likely to say it was a new word

27.57% difference in recall of new words when confeds said the new words had in fact been studied (old)

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

Conclusion of this study

A

EASIER to ADD than REMOVE memories
Easier to report new false memory than to omit a true memory (say a new word was an old word - pretend they’d seen it before)
Especially if there is a remember judgement - can’t dissuade you of the accuracy of the memory

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

Why do we look at these conformity errors?

A

BLAME CONFORMITY - in the real world, when people have to recall real events for eyewitness testimonies

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

Blame conformity phenomenon

A

Your opinions of who is to blame can be influenced by opinions of another person - a co-witness

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

Attributions of blame are malleable - study - 2 men bumping into each other

A

Watch a video of the two men bumping into each other

Listen to another EYE-WITNESS describing event - at the end, they blame one man or neither

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

Post study question

A

Who was at fault?
Control condition: only you making a judgement
Experimental condition: 1/3 ppts tended to blame man eyewitness indicated was to blame (and these results were checked to see if variable was ppts poor memory of event - it was not)

We trust judgement of another person - influenced by opinion of another eyewitness

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

Who do we tend to believe?

Are all sources equal?

A

No - MORE credible sources produce a stronger misinformation effect

25
Q

Factors influencing credibility and misinformation

A

Role in the event - innocent bystanders vs. guilty party

Identity/status/competence of co-rememberer

  • Partner > stranger
  • Psychologist > child
    • Careers enhance credibility
  • Young > old witness
  • People who have MORE time studying event /accident - better memory trace - more believable
  • Confidence levels
26
Q

Confidence

A

CONCERNING - Human memory is unreliable and social context of recall information influences info itself and confidence attached
Belief is very sensitive to perceived confidence

27
Q

Confidence bias

A

We tend to believe believe people who sound more confident - if they are CONVINCED they saw something
It is not a good measure/poor predictor of accuracy

Studies have shown POOR correlation between people’s accuracy of recall and level of confidence

28
Q

Confidence is malleable

A

We can boost our own confidence by repeating stuff to ourselves over and over again –> with no change in accuracy –> but FEEL more confident - manipulate confidence in answers

29
Q

How can we see evidence of confidence malleability in mock police line up

A

by manipulating what other co-witnesses say

30
Q

Confidence inflation

A

If co-witnesses identifies the same suspect as you - or has improbable/unlikely different response

–> your confidence in own recall/response increases

31
Q

Confidence deflation

A

If co-witness identifies different suspect/no suspect

You question your own recall

32
Q

Study (Wells & Bradfield, 1998)

A

Demonstrated ease at which you can manipulate confidence via FEEDBACK GIVEN

33
Q

Conditions of study (manipulating confidence)

A
  1. No feedback
  2. Confirming feedback (inflation)
  3. Disconfirming feedback (deflation)
34
Q

Study instructions (manipulating confidence)

A

Participants watched a video showing store robbery
Blurry picture (by design)
Hard to identify subject
The robber wasn’t actually in police line up of mugshots
Ppts had to identify who it was
Correct answer: none of them

Also had to rate their confidence in their answer

35
Q

Results of study (manipulating confidence)

A 
If they are told to pick out a suspect and given no feedback/confirming/disconfirming feedback
1-7 confidence rating scale: 
NO feedback = 4
DISCONFIRMING = 3.5 
CONFIRMING = 5.4 
Shows that confidence on response is influenced by 
- CO-WITNESS
- EXPERIMENTER
- LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
36
Q

Outcome of Wells & Bradfield

A

Feedback with disconfirming statement makes ppt less confident on response and thus on trial maybe less believable (lack social contagion) than a more confident (but not necessarily more accurate co-witness)

37
Q

Collaborative memory (second phenomena after social contagion)

2 papers

A

Shared pool of memories, knowledge and information of a social group that is significantly associated with the group’s identity

38
Q

Collaborative inhibition

A

If we try to remember information with other people
- Presence of those does not benefit recall of more information accurately

We have a belief that doing things in groups/sharing opinions/brainstorming
AIDS memory/productivity - but not necessarily

39
Q

General method for studying collaborative inhibition

A

Study separately
Complete memory test together - collaborative groups
Pool individual task answers together - nominal groups (potential performance)

40
Q

Typical result of studies in collaborative inhibition

A

Normally find COLLABORATIVE INHIBITION or SUBOPTIMAL GROUP RECALL
On average, people show poorer memory in groups when tested individually

41
Q

Study 1 (collab inhibition)

A

Studying and recalling The War of the Ghosts individually and in groups

42
Q

Results of study 1 (collab inhibition) - quiz on facts of book (bit like a pub quiz)

A
  1. Each individual remembers fewer items than all individuals do together
  2. Collaborative recall is lower than nominal groups
43
Q

Why does collaborative inhibition happen?

