Topic 2 - Memory (complete!!!!) Flashcards
What is memory?
The process in which we retain information about events that happened in the past
What is coding? Give an example
The format in which information is stored in the various memory stores
e.g. acoustic, semantic
What is capacity?
The amount of information that can be held in a memory store
What is duration?
The length of time information can be held in a memory store
Describe Baddeley’s (1966) procedure into coding
Gave different word lists to 4 groups to remember:
Group 1 : Acoustically similar words - cat, cab, can
Group 2 : Acoustically dissimilar words - pit, few, cow
Group 3 : Semantically similar words - great, large, big
Group 4 : Semantically dissimilar words - good, huge, hot
What were Baddeley’s (1966) findings on his study into coding? What does this tell us about memory?
When ppts recalled immediately using STM they did worse with acoustically similar words
When ppts recalled after interval of 20 mins using LTM did worse with semantically similar words
Findings suggest that info coded differently in separate memory stores - acoustically in STM and semantically in LTM
What is a strength of Baddeley’s (1966) research into coding?
Identified clear difference between memory stores
Idea of STM using mostly acoustic and LTM using mainly semantic has remained same over long period of time - even with additional research from other psychologists (HAS TEMPORAL VALIDITY!!!)
Findings are an important step in our understanding of memory as it led to development of MSM
What is a weakness of Baddeley’s (1966) research into coding?
Lacks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY as Baddeley used artificial stimuli rather than meaningful material
Word lists had no personal meaning to ppts - findings may not tell us about coding in real life situations
When processing more meaningful info ppts may use semantic encoding even for STM memory tasks
Suggest findings have limited application
Describe Jacob’s (1887) procedure into capacity
Found out how much info STM can hold using digit spans
Researcher reads out 4 digits and ppt recalls these out in correct order
If correctly recalled researcher then reads out 5 digits and so on until ppt cannot recall order correctly - this indicates person’s digit span
What were Jacob’s (1887) findings on his study into capacity? What does this tell us about memory?
Mean digit span for numbers - 9.3
Mean digit span for letters - 7.3
Supports MSM model for capacity of STM = 7+-2 items
What is a strength of Jacob’s (1887) study into capacity?
Study has been replicated - increases VALIDITY
Even with possible CONFOUNDING VARIABLES e.g. ppts might have been distracted during testing due to lack of control, Jacob’s study has been supported by better controlled studies e.g. Bopp + Verhaeghen (2005)
Describe Miller’s (1956) observations into capacity - what does this tell us about memory?
Made observations regarding span of memory and chunking
Noted things often come in sevens e.g. seven days of the weeks, seven deadly sins
- therefore Miller thought capacity of STM = 7+-2 items
Also noted people can recall five words as easily as five letters - do this via. CHUNKING
What is a weakness of Miller’s (1956) observations into capacity?
May have overestimated STM capacity - conflicting research
Cowan (2001) reviewed other research + concluded that capacity of STM = 4+-1
Suggests that lower end of Miller’s estimate (5 items) more appropriate than 7 items
Describe Peterson and Peterson’s (1959) procedure on their study into duration
Investigated STM duration
Tested 24 students in 8 trials
Each trial student given CONSONANT SYLLABLE and a 3 digit number
Student had to count backwards to prevent rehearsal (this would’ve increased the info’s duration in STM)
On each trial ppts told to stop counting backwards after variable period of time e.g. 3,6,9,12,15 or 18 seconds - known as the RETENTION INTERVAL
What were Peterson and Peterson’s (1959) findings into duration? What does this tell us about memory?
After 3 seconds = average recall 80%
After 18 seconds = average recall 3%
Suggests that STM duration may be about 18 seconds WITHOUT REHEARSAL
What is a weakness of Peterson and Peterson’s study into duration?
Artificial stimuli - lacks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY to an extent
Study not completely irrelevant - sometimes have to remember fairly meaningless material e.g. phone numbers
However recalling CONSONANT SYLLABLES does not reflect most everyday memory activities where we try to remember something meaningful
Ppts may have remembered info for longer period of time if info had some kind of significance
So study also lacks EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Describe Bahrick’s (1975) procedure on his study into duration
Investigated duration in LTM
Studied 392 American ppts aged between 17-74
Obtained high school yearbooks - recall tested with : Photo recognition and free recall test where ppts recalled names of their graduating class
What were Bahrick’s (1975) findings into duration? What does this tell us about memory?
Ppts tested within 15 yrs of graduation = 90% accurate in photo recognition
After 48 years recall declined to 70% with photo recognition
Free recall less accurate - 60% after 15 years + 30% after 48
Shows that duration in LTM can be up to a lifetime for some material
What is a strength of Bahrick’s (1975) study into duration.
High EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Researchers investigated meaningful memories i.e. people’s names and faces
When studies on LTM carried out with meaningless info, recall rates were lower (Shepard - 1967)
Suggests that Bahrick’s findings reflect a more ‘real’ estimate of the duration of LTM
What are the three stores in the MSM? Who created this theory?
Sensory store, STM, LTM
Atkinson + Shiffrin (1968)
What are the processes that link the three stores in the MSM together?
Stimuli from environment —-> Sensory register (if not remembered info rapidly decays)
Sensory register ——> STM = Attention
STM —–> response (remembering)
——> if not rehearsed leads to
forgetting
——-> Maintenance rehearsal
(rehearsal loop)
STM ——> LTM = Prolonged rehearsal
LTM ——-> STM = Retrieval
Info in LTM can be disrupted via. interference or retrieval failure.
