Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology > memory > Flashcards

memory Flashcards

1
Q

What is the background for Loftus and Palmer study?

A

false convictions
Malcolm Alexander - sexual assault, line up
George Allen- confessed, leading questions, schizophrenia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the two types of information that can affect our memory?

A

info gained at the time of the event
info gained after the event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what can effect our memory?

A

leading questions
post discussions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is the aim for LP (1)?

A

-test the hypothesis that language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory
-leading questions can distort eyewitness testimony accounts and have a confabulating effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the method for LP (1)?

A

lab experiments
independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what is the sample for LP (1)?

A

45 students Uni of Washington
opportunity sample
5 conditional groups - 9 in each

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What were the materials used in LP (1)?

A

7 vid clips
Evergreen Safety council of the Seattle Police Department
segments lasted 5-30 seconds
speed 20-40mph

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What were the p’s asked to do after the video LP (1)?

A

write an account and answer a series of questions
all fillers but one

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was the critical question + the verbs LP (1)?

A

about how fast were the cars going when they (contacted, hit, bumped, collided, smashed) into eachother

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What form of data were the results?

A

quantitative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What did the results show about the Ps estimated of speed?

A

poor
estimates of speed not affected by actual speed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What were the results for film 1 LP (1)?

A

actual: 20mph
estimated: 37.7mph

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the estimated speed for the verb smashed? LP (1)

A

40.5

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what was the estimated speed for the verb contacted? LP (1)

A

31.8

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What were the 2 reasons for the estimation varying depending on the verb used? LP (1)

A

response bias (unclear what to estimate so verb gives clue)
memory distortion ( verb user actually alters Ps memory)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what was the aim for LP (2)?

A

-if a leading question leads to reconstructive memory
- see if p’s asked question with verb smashed more likely to remember seeing broken glass one week later than the hit verb

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what was method for lp (2)?

A

lab experiment
independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was the sample for Lp (2)

A

150 students
Washington university
opportunity sampling
3 groups of 50 in each condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What were the three conditions LP (2)

A

smashed
hit
control - no question about speed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what was the apparatus for Lp (2)

A

1 clip of multiple car crash
full duration less than 1 minute crash lasted less than 4 seconds
2 questionnaires

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What did questionnaire 1 consist of? LP (2)

A

immediately after
describe clip in own words
answer questions - critical (estimate speed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What did questionnaire 2 consist of? LP (2)

A

1 week later
10 questions
critical - did you see broken glass yes/no

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

How many from the smashed group thought they did/ didn’t see broken glass? lp (2)

A

16
34

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

How many Ps in hit condition did/ didn’t see broken glass? LP (2)

A

7
43

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
How many in the control group did/ didn’t see broken glass? LP (2)
6 44
26
What was LP conclusion (2)?
reconstructive hypothesis information merges and created one memory
27
Why is generalisability not a strength in LP study?
Ps Washington uni- same age not representative of whole population
28
Why is LP reliable?
standardise procedure lab conditions watched same video completed same questionnaire
29
why is ecological validity a weakness?
lab experiment not a real car crash
30
Why is ethics a weakness in LP
psychological harm- car crash video deception- no aim of study not reminded of right to withdraw
31
Is date a strength or weakness in LP study?
strength- patterns and trends weakness- not valid
32
Why is demand characteristics a strength in LP study?
not aware why they were being observed filler questions less likely to know aim
33
Why is usefulness a strength in LP study?
relate to false convictions legal
34
What is cue dependence ?
when an item to be remembered is stored other pieces of info present at the time are stored with it and can act as cues to aid recall
35
What is the background for Grant et al study?
Godden Baddeley deep sea divers memorise list of 36 unrelated words under water or on land
36
What is the difference between recall and recognition?
recall lacks a cue recognition uses a cue
37
What are the explanations for the conclusion of the backgrounds findings for Grant et al study?
recognition tasks act as prompts- added effect of the context is minimal recall tasks using meaningful items outshine context effects
38
What are meaningful items?
understandable information that an individual can relate to
39
What does Grant say is an important factor for memory?
noise where they study home, classroom, common room study with music on
40
What is the aim for Grant et al study?
to test for context dependency effects caused by the presence/ absence of noise during learning and retrieval of meaningful material
41
What were the participants used in Grant et al study?
39 participants ages 17-59 mean 23.4 17 female 23 males
42
How were the participants gained in Grants study?
opportunity 8 psychology students found 5 acquaintances
43
What was the design for grants study?
experimental design independent measures
44
What were the IV in Grants study?
- read 2 page article in silent or noisy conditions - tested under match or mismatch conditions
45
What was the DV for Grants study?
Ps performance on short answer recall test and multiple choice recall test
46
What was the noise condition in Grant et al study?
tape made in canteen at lunch hum of conversation occasional words/ phrases sound of chairs and dishes played moderately loud through headphones all ps wore them
47
What were Ps made to remember in Grants study?
2 page article on psychoimmunology interesting and understandable but unfamiliar
48
What test was used first and why?
short answer ensures material is recalled from article and not info from mcq
49
What did the mcq measure?
retrieval
50
what did the saq measure?
recall
51
What were the results for Grant et al study?
retrieval better in matched conditions silent and silent noise doesnt effect results
52
What was the mean in the matched silent conditions? mcq
14.3
53
what was the mean in the unmatched silent noisy condition? mcq
12.7
54
is generalisability a strength or weakness for Grants study?
weakness small sample 39
55
Is reliability a strength of weakness in Grants study?
strength standardised procedure
56
Is ecologically validity a strength or weakness in Grant study?
weakness lab experiments
57
Is ethics a strength or weakness for Grants study?
strength opportunity sampling
58
Is data a strength of weakness in Grants study?
strength quantitative data
59
how was Grants sample collected?
snowball 8 students recruited 5 acquaintances
60
in the 7 videos what were the four known speeds? LP1
20 30 40 40
61
in the 7 videos what were the four known speeds? LP1
20 30 40 40
62
how many more saw glass in smashed?
more than 2x saw glass in smashed compared to other conditions
63
how long was the break between the conditions and the tests in Grants study?
2 mins
64
how many questions were in each test? Grant
SAQ- 10 MCQ- 16

Psychology (21 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions