week 11

Question 1

Infantile amnesia

Answer 1

First 3 years of life important for development of concepts (semantic memory) and language.

Older children and adults recall very few autobiographical memories from these early years.

Even when we feel sure we can remember events from these years, they often turn out to have happened to somebody else (e.g. a younger sibling) (Bjorklund & Bjorklund, 1992).

But children of 1-3 show emerging ability to recall temporally ordered information (Bauer et al., 2000).

Question 2

How to explaininfantile amnesia?

Answer 2

Freud  repression of emotionally traumatic events of early childhood.

Need language to form autobiographical memories?

Offset of infantile amnesia corresponds with period of rapid language acquisition.

Memories more accessible when encoded verbally (Hayne, 2004)

Question 3

Early memories coded entirely in terms of physical action and sensation  i.e. different storage format.
Simcock & Hayne (2002): Magic Shrinking Machine experiment.
27, 33, 39 month-olds
Memory for machine tested after 6 & 12 months.

Answer 3

Children showed good memory when tested non-verbally (e.g. with pictures)

Could only describe it using words they had at T1 (could not use new words they had acquired).

Knew how machine worked when presented

Inability to translate early, preverbal experiences into language?

Question 4

How to explaininfantile amnesia?

Answer 4

Cognitive sense of self emerges around 2 years old  necessary for retrieval of autobiographical memories?
Self as information organiser

Infantile amnesia due to lack of knowledge about the world.
Young children focus on what is similar about actions/events (form mental schema/ scripts).
These scripts are not good retrieval cues for novel events.
Memories at this age are fragmented  no overarching framework

Question 5

Developmental Limitations in Information Processing

Answer 5

Brainerd (1983)
Encoding limitations

Computational limitations

Retrieval limitations

Storage limitations

Work-space limitations

Question 6

Attention

Answer 6

State of alertness, aspect of environment focused on (Kahneman, 1973)

For information to be processed it must be attended to

Ruff & Lawson (1990)
1- to 3-year-olds
Increase in attention paid to stimuli as age increases

Question 7

Children’s Attention
(Vurpillot, 1968)

Answer 7

< 5 years – only examined a few windows, few comparisons, lots of errors.

6+ years – more likely to examine pairs

6 to 9 years – strategy develops to compare all windows

Question 8

Encoding Strategies: Rehearsal

Answer 8

Repeating information

Flavell et al. (1966)
5-, 7- and 10-year-olds
Seven pictures
Lip reading measured
15 second delay – recall
>50% of 7-year-olds and majority of 10-year-olds rehearsed pictures
More rehearsal  greater number of pictures recalled

LIMITATION

Self-report of strategy increases number of children 39-74% (McGilly & Siegler, 1990)
But rehearsal in children not always effective (Ornstein et al., 1975)

Question 9

Encoding Strategies: Organisation

Answer 9

Linking information together can aid encoding
Moely et al. (1969)
Children provided with pictures – mixture of animals and furniture asked to memorise
>10-year-olds re-arranged pictures

Question 10

Encoding Strategies: Elaboration

Answer 10

Foley et al. (1993)
6- and 9-year-olds
More unusual an association, more likely it will be to aid memory

Static to active elaborations (Buckhalt et al., 1976)
‘Black ant crawled over comb’ vs ‘black ant used a comb to fix his hair’

Question 11

Memory Development: Retrieval

Answer 11

Similar to encoding processes in development – gradual

Recall and recognition

Evidence for recognition in very young infants?
Familiarisation/novelty-preference technique in infants

Question 12

Memory Development: Retrieval part 2

Answer 12

Memory Development: Retrieval
Kreutzer et al. (1975)
5- and 10-year olds told a story
Age of dog, other presents received that same year, working back from most recent Christmas present to others

< 50% 5-year olds able to generate a strategy

All of 10-year-olds able to

Kobasigawa (1974)
6, 8 & 11 year olds
Memorised 24 pictures in 8 categories (cue cards)
At recall – shown cue cards

Only 1/3 6 year olds used cue cards
8 year olds used cards but only recalled one item per card then moved on
11 year olds recalled all for each card then moved on
Best strategy.