What is maintenance rehearsal (i.e. rehearsal loop) ?
When we rehearse info to ourselves over and over again to keep it in our STM - prolonged rehearsal can move this info to our LTM
Describe the sensory register in terms of:
- Capacity
- Duration
- Coding
Capacity = Extremely large - receives info from all our senses
Duration = Less than half a second
Coding = MODALITY SPECIFIC (depends on the sense) - made up of several registers, one for each sense e.g. Iconic register, echoic register
Describe the LTM in terms of :
- Capacity
- Duration
- Coding
Capacity = Potentially unlimited
Duration = Up to a lifetime
Coding = Mainly semantic
Describe the STM in terms of :
- Capacity
- Duration
- Coding
Capacity = 7+-2 items
Duration = 18-30 seconds (max 18 without rehearsal)
Coding = Mainly acoustic
The MSM (1968) has research support for STM and LTM being different stores, describe what this means and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STRENGTH
Research support from Baddeley (1966) - see previous flashcard for study details
Found that we tended to mix up acoustically similar words when recalling from STM and semantically similar words when recalling from LTM
Can also use research support on capacity + duration (see previous flashcards)
Large amount of research support show that STM + LTM are separate stores as MSM claimed - increases VALIDITY of theory as expl. for memory
The studies that support the MSM often lack ecological validity and mundane realism, describe what this means and state whether its a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS (counterpoint to supporting research point)
Studies often lab setting - artificial tasks often trivial and meaningless to ppts e.g. Baddeley’s study = memorising word lists
Lack any semblance to real life where we try to memorise useful info e.g. people’s names + faces
Supporting studies lack ecological validity so MSM may not be a valid model of how memory works irl
Shallice and Warrington (1970) conducted a case study on amnesiac KF. Did their findings support or go against the MSM - explain why
AGAINST (Weakness for MSM)
Found that there may be more that one type of STM store
KF’s STM for digits very poor when read aloud to him, but when he recall much better when he read them to himself
Research from other psychologists even suggest there’s another STM store for non verbal sounds e.g. noises
Suggests that MSM incorrect in stating that STM was just one store - compromises reliability of model when applied to real memory
The MSM is often described as ‘oversimplified’ - describe what is meant by this and explain whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS
Fails to reflect complexity of human memory - assumes there is a single STM and LTM
Case studies on KF show that there might be more than one type of STM store (Shallice + Warrington - 1970)
Tulving also argued that there is more than on type of LTM - procedural, episodic, semantic
MSM is outdated - not a relevant model when in line with current research and evidence HOWEVER arguably set up a foundation for newer, more accurate models of memory - value in its concept rather than its accuracy
Describe Episodic memory
Our ability to recall event (i.e. episodes) from our lives
Memories are TIME-STAMPED - we remember when they happened as well as what happened
Also stores info about how events relate to each other over time
Memory of single episode consists of several elements - all interwoven to create single memory
Have to make conscious effort to recall - done quickly but still aware you’re searching for memory
Most prone to decay + distortion
Describe Semantic memory
Our knowledge of the world e.g. facts
Contains large number of concepts e.g. love
Memories not time-stamped - usually don’t remember when we got the info
Less personal - more about facts we share
Constantly being added to
Less vulnerable to distortion + forgetting than episodic
It is arguable that case studies lack control of any confounding/extraneous variables. How does this relate to Tulving’s (1985) theory of LTM and state whether this is a strength or a weakness
WEAKNESS - COUNTERPOINT to case study support strength (HM + Clive Wearing)
Case studies of men only started when they became injured - researcher had no way of controlling or knowing what happened to ppts before the injury
Due to nature of case studies researcher had no idea that two men were going to get brain damage (random occurrence) - would have no knowledge of memory of ppts memory before the damage - difficult to judge exactly how worse it became afterwards
Case studies lack RETROSPECTION + CONTROL - limits what clinical studies can tell us about types of LTM - support for theory may not be as credible as initially thought
There is conflicting neuroimaging when trying to link types of LTM to areas of the brain - how does this relate to Tulving’s (1985) theory into LTM and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS
Bucker + Peterson (1996) - reviewed evidence for location of semantic + episodic memory in brain
Semantic = left side of prefrontal cortex
Episodic = right side of prefrontal cortex
However other research links left prefrontal cortex with encoding and right side with episodic retrieval (Tulving 1994)
Challenges any neurophysiological evidence to support types of LTM as there is poor agreement on where each type might be located
What are the different types of LTM - who proposed this theory?
Procedural, Semantic, Episodic
Proposed by Tulving (1985) - argued that MSM too simplistic and that there is more than one type of LTM
There has been real world application opportunities when using Tulving’s (1985) theory of LTM - describe what this means and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STRENGTH
As people age experience memory loss - research has shown that this seems to be specific to episodic memory
Becomes harder to recall relatively recent events compared to past episodic memories which remain intact
Belleville (2006) created intervention to improve episodic memories in older people - trained ppts. performed better than control group
So distinguishing between different types of LTM enables specific treatments to be developed (REAL LIFE APPLICATION)
Its difficult to explain the difference between episodic and semantic memories - describe what this means in relation to Tulving’s (1985) theory on LTM and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS
Most recently Tulving taken view that episodic memory = specialised subcategory of semantic memory - essentially the same store
Tulving research = people with amnesia have functioning semantic memory alongside damaged episodic memory
However concluded that it is not possible to have functioning episodic memory with a damaged semantic memory
COUNTERPOINT (Hodges + Patterson) found that some people with amnesia could form new episodic memories but not semantic
Perhaps Tulving initially incorrect with theory that episodic + semantic separate and instead they’re interlinked. However so much conflicting evidence that its extremely difficult to evaluate which parts of the theory is actually VALID
What are the components of the working memory model (WMM) and who created the theory?
