memory

Question 1

Baddeley 1966

Answer 1

research on coding, gave different lists of words to 4 groups.
group 1- acoustically similar, cat cab
group 2- acoustically dissimilar, pit few
group 3- semantically similar, large big
group 4- semantically dissimlar, big hot
asked to recall in correct order, STM worse acoustically, LTM worse semantically.
STM acoustically. LTM semantically

Question 2

Miller 1956

Answer 2

observations of everyday practice, everthing comes in sevens, concluded STM is 7+/-2, recall 5 words and letters the same, done by chunking.

Question 2

Jacobs 1887

Answer 2

research on capacity, digit span, he read out 4 digits, ppts recall in correct order, then 5 digits and so on, mean span digit 9.3, letters 7.3.

Question 3

Peterson and Peterson 1959

Answer 3

tested 24 ppts in 8 trials, each ppt given consonant syllable (BHL), given 3 digit number, counted backwards from this prevented rehersal of syllable, told to stop 3,6,9,12,15,18 seconds (retention interval), 3s average recall 80%, 18seconds 3%. STM duration 18s.

Question 4

Bahrick 1975

Answer 4

392 american ppt 17-74, high school yearbooks, recall tested in various ways. 1- photo-recognition test 50 photos ppts yearbooks.
2- free recall tests where ppts recalled name of graduating class.
ppts 15 years of graduation, 90% accurate in 1.
after 48 years declined to 70%, free recall less accurate only 30%.
LMT lasts forever.

Question 5

Cowan 2001

Answer 5

reviewed other research, capacity of STM only 4+/-1 chunks, limits Miller, accurate in 5 chunks.

Question 6

Shepard 1967

Answer 6

studies on LTM conducted with meaningless pictures, recall rates were lower. Supports Bahrich, reflects realistic estimate.

Question 7

Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968

Answer 7

multi store model of memory

Question 8

shallice and warrington 1970

Answer 8

KF case study, motorcycle accident led to clinical memory disorder (amnesia), STM for digits poor when read to him (acoustic), better when he read him to himself (visual). STM store for non-verbal sounds. Limitation for MSM, wrong in claiming just one STM store processing different types of info

supports WMM seperate visual and acoustic memory stores

Question 9

Craik and Michael 1973

Answer 9

type of rehearsal more inportant than amount, elaborative rehearsal needed for LTM storage, link the info to existing info. transferred to LTM without prolonged rehearsal. MSM doesnt fully explain how LTM storage is achieved.

Question 10

Tulving 1985

Answer 10

cognitive psychologist, realised MSM view of LTM too simplistic, proposed 3 LTM stores, episodic, semantic and procedural.

Question 11

HM

Answer 11

episodic memory impaired due to brain damage, semantic memory unaffected, still understoon meaning of words, procedural still intact. supports tulving

Question 12

Clive Wearing

Answer 12

episodic memory impaired from viral infection in brain, damaged hippocampus. musician, can still play piano but cant remember music education. knows he has children but not their names, recognises wife. supports tulving

Question 13

Buckner and Petersen 1996

Answer 13

reviewed evidence regarding location of semantic and episodic memory, concluded semantic memory left side prefrontal cortex, episodic on right. limits tulving, left prefrontal cortex encoding of episodic and right is episodic retrieval.

Question 14

Belleville 2006

Answer 14

devised an intervention to improve episodic memory in older people, trained pptsperformed better on test of episodic memory than control group. supports tulving, real life application

Question 15

Baddeley and Hitch 1974

Answer 15

working memory model, 4 components:
central executive
phonological loop
visa-spatial sketchpad
episodic buffer

Question 16

Logie 1995

Answer 16

subdivided visa-spatial sketchpad into visual cache (stores visual data) and inner scribe (records arrangement of objects in visual field)

Question 17

Baddeley et al 1975

Answer 17

ppts carried out visual and verbal task at same time (dual task performance), performance on each similar to when separate. when both tasks verbal or visual performance declined a lot, compete for same subsystem of VSS. supports WMM, seperate subsystem.

Question 18

McGeoch and McDonald 1931

Answer 18

studied retroactive interference, changing similarity of lists. ppts had to learn list of 10 words until could remeber w 100% accuracy, then learned new list. 6 groups, each group different catgory (synonyms antonyms syllables numbers)
ppts recallling old list that had most similar materials produced worst recall, interference strongest when memories are similar.

Question 19

Baddeley and Hitch 1977

Answer 19

asked rugby players to recall names of teams they had played against during rugby season, all played for same time interval, no intervening players varied, those played most games poorest recall, most interference.

Question 20

Tulving and Psotka 1971

Answer 20

gave ppts lists of words organised into categories, one list at a time. recall averaged about 70% for first list, worse as ppts learned new lists (proactive). at end ppts given cued recall test, told names of categories. recall rose to 70%. causes temporary loss, not fully, limits interference.

Question 21

Tulving 1983

Answer 21

research into retrieval failure, discovered consistent pattern, encoding specificity principle, cue has to be present at encoding and retrieval.