Question 13

How do memory strategies develop?

Answer 13

Gradual progression

Children can be taught more effective strategies, but poor at generalising
E.g. 6 year olds taught to use rehearsal (Keeney et al., 1967)

Taught strategy may use up child’s limited processing capacity
E.g. use strategy but recall didn’t improve (Bjorklund & Harnishfeger, 1987)

With development processing capacity improves, but also knowledge
E.g. Elaboration requires knowledge of world.

Question 14

Metacognition

Answer 14

“a person’s awareness of his or her own cognitive abilities and limitations” (Smith et al., 2003, p.437)
Adults aware that memory is limited
Older children greater awareness of own abilities
Card memory task (Flavell et al., 1970)

Question 15

Source Memory

Answer 15

Memory for information about how a memory is acquired (Schacter et al., 1991)
Perceptual info e.g. colour of objects seen
Temporal info, e.g., order events occurred
Emotional info, e.g., how you felt during event
Processes surrounding source memory is called source monitoring.
Depends on how well information is encoded and bound together.
Direction of attention (towards self or towards other) affects source monitoring and recognition memory. (Johnson et al., 1996)

Question 16

Kovacs & Newcombe (2006)

Answer 16

Four- and five-year-olds listen to speakers on audiotape.
“I hate snakes” “I really like going to the library”
Either had to say if they felt the same way – self-focus or say how the speaker feels – other focus.
e.g., “Do you feel the same way as my friend?” or“How does my friend feel about that?”

Then heard various statements—both old and new.
Saywhether they had heard the statements before.
If yes, asked to indicate who made the statements.
Self-focus – better recognition memory, but worse sourceaccuracy.
Other focus- better source accuracy, but worse recognitionmemory.
Effect most apparent for 5-year-olds.
4-year-olds struggled withdemands ontask.
So, focusing on your own emotions helps youremember,
Butfocusing on the speaker’s emotions helps you remember who said it.

Question 17

Profile of children with WM deficits

Answer 17

Constant profile (Gathercole, 2008)
Slow to learn in maths/reading (Gathercole & Pickering 2000; Jarvis & Gathercole, 2003)
Struggle with structured tasks (e.g. Gathercole, Durling et al. 2008).
Problems with activities that require both storage and processing (Gathercole, 2008).
Rarely identified as having memory problems (Gathercole et al., 2006); more often described by teachers as having attention problems.
Appear to be inattentive, have short attention span and be easily distracted.

Question 18

Identification of WM deficits

Answer 18

Forward digit span/Backward digit span

Corsi Blocks tests

Working Memory Test Battery for Children (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001)

Automated Working Memory Assessment (AWMA; Alloway, 2007)

Classroom observations (WMRS: Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood, 2008)

Question 19

Working Memory Training? Holmes et al. (2009)

Answer 19

Learning in children with low WM capacity is hindered by frequent WM overload in learning activities (Gathercole & Alloway, 2008)
80% children below 10th centile for WM have substantial reading or maths problems, or both.
WM highly heritable, appear to be unchanged by environmental factors.

Claims of sustained improvements using Robomemo in kids with ADHD (Klingberg et al., 2005) and adult neuropsychological patients following stroke (Westerberg et al., (2007)

Therefore can Robomemo help support primary schoolchildren with WM problems?

Question 20

Evaluating WM TrainingHolmes et al. (2009)

Answer 20

Pre- and Post- training assessments: Working memory (7 subtests from AWMA); General ability From Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence (verbal and performance IQ; basic reading; mathematical reasoning)

Intensive training:
35 minutes a day;
at least 20 days;
in a period of between 5 to 7 weeks.