Central executive, episodic buffer, visuospatial sketchpad + phonological loop (made up of articulatory process + phonological store)
Baddeley + Hitch (1974) - focused on STM + believed that it isn’t just one unitary store
Describe Procedural memory
Actions and skills we perform
Can recall these without conscious awareness or much effort (when repeated enough times) - do them automatically
Ability to do this becomes automatic through practice
Type of skills we might find quite hard to explain to someone else e.g. breathing
What is the central executive?
Has supervisory role
Monitors incoming data + divides our attention to allocated subsystems for tasks
Has very limited processing capacity
Does not store info - only involved in reasoning + decision making tasks
What is the Phonological loop?
Deals with auditory info + preserves order in which the info arrives
Subdivided into : Articulatory process
Phonological store
Phonological store - stores words you hear
Articulatory process - allows MAINTENANCE REHEARSAL ( holds words heard/seen and silently repeats them like an inner ear to keep info in STM) ; capacity = 2 seconds worth of what you can say (limited capacity)
Tulving’s (1985) theory of LTM has evidence from the case studies of HM + Clive Wearing - describe the findings and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STRENGTH
Episodic memory of both men severely impaired (from operation and infection respectively)
Semantic memories of men unaffected - HM couldn’t recall stroking a dog earlier but still remembered the concept of dog
Both still new how to walk and talk so procedural memories also unaffected - Wearing (a musician) could still play the piano
Evidence supports idea that there are different independent stores in LTM - one store can be damaged but others can be unaffected. Increases the CREDIBILITY of the theory
What is the visuo-spatial sketchpad?
Stores visual and spatial info e.g. if you’re asked how many windows are in your house you begin to visualise it in your head
Limited capacity - about 3 or 4 objects
Logie (1995) divided VSS into :
visual cache - stores visual data
inner scribe - records arrangement of
objects in a visual field
(spatial data)
What is the episodic buffer?
Temporary store for info - integrates the visual, spatial and verbal info processed by other slave systems + maintains sense of time sequencing
Can be seen as the storage component of the central executive
Limited capacity of 4 chunks
Is the link to LTM and wider cognitive process e.g. perception
More general store
There is research support from case studies of KF - describe their findings and state whether this is a strength or weakness of Baddeley + Hitch’s (1974) WMM theory
STRENGTH
Clinical evidence support from Shallice + Warrington (1970) case study on KF
After brain injury KF had poor STM for auditory info but could recall visual info normally - immediate recall of letters and digits better when he read them (visual) than when they were read to him (acoustic)
So his phonological loop damaged but visuo-spatial sketchpad still intact
Findings support existence of separate visual + acoustic STM stores like WMM suggests
It is unclear whether KF had other cognitive impairments (other than damage to his phonological loop) - elaborate on this and explain whether this is a strength or weakness of Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM theory
WEAKNESS - COUNTERPOINT to KF supporting research
Case studies generally lack CONTROL and RETROSPECTION - brain damage KF suffered may have also affected his cognitive performance in ways the researchers are unable to assess as they do not know what his memory was like before the accident
So additional, unknown brain damage may have affected his performance on memory tasks instead of his supposed damage to phonological loop
Challenges evidence from clinical case studies - lack control so VALIDITY of this supporting research questionable ; decreases CREDIBILITY of theory
Baddeley + Hitch’s (1974) theory on the WMM has real life application - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STRENGTH
Can be used in teaching environments
Students with learning difficulties e.g. damaged phonological loop can be given alternative revision techniques based on different slave systems in STM
e.g. instead of repeating info to yourself ( articulatory process) you could make flashcards or diagrams (visuospatial sketchpad)
Theory has meaningful, practical applications that could help the disadvantaged (useful real life application)
There have been studies on dual-task performance - describe the findings and state whether this is a strength or weakness of Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) theory on the WMM
STRENGTH
Baddeley asked ppts to carry out a visual and verbal task at same time (dual task) - performance similar when performing both tasks together and both tasks separately - no competition for same subsystem
However when both tasks were visual (or both verbal) performance on both declined substantially - tasks had to compete for the same subsystem e.g. visuospatial sketchpad
Shows there must at least be a separate subsystem that processes visual and auditory info ( phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad) = RESEARCH SUPPORT
(ADDITIONAL - can counterpoint by stating that study lacks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY due to artificial task and setting)
There is a lack of clarity over the central executive - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness of Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) theory on the WMM
WEAKNESS
Baddeley himself recognised how vague central executive described in theory
CE needs to be more clearly specified than simply ‘attention’ - other psychologists believe it may consist of separate subcomponents
Means that CE = unsatisfactory component - challenges INTEGRITY of the WMM
What is interference?
