Memory Flashcards

Question

Evaluate Interference as an explanation of forgetting (1+)

Answer 1

+ Lab studies evidence Interfering in memory is one of most consistently demonstrated findings with 1000's of lab studies carried out supporting the findings Most of these studies showed that proactive interference and retroactive interference are common ways we forget info from LTM + lab exps control effects of extraneous influences Gives us confidence that interference is a valid explanation

Answer 2

_ Artificial materials Demotes the credibility of the interference explanation - learning a list of words is far from things people try to remember in everyday life e.g. faces, ingredients Makes interference much more likely in a lab environment but perhaps it is not a likely explanation for forgetting in real life Limited applicability as a valid explanation

Answer 3

+ Evidence of interference explanation’s validity in real life situations Baddeley + Hitch - better field experiment asking rugby players to remember names of teams they played so far in that season, week by week Many players had missed some games - last game they played was 2-3 weeks ago But results showed that accurate recall did not depend on how long ago the matches were, rather the number of games played in between E.g. a players recall of a team played against 3 weeks ago was better if they played no matches since then So interference explanation can apply to at least some everyday situations.

Answer 4

Form of forgetting when we dont have necessary cues to access a memory Memory available but not accessible unless suitable cue provided Encoding specificity principle ESP: Tulving - cues help us recall info but has to be present at encoding + retrieval Context dependant forgetting: when environment during recall different from environment during encoding e.g. divers forgetting word list learnt on land when recalling underwater State dependant forgetting: when physiological state during recall different to state during encoding e.g. drunk person trying to remember address they learnt when sober

Answer 5

Godden + Baddeley (1975) - sea divers learn word list Learn on land + recall on land Learn on land + recall underwater Learn underwater + recall underwater Learn underwater + recall on land Accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditions - external cues available at learning different from ones at recall - retrieval failure

Answer 6

Carter + Cassaday (1998) - gave pps anti-histamine drugs (to treat hay-fever) Drugs made pps slightly drowsy + not fully alert Pps learn list of words + passages of prose Learn on drug + recall on drug Learn on drug + recall not on drug Learn not on drug + recall not on drug Learn not on drug + recall on drug Performance was significantly worse in mismatched conditions - when cues were absent there is more forgetting

Answer 7

_ Questioning context effects Baddeley - not actually that strong in real life as contexts must have huge differences between them before effects are seen Learning in one room + recall in in another unlikely to result in much forgetting as environment not different enough compared to e.g. underwater + land Real life application of retrieval failure due to contextual cues doesn't really explain much forgetting

Answer 8

_ Context effect may be related to kind of memory being tested Godden + Baddeley replicated underwater test with recognition test instead of recall - pps say whether they recognised word read to them from list instead of retrieving it themselves No context dependant effect + performances same in all 4 conditions Suggests presence / absence of cues only affects memory when you test it in certain way

Answer 9

+ Supporting evidence Impressive range of research supports retrieval failure explanation - studies by Godden + Baddeley / Carter + Cassaday just 2 of many Eystnck argues that retrieval failure is main + better reason for forgetting LTM (makes more sense than interference) E.g. Baddeley still suggests that context related cues worth paying attention to as when having trouble remembering something its worth recalling environment in which you learnt it in first place Basic principle of cognitive interview - gets eyewitnesses to recall more info Supporting evidence shows retrieval failure occurs in real life as well as lab exps

Answer 10

Loftus + Palmer asked students in 5 groups to watch car accident film clips Asked questions about it with critical (leading) question: "About how fast were the cars going when they hit / contacted / bumped / collided / smashed each other?" Mean estim speed calculated for each group: contacted - 31.8mph / smashed - 40.5 mph Leading question biased EW's recall of events Response bias explanation - wording of question has no real effect on pps' memories but influences how they decide to answer e.g. smashed encourages higher speed answer Loftus + Palmer 2nd study - supports substitution explanation: wording of question actually changes pps's memory of film clip - pps who originally heard smashed more likely to report broken glass (there was none)

Answer 11

May contaminate EWT's as they combine misinformation from other witnesses with their own memories Gabbert (2003) studied pps in pairs - each ppt watched video of same crime but filmed from different POV's Meant that each could see elements in event that other could not Both pps then discussed what they saw before individually completing recall test 71% of pps mistakenly recalled aspects of events they didnt see in video but picked up in discussion In control group where there was no discussion it was 0% - witnesses go along with each other to win social approval / believe others right / they're wrong - memory conformity

Answer 12

+ Useful real life application Consequences of inaccurate EWT's can be very serious Leading questions can have distorting effects on memory - police must be carful with how they phrase their questions when interviewing Research into EWT is area psychologists think they can make positive difference to real people's lives e.g. improving workings of legal system / appearing in court trials

