Memory 🧠 Flashcards
coding, capacity and duration
coding LTM & STM - Baddeley acoustically/ semantically similar/ dissimilar. STM did worse acoustically, LTM did worse semantically, semantic confusion
capacity STM - Jacobs digit span technique, capacity for STM is 7+/-2.
duration STM - Peterson and Peterson, trigrams counting back in 3’s from a progressively larger number, duration for STM is up to 30s.
duration LTM - Bahrick’s study into recall. photo recognition for 15 years = 90%, 48 years = 70%. Free recall after 15 years = 60%, 48 years = 30%.
evaluations of coding, capacity and duration
coding: strength - identified clear difference in stores
weakness - artificial stimuli
capacity: strength - replicated lots
weakness - Cowan found that capacity was 4 +/- 1
duration: strength - high external validity in LTM study
weakness - artificial material in STM
multistore memory model
made by Atkinson and Shiffrin, Glanzer and Cunitz serial position effect.
maintenance rehearsal
retrieval
environmental stimuli - sensory register - STM - LTM
elaborative rehearsal
information retrieval
evaluations of multi-store memory model
strength - Baddeley found acoustical similar words are harder to recall immediately, semantically harder after 20 mins, they’re separate stores
strength - HM personality remained intact after procedure but couldn’t form new LTMs, could remember previous LTMs, unable to transfer between stores.
weakness - STM and LTM aren’t singular stores, KF had difficulty verbally, fine visually, must be at least 2 STM stores.
LTM stores
semantic - facts/knowledge
procedural - skills
episodic - events
evaluations of LTM stores
strength - neurological evidence, brain scans. Tulving et al asked participants to perform tasks whilst scanning their brains, different stores are in different places.
strength - Clive Wearing could remember skills/ piano, meaning his procedural was in tact but couldn’t remember events like when he learned it, meaning his episodic was damaged.
weakness - uncontrolled variables, no prior knowledge of previous memories to compare.
working memory model
working memory model made by baddeley and hitch. consists of: central executive, episodic buffer, LTM, phonological loop, articulatory control system, phonological store, visuo-spacial sketchpad, inner scribe and visual cache
evaluations of working memory model
strength - KF supports, poor auditory STM, but good visual.
strength - Baddeley dual task performance studies, from same slave system, performance was worse.
weakness - EVR, good with reasoning, bad with decision making, central executive is overly simplified.
interference
proactive interference = when old memories block new memories.
retroactive interference = when new memories block old memories.
McGeoch and McDonald gave participants 10 words to remember, given second list of wither synonyms, antonyms, syllables, unrelated words, 3 digit numbers or no new list.
most similar words produced worst recall.
evaluations of interference
strength - Baddeley and Hitch, rugby players
weakness - limited explanation for real world
weakness - based on lab studies, artificial stimuli
retrieval failure
Tulving encoding specificity principle, cue has to present at both encoding and retrieval. Context and state dependent forgetting.
context - Godden Baddeley deep sea divers, 40% lower recall in non-matching conditions.
state - Carter and Cassaday recall in different states, antihistamines, lower recall in non-matching conditions.
evaluations of retrieval failure
strength - Darley repeated with cannabis, had to hide money in different states, worse recall in non-matching.
weakness - Baddeley argued that contexts have to be very different to have an effect.
weakness - only applies to recalling memory, Godden and Baddeley repeated with recognition and it had different results.
misleading information (EWT) - leading questions
Loftus and Palmer, 45 participants watched a video of a car accident and were asked a question afterwards of how fast the cars were going when they hit, collided, contacted, bumped or smashed. mean speed estimate for smashed was 40.5, contacted was 31.8.
response bias explanation = no real effect on memory
substitution explanation = affects memory
misleading information(EWT) - post-event discussion
Gabbert et al, participants in pairs watched a video of the same crime but from different angles and were able to discuss the video with each other afterwards. 71% recalled something the did not see.
memory contamination = eye witness testimony becomes altered
memory conformity = NSI or ISI
evaluations of misleading information
strength - real world application, police changed from standard interview to cognitive interview
weakness - lab experiments lack external validity
weakness - Zaragoza and McCloskey argue demanding characteristics were at play to seem helpful.
anxiety(EWT)
negative effect (weapon focus) - Johnson and Scott, participants in waiting room, first group hard a discussion and saw a man walk out with greasy hands and a pen. Second group heard a fight and saw a man walk out with bloody hands and a knife. When asked to identify the man, high anxiety recall was 33%, low anxiety recall was 49%. Tunnel theory.
positive effect - Yuille and Cutshall, real life shooting asked 13/21 witnesses to robberies to take part in study. interviewed them 5 months after first police interview and asked them how anxious they were. those who reported higher anxiety were more accurate at 88% compare to 75%.
evaluations to anxiety(EWT)
strength - Christianson and Hubienette interviewed 58 witnesses to crimes, some directly involved, some not. Those directly involved were more accurate.
weakness - methodological issues, natural/field experiments have limited control of misleading information
weakness - Pickels study on weapon focus, scissors, gun, wallet and chicken. Better recall with gun and chicken due to unusualness not necessarily anxiety.
cognitive interview
fisher and Geiselman:
-report everything
-reinstate context
-reverse order
- change the perspective
Fisher et al (enhanced):
- eye contact
- reduce anxiety
- reduce distractions
- witness speak slowly
- open ended questions
evaluations to cognitive interview
strength - Kohnken et al, meta analysis of 55 studies on the enhanced cognitive interview compared to standard interview, ECI proved more accurate.
weakness - Kohnken et al found that although there was a 81% increase of correct information, there was also a 61% increase of incorrect information.
weakness - Kebbell and Wagstaff say its too time consuming and takes special training, not all information is necessary.