A form of forgetting when one piece of info disrupts the other, causing one or both memories to be distorted or forgotten
When forgetting in the LTM, is info permanently lost? Explain your answer
No
Info in LTM more or less permanent (duration = up to a lifetime) so any forgetting most likely because we cant get ACESS to them even though they’re AVAILABLE
What are the two types of interference? Give an example.
Proactive interference = when OLDER memory interferes with new memory you’re trying to store e.g. teacher has learnt so many names in the past she cant remember names of her new class
Retroactive interference = when a NEWER memory interferes with older one e.g. teacher has learnt the names of her new class, causing her to find it difficult to recall the names of the students she had in the past
Describe McGeoch and McDonald’s (1931) procedure into the effects of similarity on interference
Investigated if interference is worse if memories are similar (for RETROACTIVE interference)
Ppts had to learn list of 10 words to 100% accuracy, then had to learn a new list of words
6 Groups =
- Group 1 : synonym word list
- Group 2 : antonym word list
- Group 3 : words unrelated to original
ones
- Group 4 : nonsense syllables
- Group 5 : three - digit numbers
- Group 5 : no new list - ppts just rested
Describe McGeoch and McDonald’s (1931) findings into the effects of similarity on interference. What does this tell us about interference?
when ppts recalled original list of words, accuracy of recall depended on nature of second word list
Most similar words (synonyms) produced worst recall - shows that interference is strongest when memories are similar
EXTRA:
Reason why similarity effects recall may be one of two reasons -
Proactive - previously stored info makes new similar info more difficult to store
Retroactive - new info overwrites previous similar memories because they’re so alike
Psychologists argue that interference is temporary and can be overcome using cues - elaborate with any supporting research and state whether this is a strength or weakness of interference
WEAKNESS
Tulving + Psotka (1971) gave ppts. list of words organised into categories, one list at a time
Recall averaged around 70% for first list, but got progressively worse as ppts learnt each additional list (retroactive)
However word lists hadn’t actually disappeared from LTM - at end of procedure ppts given a CUED RECALL test (given names of list categories)
After cued recall accuracy rose to 70% again
Shows that interference causes only temporary loss of access to material still in LTM - a finding that is not predicted in original theory but touched in RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Perhaps other theories better suited than interference to explain forgetting in LTM e.g. retrieval failure
There has been evidence provided by studies which show that interference also has an effect in real life situations - describe this study and state whether this is a strength or weakness of interference
STENGTH
Baddeley + Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall names of teams they had played so far in that season, week by week
Most players had missed some games (due to injuries) so intervals between each game varied e.g. last team they played could’ve been one or two weeks ago depending on player
Found that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago matches took place - depended on how many interfering games they played
More games played = most interference for memory = poorest recall
Shows that interference can operate in at least some real life situations - increases VALIDITY of theory
Some psychologists argue that interference may cause forgetting in some everyday situations but this is very unusual - elaborate on this point and explain whether this is a strength or weakness of interference
WEAKNESS (can be used as COUNTERPOINT to Baddeley + Hitch rugby player study)
Conditions required for interference to occur relatively rare in real life
Supporting research often skewed - often lab studies where high degree of control measures can create ideal conditions for interference
e.g. McGeoch + McDonald - two memories have to be relatively similar in order for interference - may happen in everyday life (like revising similar subjects close in time) but this is not often
Suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories e.g. retrieval failure
Interference theory can only be applied in extremely specific circumstances - not exactly relevant to normal every day life (limited application even if it could be done)
There has been evidence from drug studies of RETROGRADE FACILITATION - describe this study and explain whether this is a strength or weakness of interference
(note - this point rather long, make sure to split into memorable chunks)
STRENGTH
Retrograde facilitation = Observation of memory enhancement for events that preceded the administration of certain drugs (i.e. testing how good memory is after taking drugs)
Coenen + Luijtelaar (1997) gave ppts list of words and later asked them to recall list - assumed intervening experiences would act as interference
Found that when list of words learnt under influence of drug DIAZEPAM, recall one week later was poor compared to PLACEBO control group
When list of words learnt before the drug was taken, recall better than the placebo - drug FACILITATED recall of material learnt beforehand
Wixted (2004) suggested that drug prevents new info experienced after taking drug from reaching parts of brain involved in processing memory - so memory cannot retroactively interfere with info already stores
Shows that forgetting can be due to interference - reduce this interference i.e. by using drugs and you reduce the forgetting
What is retrieval failure?