Motivational features: positive verbal feedback; display of the user’s best scores; the accumulation of ‘energy’ based in performance levels that was spent on a racing game completed after training each day.

Two groups: Adaptive versus non-adaptive version. Non-adaptive, tasks set to lowest level – two (all pre-training levels of these kids were above two).

Question 21

Holmes et al. (2009)

Answer 21

Three criteria set out in advance:
Benefits extend to the many kids with low WM;
The gains generalise to a wide range of non-trained assessments (including classroom relevant tasks);
Leads to detectable gains in academic achievement.

Gains generalised to independent and validated WM assessments that were not trained
Biggest gains for tests involving either the storage of visuo-spatial material, or the simultaneous storage and manipulation of either visuo-spatial or verbal material.

A small, significant boost to mathematics performance was found 6 months following adaptive training, but not other areas of academic attainment.

Question 22

Evaluating WM TrainingDunning et al. (2013)

Answer 22

Randomised control trial (RCT)  7-year-old children randomly assigned to adaptive training, non-adaptive training, or no training conditions.
Adaptive training associated with gains in selected working memory tasks (especially verbal tasks).
Gains sustained after 1 year.
No evidence of gains in classroom tasks involving high working memory loads or in any other cognitive assessment.
Concluded benefits of working memory training may not extend beyond specific working memory tasks.

Question 23

Historical View

Answer 23

Eyewitness accounts from Children at Salem witch trials

The “most dangerous of all witnesses” and “their testimony should be excluded from court record wherever possible” (Baginsky, cited by Whipple, 1911, p.308)

Early influence of Freud, false recall of abuse as adults (Powell, 1994)

Children thought to be highly suggestible

Question 24

Children’s Suggestibility

Answer 24

Suggestibility = tendency to change memory or beliefs in response to questioning (Ceci & Bruck, 1995)

Question 25

Julian Varendonck (1911)

Answer 25

Working on a murder case in Belgium – evaluate evidence form two girls aged 8 and 10.
Initially claimed no knowledge
Under highly suggestive questioning they eventually gave a description of the murderer matched one of their fathers.

Devised simple experiments using the same style of suggestive questioning.
What colour is the (known) teacher’s beard?”
7-year-oldsMajority stated black, 2did notanswer.
8-year-olds19/20 stated acolour
Reality - He has no beard.

Man spoke with class for 5 minutes whilst wearing a hat
Asked which hand he held his hat in (hedidn’t)
17 – right, 7 – left, only 3 said hedidn’thold it.

“When are we going to give up, in all civilised countries, listening tochildren in courts of law?” (1911, p.136)

Fordecadesthis study convinced everyone that children’s testimonywas notreliable.
The simple design of the studies and the fact it fitted with the idea ofchildren being not capable.

Question 26

Children as Witnesses

Answer 26

young children are often central figures in court actions” (Ornstein et al., 1992, p.49)
1980s allegations of child abuse flooded the courts (Poole & Lamb, 1998) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (Home Office, 1999) in section 53 states that:
“at every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence” as long as a person is able to understand questions put to him as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood”.
No lower limit, Judge decides based on honesty, memory, suggestibility, communication

Question 27

Children’s Memory

Answer 27

Selective encoding
Encode less details than adults and different details
Variations in memory strength
Stronger memories easier to retrieve, children’s memories may have weaker traces
Memory distortions
Post-event information blended with original memory
Retrieval difficulties
Children may require external support to access memories

Question 28

Children’s Abilities

Answer 28

Marin et al. (1979)
6-, 9-, 13-year olds and adults
Witnessed staged argument between two people
Unexpected free recall test “what can you remember?”
20 objective questions, e.g. “Did the man have a beard?”
Photo identification (from set of 6)

Age effects noted in free recall but not in objective questions or photo identification
Age-related change in number of items recalled
6 year olds 1-2 items, adults 7-8.

