Memory Evaluation Flashcards
Evaluation of coding
Strength- identifies clear difference between 2 memory stores STM accoustic and LTM semantic lasted important step in memory models
Limitation- artificial stimuli may not tell us about coding in every day life - limited
Evaluation of capacity
Strength- Jacob’s study has been replicated and confirmed by better controlled studies - valid
Limitation - miller overestimated STM capacity - Cowan 4+/- 1 lower end is more accurate
Evaluation of duration
Limitation - artificial stimulus recalling consonant syllables doesn’t reflect every day memory lack external validity
Strength- bahrick had high external validity - meaningful memories faces and names - more real estimate of duration Ltm
Evaluation of multi-store memory
Strength- support from studies baddeley mix up acoustically similar when using stm and capacity studies
Limitation- more than one stm store KF stm poor read to him normal when read himself
Limitation- prolonged reversal not required elaborative rehearsal link knowledge w pre existing knowledge
Evaluation of types of long term memory
Strength- Clive wearing and HM episodic memory impaired but semantic and procedural remained same
Limitation- conflicting research on areas of brain - semantic memory on left side of prefrontal cortex other believe encoding and retrieval of episodic memory occur at prefrontal cortex
Evaluation of working memory model
Strength- KF case study phonological loop damaged but Visuospatial sketch pad intact
Strength- dual task performance tasks using visual same time performance dropped when different performance normal
Limitation- central executive lacks clarity- needs to be more clearly defined that separating attention challenges integrity of WMM
Evaluation of interference
Strength- rugby players recall names of teams players who played most games poorest recall most interference
Limitation- interference is only temporary and overcome by cues recall lists poor when given name of categories recall rose to 70%
Limitation- interference is unusual conditions are rare may happen occasionally better explained by other reasons
Evaluation of retrieval failure
Strength- cues work in everyday situations - when returning to room in which learned it first recall it better
Strength- impressive range of research - Godden and Baddeley & Carter and cassaday Eysenk argue it is the main reason for forgetting
Limitation- type of memory being tested in context dependent- godden and Baddeley replicate study recog - no effect all conditions same
Evaluation of misleading information
Strength- uses in justice system. When questioning need to be very careful how they phrase questions- improve legal system and stop innocent people
Limitation- Sutherland and Jayne show video clip only peripheral details changed central details survived
Limitation- demand characteristics lab studies participants don’t want to let the researcher down
Evaluation of anxiety
Limitation - -ve effect study may not have tested anxiety - surprised rather than scared. Study Pickel using scissors gun wallet and chicken in vid - poorer more unusual
Strength- supporting evidence heart rate measure anxiety split groups - low groups recall better in London dungeons
Strength - +ve effect evidence - bank robberies directly involved more anxious recall was more accurate
Evaluation of Cognitive Interview
Strength - it works meta analysis using CI and regular interview 41% increase in accuracy only 4 no increase - effective technique
Limitation- not all elements equally useful report everything and reinstate produced better recall - doubts credibility
Limitation - very time copious expensive training not realistic may be better to focus on few aspects only