Form or forgetting - usually occurs when we don’t have the necessary cues available
Leads to inaccessibility of available memories
Describe Tulving’s (1983) Encoding Specificity Principle on the theory of retrieval failure
Reviewed research into retrieval failure and found consistent pattern :
Helpful cues have to be present at both:
- Encoding (when we learn the info)
- Retrieval (when we recall the info)
If cues available at encoding and retrieval different (or if cues entirely absent) - will be some forgetting)
Some cues encoded at time of learning in meaningful way e.g. cue ‘STM’ may help you recall info about short term memory - such cues using in MNEMONIC TECHNIQUES
Other cues also encoded at time of learning but not in meaningful way - two types:
- Context-dependant forgetting
- State-dependant forgetting
What is context-dependant forgetting? Give an example
Recall depending on external cue e.g. weather or place
What is state-dependant forgetting? Give an example
Recall depending on internal cue e.g. feeling upset, being drunk
Describe Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) procedure into context-dependant forgetting
Studied deep sea divers to see if training in different environmental contexts helped or hindered memory
Divers learnt list of words either underwater or on land and recalled words either underwater or on land - created 4 conditions :
1. Learn on land - recall on land
2. Learn on land - recall underwater
3. Learn underwater - recall on land
4. Learn underwater - recall underwater
Describe Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) findings and conclusions into context-dependant forgetting
Accurate recall 40% lower in non-environmentally matching contexts
Concluded that external cues available at learning were different from ones available at recall which led to retrieval failure
(note : could use this study as supporting research eval. point for retrieval failure theory)
Describe Carter and Cassaday’s (1998) procedure into state-dependant forgetting
Gave ANTIHISTAMINE drugs to their ppts - had a mild sedative effect, making ppts slightly drowsy
Drowsiness - creates a different internal psychological state from the ‘normal’ state of being awake and alert
Ppts had to learn list of words and then recall the info, creating 4 conditions:
1. Learn on drug - recall on drug
2. Learn on drug - recall when not on drug
3. Learn not on drug - recall on drug
4. Learn not on drug - recall not on drug
Describe Carter and Cassaday’s (1998) findings and conclusions into state-dependant forgetting
In conditions where there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and recall, performance on memory test significantly worse
Concluded that when internal cues absent (e.g. being drowsy when recalling info where you had been alert when learning it) then there is more forgetting
The theory of retrieval failure has some real life application - elaborate on this point and state whether this is a strength or weakness of retrieval failure
STRENGTH
Retrieval failure can help overcome some forgetting in everyday situations
Baddeley believed cues important to pay attention to even if he argued they had seemingly weak affect on memory :
e.g. common experience is walking into a room to get something but when you get there you forget what you were coming for - when you go back to the original room you immediately remember again ( evidence of context-dependant forgetting)
So when we have trouble remembering something we can apply this theory to the situation and make and effort to recall the environment in which to remembered the info first
Shows how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall ( valuable applicability in everyday life)
There is an impressive range of research support for the retrieval failure theory - elaborate on this point and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STENGTH
Studies by Godden + Baddeley (1975) and Cater and Cassidy (1998) are two examples that show a lack of relevant cues at recall can lead to context and state dependant forgetting
Memory researchers Eysenck + Keane (2010) argue that retrieval failure perhaps the main reason for forgetting in LTM
Evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real world situations as well as in highly controlled lab conditions ( increases theory VALIDITY)
Baddeley (1997) actually argued that context effects are quite weak, especially in everyday life - expand on his argument and describe whether this is a strength or weakness of the retrieval failure theory
WEAKNESS (can be used as a COUNTERPOINT to the supporting research argument)
Different contexts have to be extremely different before an effect is seen - e.g. it would be hard to find an environment as different from land as underwater seen in Godden + Baddeley’s (1975) research
In contrast - learning something in one room and recalling it in another unlikely to result in forgetting as environments generally not different enough
e.g. when you revise at home or learn at school and then do the exam in an exam hall (different environmental contexts) you don’t immediately forget everything you’ve learnt
Means that retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not actually explain much everyday forgetting - rarely ever occurs in real life because of extraordinary conditions to do so
More relevant theories (could argue interference) provide better expl. for everyday forgetting
Some psychologists argue that context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested - elaborate on this point and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the retrieval failure theory
WEAKNESS
Godden + Baddeley (1980) repeated their diver study but used a recognition test instead of recall
ppts had to say whether they recognised a word from the list instead of recalling it themselves
When recognition tested found that there was no context-dependant effect - performance was the same in all 4 conditions
Suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies when a person has to recall info rather than recognise it
It is argued that the ESP theory for retrieval failure IS flawed as the reasoning for it is circular and based on assumption - explain what this means and state whether this is a strength or weakness
(IMPORTANT : this is just extra eval. don’t use this point if you don’t understand it)
WEAKNESS
Lot of evidence that forgetting takes place when there is a mismatch (or absence) of encoding retrieval cues - however is it even possible to independently establish whether a cue has been encoded or not?
Reasoning for ESP CIRCULAR and based on ASSUMPTION
CIRCULAR REASONING - argument is validated by itself - reasoner begins with what they’re trying to end with (same proposition occurs as both a premise + conclusion so argument validates itself)
e.g. In an experiment, if cue did not produce recall we assume it wasn’t encoded, if cue did produce recall we assume it must have been encoded
ESP theory provides the premise and conclusion - it has been used to validate itself without any external input
COMPROMISES theory VALIDITY
What is a leading question and how does this affect eye witness testimony? (EWT)
Wording of a question may lead, or mislead, a person to give a certain answer
Issue for EWT - e.g. police questioning may direct a witness to give a particular answer
Describe Loftus and Palmer’s (1945) procedure on the effect of leading questions on EWT
Arranged for 45 students to watch film clips of car accidents and then asked them questions on what they saw
In the CRITICAL QUESTION (leading question - also called misleading info) ppts asked to describe how fast cars were travelling
Ppts split into 5 groups - each group ppts were given a different verb in the critical question when asked how fast cars were travelling
Verbs : hit, contacted, bumped, collided,
smashed
e.g. one group asked : “How fast were the cars travelling when they smashed into each other?”