Question 22

Godden and Baddeley 1975

Answer 22

deep-sea divers who work underwater, to see if training on land helped or hindered work underwater.
drivers learn list of words underwater or on land, asked to recall either underwater or on land. recall 40% lower in non matching conditions, external cues role.

Question 23

Carter and Cassaday 1998

Answer 23

gave antihistamine drugs (hay fever) to their ppts, mild sedative effect, ppts slightly drowsy. creates different internal physiological state. ppts learnt list of words (on drug/not on) then recall (on drug/not on).
mismatch internal state at learning + recall performance worse. absent cues leads to more forgetting.

Question 24

loftus and palmer 1974

Answer 24

misleading information, 45 ppts watched clips of car accidents, asked questions about accident . critical question, ppts asked how fast cars travelled when they ___ each other, verb varied in in intensity, hit to smashed. 5 groups each given different verb, mean speed for contacted 31.8mph, smashed 440.5mph.

Question 25

Gabbert et al 2003

Answer 25

studied ppts in pairs, each ppt watched video of the same crime filmed from different pov, both ppts then discussed what they had seen before completing recall test. 71% recalled events they didnt see, control group 0%, evidence of memory conformity.

Question 26

Foster et al 1994

Answer 26

what eyewitnesses remember has important consequences in real world but pptd responses in research dont matter in the same way, limits Loftus, too pessimistic about effects of misleading info.

Question 27

Sutherland and Hayne (2001)

Answer 27

showed ppts video clip, when later asked misleading questions, recall more accurate for central details of event, more focused on central features, resistant to misleading info. limits substitution explanation.

Question 28

Skagerberg and Wright 2008

Answer 28

showed ppts film clips, 2 versions, muggers hair brown in 1 but light in 2. ppts discussed clips, reported blend of what they saw and what they heard (medium brown hair) memory intself distorted through contamination by misleading post event discussions rather than memory conformity, limits memory conformity.

Question 29

Johnson and scott 1976

Answer 29

anxiety -ve effect on recall
ppts believed taking part in lab study, seated in waiting room.
low anxiety condition- heard casual convo in next room and man walked out with pen and grease on his hands.
high anxiety condition- heard heated argument nd breaking glass and man walked out with knife and blood on his hands.
ppts picked out man from 50 images.
low-anxiety identified him 49% .
high-anxiety identified 33%
explained by tunnel theory, weapon focus memory enchanced.

Question 30

Yullie and Cutshall 1986

Answer 30

+ve effect of anxiety on recall.
conducted study of actual shooting, owner shot a thief dead, 13/21 witnesses took part in study. interviewed 4/5 months after incident, compard to original police interviews. Accuracy determined by no details reported. witnesses asked to rate how stressed they felt. those most stressed during event were the most accurate (88% compared to 75% for less stressed.

Question 31

yerkes and Dodson 1908

Answer 31

relationship between emotional arousal and performance is normal distribution.
performance will increase with stress to certain point, then decreases drastically.

___
| / \
| / \
p| / \
| / \
|/_________________________\____
low. med high
arousal

Question 32

Deffenbacher 1983

Answer 32

reviewed 21 studies of EWT, noted contradictory findings on effects of aniexty. he used Hermes- dodson law to explain findings. lower levels of arousal produce lower levels of recall accuracy. optimal level of arousal, any more recall declines.

Question 33

Pickel 1998

Answer 33

conducted experiment using scissors, handgun, wallet or raw chicken as handheld items in hairdresing salon video. eyewitness accuracy significantly poorer in high unusualness conditions ( chicken and handgun). weapon focus effect due to unusualness not anxiety, no effect on EWT.

Question 34

Valentine and Mesout 2009

Answer 34

supports research on weapon focus, -ve effects on recall. used objectuve measure (heart rate) to divide ppts into high/low anxiety groups. anxiety clearly disrupted ppts ability to recall details about actor. high level of anxiety has negative effect on immediate eyewitness recall of stressful event.

Question 35

christianson +hubinette 1993

Answer 35

interviewed 58 witnessed to bank roberies in Sweden, some direclty involved some not. recall more than 75% accurate across all witnesses, direct victims more accurate, anxiety enhances recall. could be post-event discussion.

Question 36

fisher and geiselman 1992

Answer 36

the cognitive interview
1.report everything
2.reinstste the context- context-dependant forgetting
3.reverse the order - expectations +dishonesty
4.change perspective - schemas

Question 37

kohnken et al 1999

Answer 37

meta-analysis, combined data from55 studies comparing CI with stabdard police interview. CI gave 41% increase in accurate information. supports effectiveness of CI.

more inaccurate information recalled in enchanced cognitive interview, quality sacrificed for quantity.

Question 38

Milne and Ray Bull 2002

Answer 38

each of the 4 techniques alone produced more info that police interview, combination of report everything and reinstate context produced better recall that other elements, some aspects if CI are more useful than others. doubts credibility