A
  1. SOCIAL LOAFING - diffusion of responsibility, Steiner’s model of group productivity, less effort/motivation
  2. Cognitive explanation - RETRIEVAL DISRUPTION HYPOTHESIS
44
Q

What is the Retrieval Disruption Hypothesis?

A

Each individual when you try to remember something, store memory and try retrieve it
Different people rely on DIFFERENT STRATEGIES/retrieval cues

45
Q

Different people rely on different strategies and retrieval cues

A

Retrieval cues are not all compatible - retrieval strategies brought up by other people are going to INTERFERE with your own
–> RESULT: RECALL LESS THAN ACTUALLY REMEMBER

46
Q

Collaborate inhibition - influencing factors

A
  1. Organisation of stimuli - if we give you something to study that lends itself to MULTIPLE retrieval strategies - see MORE collaborative inhibition
  2. Test type - if test RELIES on retrieval strategies e.g. plain recall - then MORE inhibition
    Recognition tasks rely on fewer retrieval strategies and thus less inhibition on performance
  3. Group size - more inhibition with larger group
47
Q

Consolidation and false memory - do false memory rates increase or decrease in groups?

A

MORE memory distortion in groups

  1. Study DRM lists (words created from a particular concept/critical word) separately
  2. Complete perceived group recall (PGR) test
  3. Complete individual recall tests

Results: PGR with critical word mentioned (confeds): 79% intrusion rate in individual tests
without critical word mentioned: 39% intrusion rate (due to similarity)
without a PGR test at all: 30% intrusion rate
–> FALSE MEMORIES CAN BE TRANSMITTED

48
Q

If the critical word (which DRM list is based off) is mentioned by confederates in PGR test

A

Highly likely to intrude word into own recall

49
Q

Socially-shared retrieval induced forgetting (RIF) study

A 
Two people (a "speaker" and "listener" study new information 
and practice selected parts of that information
The speaker engages in OVERT (open) recall 
Is the listener a "passive" addressee? 
Or do they engage in COVERT/discrete recall?
50
Q

Socially shared RIF results

A

Expected result; see a RIF effect in speaker - does it have effect on listener?
Speaker recall: RIF effect present
- better memory for items practiced
- poorer memory for items related to the ones they practiced

Listener recall: also had RIF effect - socially shared

51
Q

Study 2 - speaker and listener encode information from :

A

Ex 1 - word pairs
Ex 2 - story
Ex 3 - same story recalled jointly - flowing conversation

52
Q

Ex 1 retrieval practice

A

Speakers complete cue-target pairs while listener monitors speaker’s responses for

  • ACCURACY (errors/correct answer etc)
  • FLUENCY (superficial listening condition) - not judging semantics
53
Q

Ex 1 test (socially shared RIF)

A

Compare recall of

  • Practiced items (Rp+)
  • Unpracticed related items (Rp-)
  • Unpracticed unrelated items (NRp)

Inhibition/RIF effect - difference between NRp - Rp-

NRp being a control/baseline condition

54
Q

The listener monitoring for accuracy

A

showed RIF effect

55
Q

Listener monitoring for fluency

A

Speaker has RIF
Listener has NO RIF!! - no inhibition/no difference in recall of unpractised related/unrelated items
Due to not engaging with what (content/semantics) speaker was saying but how they said it

56
Q

Stories and conversations (and listener there to check speaker accuracy)

A

Saw listener RIF effect

57
Q

Conversational setting - difference in results compared to story/cue-word pairs

A

Engaged with task MORE - more interesting
Stronger learning effects (more practiced items recalled)
Stronger inhibition effects (less unpracticed related items recalled)

58
Q

Conclusion of socially-shared RIF

A

People remember what the speaker remembers and tends to forget what the speaker does not mention

Memory & Language (6 decks)

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