Describe Loftus and Palmer’s (1945) findings and conclusions on the effect of leading questions on EWT
Mean estimated speed calculated for each group
Verb ‘contacted’ : 31.8 mph
Verb ‘smashed’ : 40.5 mph
Leading question biased eyewitness’ recall of an event
Why does leading questions affect EWT? explain in terms of:
- The response-bias explanation
Response-bias explanation =
- wording of question has no real effect on ppts memories but just influences how they decide the answer
- e.g. when ppts get leading question using word smashed, this encourages them to choose a higher speed estimate (Loftus + Palmer - 1945)
Why does leading questions affect EWT? explain in terms of:
- The substitution explanation
Substitution explanation =
- Wording of the question changes the ppts. memory itself
- Loftus + Palmer (1974) conducted second experiment to support substitution explanation :
After asking the various critical questions, asked ppts to recall what they saw in the film
ppts who were given verb ‘smashed’ later more likely to report seeing broken glass (even though there wasn’t any) than those given verb ‘hit’
Critical verb altered memory of incident
What is post- event discussion?
Occurs when there is more than one witness to an event - witness may discuss what they’ve seen with other co-witnesses
May influence accuracy of EWT
Describe Gabbert’s (2003) procedure on the effects of post-event discussion on the accuracy of EWT
Studied ppts in pairs
Each ppts watched video of same crime but filmed at different points of view - meant each ppts could see elements of event that others could not
Both ppts. then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall
Describe Gabbert’s (2003) findings and conclusion on the effects of post-event discussion on the accuracy of EWT
Found that 71% of ppts mistakenly recalled aspects of the event they did not see in the video but had picked up in discussion
Corresponding figure in control group where there was no discussion = 0%
Post-event discussion clearly had negative effect on accuracy of EWT
Why does post-event discussion affect EWT? Explain in terms of :
- memory contamination
Memory contamination =
- When co-witnesses to crime discuss with each other, their EWT’s may become altered or distorted
- This is because they combine misinformation from other witnesses with their own memories
Why does post-event discussion affect EWT? Explain in terms of :
- memory conformity
Memory conformity =
- Gabbert (2003) believed that witnesses often go along with each other to win social approval or because they believe that the other witnesses are right and they are wrong (NSI + ISI)
- Unlike memory contamination, the actual memory is unchanged
The theory of leading questions on EWT has real life application in the criminal justice system - elaborate on this point and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STRENGTH
Consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious
Loftus (1975) believes that leading questions can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers advised to be very careful about how they phrase their questions during witness interviews
Psychologists sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court trials to explain the limits of EWT to juries
Shows that psychologists can help to improve the way the legal system works, especially by protecting the innocent from faulty convictions due to unreliable EWT
Theory has valuable, real life APPLICATION which can positively contribute to society
It is argued that the practical applications of the effect of leading questions on EWT may be affected by issues with research - explain what this means and state whether this is a strength or weakness
WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to real life application point)
e.g. Loftus + Palmer’s (1945) ppts watched film clips in a lab, very different experience from witnessing real event - less stressful
Lab setting - artificial environment, lacks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
Foster (1994) pointed out that what eyewitnesses remember has important consequences in real world, but ppts. responses in artificial research does not matter in the same way (no real consequence if ppts do not accurately recall info)
So in research ppts = less motivated to be accurate - task TRIVIAL to ppts
Suggests that researchers like Loftus + Palmer are too pessimistic about effects of misleading info - EWT may be more dependable that studies suggest
Evidence has been found against the substitution explanation - elaborate on this point and state whether this is a strength or weakness of leading questions on EWT
WEAKNESS
EWT more accurate for some aspects of an event than for others
e.g. Sutherland + Hayne (2001) showed ppts a video clip - when ppts asked misleading questions their recall more accurate for central details of event that peripheral ones
ppts attention presumably focused on central details of event - these memories relatively resistant to misleading info
Suggests that original memories for central details survived and were not distorted, outcome not predicted by substitution explanation
Evidence has been found challenging memory conformity - elaborate on this point and state whether this is a strength or weakness of post-event discussion on EWT
WEAKNESS
Evidence that post-event discussion actually alters EWT - memory contamination may be a more VALID explanation
Skagerberg + Wright (2008) showed ppts film clips:
- two versions :mugger’s hair was dark brown in one and light brown in the other
- ppts then discussed clips in pairs - each seeing a different version
- instead of reporting what they had heard from co-witnesses (this would’ve been memory conformity) often recalled a blend of the two e.g. common answer when asked what colour the mugger’s hair was ‘medium brown’ (blend between light + dark brown seen in the two clips)
Suggests that memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than result of memory contamination
It is arguable that the ppts in the effects of misleading info research are more likely to display DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the effects of misleading info on EWT
WEAKNESS
Zaragoza + McCloskey (1989) argue that many answers given by ppts in the lab studies are due to DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS
Artificial setting in lab experiments = more likely to display demand characteristics
Ppts often want to be helpful to researcher - often guess when asked a question even if they don’t know the answer
This compromises validity of theory itself as supporting studies lack INTERNAL VALIDITY
How does anxiety have a negative effect on EWT? Explain in terms of :
- weapon focus
Anxiety —–> creates physiological arousal in body which prevents us paying attention to important cues
Presence of weapon causes anxiety - leads to focus on weapon which decreases recall for other details of the event
Describe Johnson and Scott’s (1976) procedure on the negative effects of weapon focus on EWT
Lab study
Two conditions:
- High anxiety condition = ppts overheard argument, accompanied by sound of breaking glass. Man then walked out room holding knife covered in blood
- Low anxiety condition = ppts heard a casual conversation in next room, then saw man walk out carrying a pen + grease on his hands
ppts later picked out man from set of 50 photos
Describe Johnson and Scott’s (1976) findings and conclusions on the negative effects of weapon focus on EWT
49% in low anxiety condition able to identify man