Answer 13

_ Artificial task Pps watched film clips - different experience from witnessing real car accident as emotions can have influence on memory Using artificial tasks tell us little about how leading questions affect EWT in real cases Loftus may be too pessimistic about accuracy of EWT - may be more reliable than the study suggested

Answer 14

_ Demand characteristics Zargosa + McCloskey (1989) - many answers pps gave in EWT lab studies due to demand characteristics Pps usually dont want to let researcher down + want to appear helpful / attentive Many may have answered based on what they thought the researcher wants Studies may not be very ecologically valid / reflect real life results

Answer 15

Tunnel Theory of Memory - witnesses attention narrows to focus on weapon as it is a source of anxiety Johnson + Scott (1976) Led pps believe they were participating in a lab study While seated in waiting area pps heard an argument in the next room Low anxiety condition: man then walked through waiting area carrying a pen with grease on his hands High anxiety condition: also heard breaking glass sound. Man walks out of room holding paper knife covered in blood Pps picked out man from set of 50 photos - 49% of low anxiety condition pps able to identify him whilst 33% of high anxiety condition pps able to identify him

Answer 16

Fight / flight response is triggered which increases our alertness + improves our memory for the event - become more aware of the cues of the situation Yuille + Cutshall (1986) conducted study of real-life shooting in gun shop in Vancouver, Canada - shop owner shot thief dead 21 witnesses to shooting, 13 agreed to take part Interviews held 4-5 months after incident - compared with original police interview made at time of shooting Accuracy determined by number of details reported in each account EW's also asked how stressed they has felt at time of incident using 7-point scale + asked if they has any emotional problems since event e.g. sleeplessness EW's very accurate in response - little change in accuracy after 5 months apart from details e.g. colour of items + age / height / weight estimates. Pps who reported highest levels of stress were most accurate (81%) compared to 75% for less stressed group

Answer 17

Explaining the contradiction in results: Yerkes-Podson's Inverted U Explanation Specific point - till here anxiety has helped recall but after this point it will worsen it

Answer 18

_ Study may test surprise rather than anxiety Pickel (1998) conducted exp using scissors (low anxiety / low unusualness), handgun, wallet or a raw chicken as hand-held items in a hairdressing salon video EW accuracy was significantly poorer in high anxiety / unusualness conditions (chicken + handgun) Weapon focus effect due to unusualness rather than anxiety / threat tells nothing about how anxiety effects EWT

Answer 19

_ Field studies sometimes lack control Researchers usually interview real life EW's sometime after event - many things will have happened to pps in meantime which researchers have no control over e.g. discussions with others about event / info read on media etc These extraneous variables may be responsible for accuracy of recall So effects of anxiety may be overwhelmed by these other factors + impossible to assess by the time pps are interviewed

Answer 20

_ Ethical issues Creating anxiety in lab studies may cause psychological harm just for research purposes This is why real-life studies are so beneficial - psychologists can interview ppl who have already witnessed event + felt anxiety so no need to create it Issue does not challenge Johnson + Scott study but questions need for this research Then again, comparing findings with less controlled field studies - the benefits may outweigh the issues

Answer 21

_ Too simplistic Anxiety is difficult to define + measure accurately - has many elements to it (cognitive, behavioural, emotional, physical) Inverted U only takes into account physical arousal as the cause for poor performance Not fully comprenhensive

Answer 22

Fisher + Geiselman (1992) - EWT could be improved if police used better interviewing techniques 1) Report everything include every detail in event - even trivial details may be important + can trigger other memories 2) Context reinstatement Trying to mentally recreate the situation + environment e.g. weather / what they could see + emotions at the time 3) Recall in reverse order Events recalled in different chronological order to original sequence Prevents people from reporting their expectations of an event + dishonesty (harder to lie when reversing account) 4) Recall from changed perspective Witnesses recall incident from other people's perspectives e.g. how event may have appeared for other witnesses / perpetrator Disrupts effects of schema + expectations on recall - schema you have for particular setting generates expectations of what would have happened rather than actual event Fisher (1987) - Enhanced Cognitive Interview Added extra elements of CI to focus on social dynamic of interaction e.g. pausing / not interrupting / open-ended questions

Answer 23

+ Milne + Bull (2003) - each technique produced more than the standard interview But using combination of report everything + context reinstatement produced better recall than any other condition Suggests that at least 2 elements should be used to improve police interviewing - increases credibility of CI amongst police officers

Answer 24

_ CI is time consuming More time needed to establish relationship with witnesses + have them relax CI also needs special training - many forces may not be able to provide more than a few hours Unlikely that proper version of CI is actually used - may explain why police have not been that interested with it

Answer 25

_ Not suitable for everyone Geiselman (1999) - CI technique actually reduces recall in children under 6 compared to standard interview. Children 8 + over respond well to it May be due to complexity of instructions e.g. reimagining situations / other witness perspectives CI may be useful / beneficial for some groups but not others