Week 3 Flashcards
Herman Ebbinghaus (1885)
Trying to eliminate existing information and somehow contaminating estimates of learning
Wanted to make sure that CVCS did not have inherent learning
All of the info is available in stimuli; bottom up processing as he is starting from what hes got, episodic too.
(sir) Frederick Bartlett (1932)
While most of cognitive psyc was not focused on cognition, he was still interested in memory
Felt that everyday experience was important
Put people in contexts similar to real life events
Often gave people material that consisted of stories, passages and remember them for later report
Wanted this to be in context of everyday encounters
Contributing factors in learning environments
Looking at things and to train people to do certain tasks
Top-down: Semantic
Bartlett’s (1932) Methods
Repeated Reproduction: Give person a story to remember, test them on it, then again, maybe even third
Same person was tested on multiple occasions
Serial Reproduction: Essentially the human telephone game
1 person is given info and they must relay this to next person
E.g., war of ghosts, persons recall changed a lot
Repeated Recall
Dominant Detail: anchor point
Omissions: details, mood
Transformed order: change sequence (esp. in descriptions)
Transformed details: instantiation, > familiarity
Rationalization: increase “sense”
Jist of the story seems to be maintained -> anchor -> recall is to this jist
Information was lost overtime, specific details and the mood (idea of anxiety and fear)
Things appeared out of sequence
Idea that what you are trying to do have the story that you are recalling make sense to how you think it should be organized
This makes it mixed up
Fish attack -> remembered it as shark attack
So if theres something vague, they will remember something more specific
Sometimes convert things that are more familiar to them
E.g., story talked about canoes, in the recall, he said boats
John Branford & Jeffery Franks
revived Bartlett’s approach
* focused on how we comprehend on-line and how that affects remembering
* abstracting and integrating meaning
Really dove into this into more detail
Interested in how peoples ability to comprehend the passage is going to effect memory
Found that people who were given title and picture were able to remember far more details than people who werent given title
Suggested that knowing the title helps comprehend and organize this info making it easier to retrieve
Argued that in addition to this, figuring out how things go together
Putting things together to make sense and inferences
Materials
The rock hit the hut.
The tiny hut was by the river.
The rock hit the tiny hut by the river.
The rock rolled down the mountain and hit the tiny hut by the river.
Bunch of sentences that contained ideas
Presented them to individuals
Asked to recognize and addition, provide a confidence rating
Found that people could not tell the new from old sentences
Confidence at making decision increased, with the number of ideas presented
Performance was the same
Argued that when people are presented with sentences, they are not storing them on their own, but storing them together
Accumulating a integration of all these concepts together
Familiarity increases chance of saying yes, hence why you start to false alarm
Since they match, confidence in the judgement is high
Lecture Results
study sentences from 1-3 “ideas”
* test sentences: studied from 1-4 “ideas” (correct) plus unstudied (incorrect)
* recognition + confidence rating
* results:
– could not tell new from old sentences
– confidence increased with the number of ideas in a sentence, independent of whether the sentence was new or old
Drawing Inferences
- Bransford, Barclay and Franks (1972)
- two kinds of study sentences:
– Three turtles sat beside a floating log and a fish swam beneath it
– Three turtles sat on a floating log and a fish swam beneath it - test sentence:
– The fish swam under the turtles
Two types of sentences were given to people
Then given another sentence, asked if that was the sentence that they saw before
People false alarmed yes, if they got the sentence “the turtles sat down on the log”
You had make the inference; did it automatically
Pragnanit inferences
What you are remembering is the jist, not the exact wordings
Making inferences how these things should be related
Bransford et al. (1972) show much more likely to respond YES to the “on” sentence than to the “beside” sentence
* inferences are normally being computed
Schema & Scripts
Schema(ta): a stored framework or body of knowledge about some topic
e.g., Knowing what a car is, how a story should be organized etc
Script(s): the sequence of actions that typically occur during a particular experience
e.g., Things that we encounter regularly; Script for restaurant, going to dentist
Schank & Abelson (1977)
Scripts consist of 3 different things
Header = title, allows you to retrive the script
Frames = slots, contain details about actions that would be carried out and in what sequence
Default value = typical action that occupies those frames
Assume that people have the scripts similar to you
E.g., friend asking about restaurant, you don’t specify every action
You tell people the things that go beyond the script, e.g., waitress spilling water
Evidence For Schema
Smith & Graesser (1981) – passages about scripted activity
– when corrected for guesses based on reconstructed script knowledge memory was better for atypical events
– schema-copy-plus-tag hypothesis – generic script plus atypical details
* Nakamura, Graesser, Zimmerman & Riha (1985) – natural setting
* incidental and intentional memory behave the same
Gave participants a bunch of passages
Tested them and people remembered the scripted details better than unscripted things
People provided these details not because they remembered, they were using their scripts
Peoples’s memory for atypical events was better
Other colleagues:
Experiment done in classroom
Prof gave lecture and did atypical things
After lecture, asked people to remember everything that happened
People reported typical events more
But when guessing, atypical was recalled more
Eyewitness Testimony
Testimony by an eyewitness to a crime about what he or she saw during the crime
One of the most convincing types of evidence to a jury
– Assume that people see and remember accurately
But, like other memory, eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate
– Mistaken identity
– Constructive nature of memory
People assume if person says who did it, that their memory must be good
Aware of everything that goes around near us
We encoded it and can remember it at some later point
Survey: ask people about memory if it operates like video tape, people said yes
Mistaken identity causes dire concequecnes
Memory is just not recall of previous incidents, rather it is contructive as we are trying to recreate a memory of that situation using information such as previous knowledge
Attention and Memory
integration due to contiguity – Don Thomson story
* weapon focus (Johnson & Scott, 1976)
Weapon focus
E.g., being mugged and looking at victim statement, people remember weapon more than person
Arousal narrows attention to an extent to that people focus on certain things
arousal narrows attention, sometimes too much
Don Thomson studied a lot of eye witness memory issues
Asked to be on live TV show
A woman was in her home watching the show and someone broke into her house
Gave police description of person
Don Thomson was arrested by police while walking
Woman said it was Don
Was on TV and police chief deemed it impossible for it to be him
Person looked nothing like Don
While being assaulted, he was on the screen and didn’t want to think about what was happening to her so she was paying attention to TV
Arsitole said ideas are similar and continuous with eachother
E.g., light turning on with switch
So she associated don with the assault
Stanny & Johnson (2000)
People recalled gun (shoot or no shoot) was recalled more than perpatrator
Samething with victim
Ross et al., (1994)
People watched movies
2 groups: male teacher movie, female teacher movie
Both groups viewed the teacher being robbed
Asked to choose perpetrator
When robber was in spread: likelihood of male teacher goes down (20%)
When robber was not: 60% chose male teacher
Being associated with male teacher with robbery got assocaited and people falsely accused him of being robber
Female was 20% with no robber and 10% with robber
Twice as likely to pick out the innocent person if the robber was not in the photo spread, when the robber was scene then the increase decreased
Idea that simply near will be be associated with situation
When people are given a lineup, they are looking for suspect so they are going to choose someone