33% in high anxiety condition able to identify man
Concluded that this is due to the TUNNEL THEORY of memory
Tunnel theory = argues people may have enhanced memory for central events (e.g. the bloody knife in high anxiety condition) whilst the peripheral events aren’t paid as much attention to
Weapon focus as a result of anxiety can have a ‘tunnelling’ effect
How does anxiety have a positive effect on EWT? Explain in terms of :
- the fight or flight response
Witnessing stressful event —-> creates anxiety through physiological arousal within body
Fight or flight response triggered - increases alertness
Alertness - may improve memory for event as we become more aware of cues in the situation, we pay more attention
Describe Yuille + Cutshall’s (1986) procedure on the positive effects of anxiety on EWT
Conducted study of real life shooting (natural experiment) in Canada
Shop owner shot thief dead
21 witnesses - 13 took part in the study
Interviewed 4 to 5 months after incident and interviews compared with original police interviews at time of shooting
Accuracy determined by number of details reported in each account
Witnesses also asked to rate how stressed they had felt during shooting on 7 point scale + whether they had any emotional problems since event e.g. sleeplessness
Describe Yuille + Cutshall’s (1986) findings and conclusions on the positive effects of anxiety on EWT
Witnesses very accurate in their accounts - little change in amount recalled after 5 months
Though some details less accurate e.g. recollection of item colours + age/height/weight estimates - however not significant enough to declare recollection totally inaccurate
Ppts who reported highest levels of stress were the most accurate - 88% accuracy compared to 75% from less stressed group
Suggests anxiety does not have a detrimental effect on accuracy of EWT in real world contexts + may even enhance it
Ppts may have entered fight or flight mode during shooting so paid more attention to surroundings + produced more accurate EWT
Who created the Yerkes Dodson Law?
Yerkes + Dodson (1908) described relationship between emotional arousal + performance looks like an ‘inverted U’
Deffenbacher (1983) reviewed 21 studies of EWT + noted contradictory findings on the effect of anxiety - Yerkes Dodson’s Law (inverted U) used to explain this
How does the Yerkes Dodson’s Law relate to the research findings of anxiety on EWT?
Used to explain contradictory findings on the effects of anxiety (as there is evidence for both positive and negative effects)
Describe Yerkes Dodson’s Law in context to anxiety and EWT
Also known as inverted U theory - states that recall will increase with anxiety, but only to certain extent, pass this point recall falls drastically
When put into graph form looks like an ‘inverted U’
When we witness crime we become emotionally + physiologically aroused so we experience both anxiety + the fight or flight response
Lower levels of anxiety/arousal = produces lower levels of recall accuracy
Memory becomes more accurate as levels of anxiety/arousal increases
However there is an optimal level of anxiety - the point of maximum accuracy (this is around medium levels of anxiety)
If person experiences any more anxiety (e.g. very high levels of anxiety) recall suffers a drastic decline
It is argued that the study supporting the weapon focus explanation (Johnson + Scott) may not have tested anxiety - explain what this means and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the weapon focus theory on EWT
WEAKNESS
Study may lack INTERNAL VALIDITY
Reason ppts may have focused on weapon may be because they we surprised at what they saw rather than scared - study may have investigated unusualness rather than anxiety
Pickel (1998) conducted similar experiment using scissors, handgun, wallet + raw chicken as hand held items in hair dressing salon
In theory, scissors would be a high anxiety, low unusualness weapon
Eyewitness accuracy significantly poorer in high unusualness conditions (chicken + handgun) - scissors did not inhibit recall even though it was a high anxiety weapon
Suggests that weapon focus effect may be due to unusualness rather than anxiety/threat ( as chicken low in threat but still produced poor recall)
Compromises VALIDITY of weapon focus effect - seemingly tells us nothing about effect of anxiety on EWT
There is evidence supporting the view that anxiety has a negative effect on the accuracy of recall - describe this evidence and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STRENGTH
(Can mention Johnson + Scott’s weapon focus experiment)
Valentine + Mesout carried out study in real world setting of a horror labyrinth:
- Used an OBJECTIVE MEASURE (heart rate) to divide ppts into high + low anxiety groups
- ppts asked to describe a person encountered in labyrinth (played by actor)
- Found that high anxiety ppts recalled the fewest correct details and made the most mistakes
- 17% of high anxiety group correctly identified actor in a line-up compared to 75% in low-anxiety group
Suggests that a high level of anxiety does have a negative effect on the accuracy of recall of a stressful event from supporting research
There is evidence supporting the view that anxiety has a positive effect on the accuracy of recall - describe this evidence and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STRENGTH
(Can use Yuille and Cutshall’s study here as well)
Christian + Hubinette (1993) interviewed 58 witnesses to real bank robberies in Sweden
Some witnesses directly involved (bank workers) + some indirectly involved (bystanders)
Researchers assumed those directly involved experienced the highest levels of anxiety
Recall 75% accurate across all witnesses - though the direct victims (and the most anxious) were the most accurate
Findings from real crimes conform anxiety does not reduce accuracy of EWT and may even enhance it - theory has EXTERNAL VALIDITY
The problem with Christian + Hubinette’s (1993) study on the positive effects of anxiety is the lack of CONTROL - elaborate on this point and explain whether this is a strength or weakness of the anxiety theory on EWT
WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to supporting evidence)
Christian + Hubinette interviewed ppts several months after the event (4-5 months)
Therefore researcher had no CONTROL over what happened to their ppts before the interviewing time e.g. there may have been some post-event discussion - factors that wouldn’t have been considered in their findings
Effects of anxiety may have been overwhelmed by these EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES which are impossible to assess by the time ppts. were interviewed
So it is possible that lack of control over CONFOUNDING VARIABLES may be responsible for these findings - INVALIDATES any evidence this study has for this theory
(Note : the same argument can be made for Yuille + Cutshall’s study)
Some psychologists argue that the ‘inverted U theory’ (Yerkes-Dodson’s law) is too simplistic - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the effects on anxiety on EWT
WEAKNESS
Theory ignores the fact that anxiety has many elements - cognitive, behavioural, emotional + physical
Theory only focuses on the last element - physical arousal + assumes that it is the only aspect of anxiety linked to EWT
Therefore Yerkes-Dodson’s Law may be too simplistic - may be other elements of anxiety not accounted for that could influence the accuracy of EWT
What is the cognitive interview? Who created this theory?