Youngest children offered little information in free recall, but what they did remember tended to be accurate
Adults said more but more errors

No difference in ID task

Children as good as adults if questions non-biased.

Question 29

Children’s Suggestibility

Answer 29

Research suggests younger children more suggestible.

Findings mainly from lab studies – children interviewed once.
Does not relate to real-world scenarios – repeated questioning over time.

Question 30

Children’s Suggestibility Leictman & Ceci (1995)

Answer 30

3- to 6-year olds
Target event – ‘Sam Stone’ visiting class
2 minute visit during story time.
Sam said hello to teacher, commented briefly on story.
Walked around classroom once.
Left waving goodbye.
New interviewer
Asked what happened when Sam visited.
Asked if they ‘heard something’ about the book.
Asked whether they saw Sam rip the book.
If yes, ‘you didn’t really see him do this, did you?’
Conclusions
Children can be suggestible
Acknowledge ‘fake event’
Acknowledge they saw ‘fake event’
Even when probed maintain answer

Younger children more suggestible than older

Pre and post event information can harm recall
When combined impact on recall greatest
Some children elaborated in great detail
Makes events sound more feasible.

Videos of children’s accounts of Sam’s visit shown to adults.
One accurate
One very elaborate story
One said he ripped book and made teddy dirty

Accurate recall rated least credible

Question 31

Nonsensical Questions (e.g. Waterman et al., 2001)

Answer 31

Implications for testimony: Closed yes/no questions are particularly problematic for young children. They may attempt to answer a question they do not understand. Safer to use open-ended questions.

Question 32

Explanations for Suggestibility 1

Answer 32

Encode less information about events, meaning ‘gaps’ are filled in with suggestive questioning (Miller & Seier, 1994) .
Or information only weakly encoded.

Source monitoring difficulties (Roberts, 2000).
Did info come from event or question after event? E.g. did he have a red shirt? Remember shirt as red at later questioning.

Question 33

Explanations for Suggestibility 2

Answer 33

Authority of interviewer
Tempted to guess if limited range of answers, i.e. yes/no, see research on nonsensical questions as well

Repetition
If a child is asked same question again may assume it is because their first answer was incorrect – change response (Moston, 1987; Fivush et al., 2002)

Desire to please

Question 34

Explanations for Suggestibility 3 (see Klemfuss & Olaguez, 2020)

Answer 34

Individual differences are evident
Demographic variables
Gender (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005), culture (Melinder et al., 2005)
Cognitive variables
Intelligence (Bettenay et al. 2015), autobiographical narrative skills (Kulkofsky & Klemfuss, 2008) ToM (Bright-Paul et al., 2008), EF (Caprin et al, 2016)
Emotional
Anxiety (Almerigogna et al., 2007), mental health (Eisen et al., 2007), adverse experiences/maltreatment ( Curci et al., 2017)

Question 35

Interviewing Techniques: Step-Wise

Answer 35

Step-wise technique (ABE, 2022)
Funnel approach
Informal setting
Rapport building (+ telling children okay to say I don’t know, check truth v lies)
Free recall phase
Questioning phase
General (wh questions) to specific, no forced choice
Do not repeat
Closure

Question 36

Interviewing Techniques: Cognitive Interview

Answer 36

Cognitive interview (CI) (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992)
Memory retrieval superior when overlap between encoding and retrieval environments (Tulving & Thomson, 1973)
Rapport building
Free recall (memory-jogging methods)
Context reinstatement
Report all
Change order
Change perspective
Questioning Phase
Closure

Question 37

Step-Wise v Cognitive Interview

Answer 37

Mixed results
CI > correct recall than step-wise (Holliday, 2003)
Some reported > error recall with CI (Memon et al., 1997)
CI > person/action details than step-wise (Memon et al., 1997)
General consensus adapted CI superior in respect of enhancing correct recall
Context reinstatement most useful for young children (Memon & Bull, 1991)
Young children may find changing order and perspective cognitively challenging (Holliday, 2003)