Cognitive interview = method of interviewing eyewitnesses to help them retrieve more accurate memories
Created by Fisher + Geiselman (1992) - argued that EWT can be enhanced if the police used better techniques based on psychological insights when interviewing eyewitnesses
What are the 4 techniques used in the cognitive interview?
- Report everything
- Reinstate the context
- Reverse the order
- Change perspective
Describe the ‘report everything’ method used in the cognitive interview
Witnesses encouraged to include every single detail of the event - even if its seems irrelevant or witness doesn’t feel confident
Seemingly trivial details may be important and may trigger other important memories (can act as cues)
Describe the ‘reinstate the context’ method used in the cognitive interview
Witness should return to original crime scene in their mind e.g. imagine the environment and their emotions
link to context-dependant & state-dependant forgetting - remembering the context may re-establish cues which can trigger important memories
Describe the ‘reverse the order’ method used in the cognitive interview
Events should be recalled in different order from original sequence
Prevents people from reporting expectations of how event should happen rather than actual events
Also prevents dishonesty - harder to give untruthful account if they have to reverse it
Describe the ‘change perspective’ method used in the cognitive interview
Witnesses should recall event from other perspectives e.g. the perpetrator or another witness
Disrupts effects of expectations + the effect of a SCHEMA on recall
Schema of particular setting could generate expectations of what would have happened - it is the schema that is recalled instead of actual events - changing perspective prevents this
What is the enhanced cognitive interview (ECI) ? Who created this theory?
Fisher et. al. developed additional element of cognitive interview to focus on social dynamics of interaction
Elements of the ECI:
- Interviewer needs to know when to establish eye contact and when to stop it
- Reducing eye-witness anxiety
- Minimising distractions
- Getting witness to speak slowly
- Asking open-ended questions
There is research support for the effectiveness of the cognitive interview (CI) in a real life setting - describe this research and state whether this is a strength or weakness
STRENGTH
META ANALYSIS by Kohnken (1999) combined data from 55 studies comparing the CI + ECI with the standard police interview
CI gave average of 41% increase of accurate info compared to standard interview
Only 4 studies in analysis showed no difference between the types of interview - correlation unlikely due to chance
Shows that CI is an effective technique in helping witnesses to recall info not immediately accessible
REAL LIFE PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Research has also found that the CI also increases the amount of inaccurate info being recalled - discuss this point and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the CI
WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to supporting research)
Kohnken (1999) also found increase in inaccurate info being recalled in his META ANALYSIS
Particular issue with the ECI - produced more inaccurate details than the CI
Therefore cognitive interviews may sacrifice quality of EWT (i.e. the accuracy) in favour of quantity
Means that police officers should treat eyewitness evidence from CI/ECI with caution - has LIMITED practical real life application
Studies have found that not all elements of the CI are equally effective or useful - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the CI
WEAKNESS
Milne + Bull (2002) - found that each of the 4 techniques used alone produced more info than standard police interview
However - also found that using a combo of ‘report everything’ + ‘reinstate the context’ produced better recall than any other element or combination of them
Confirmed police officer suspicion that some aspects of CI more useful than other
Casts some doubt on the CREDIBILITY of the overall CI - some parts of it seemingly useless
The CI is time consuming for the police force to integrate into their system - elaborate and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the cognitive interview
WEAKNESS
Police officers may be reluctant to use CI because it takes more time + training than normal police interview
More time needed to establish a rapport with witness + allow them to relax
CI also requires special training - many forces do not have resources to provide more than a few hours ( Kebbell + Wagstaff - 1997)
Suggests that complete CI is an unrealistic method for police force to use - might be better to focus on key elements instead of using all 4 techniques
Police forces have taken a ‘pick and mix’ approach when it comes to the CI, creating variations of it - explain further and state whether this is a strength or weakness of the CI
arguably BOTH
WEAKNESS - different variations of the CI means its difficult to compare the effectiveness of the different approaches in research studies
STRENGTH - Being able to create multiple variations of the CI shows how incredibly flexible it is whilst still remaining relatively effective - individuals can develop their own approach based on what’s best for them
