Memory Flashcards
(6 cards)
Discuss the multi-store model of memory. Refer to research evidence in your answer. (16)
AO1:
- Developed by Atkinson and Shiffrin.
- Sensory register: sensory stimuli is detected by sense and held, has unlimited capacity.
- Most of this info doesn’t enter STM, it has limited capacity.
- Maintenance rehearsal: repeating info over and over, stops infro from decaying.
AO3:
Strength = Support from studies showing STM and LTM are different.
- Baddeley: mix up words that sound similar when we use STM.
- Mix up words with similar meanings when using LTM.
- Show STM and LTM are separate.
Limitation = Evidence of more than one STM store.
- Case study, KF.
- Poor STM for digits was poor when read out loud but better when read to himself.
- MSM is wrong, claiming there is just one STM store.
Limitation = Prolonged rehearsal is not needed for transfer to LTM.
- MSM: amount of rehearsal is more important than type.
- Craik and Watkins: type of rehearsal is more important than amount.
- Need elaborative rehearsal.
- MSM doesn’t fully explain how LTM storage is achieved.
Discuss the working memory model. Include strengths and limitations in your answer. (16)
AO1:
- Representation of STM, Baddeley and Hitch.
- Central executive: divides attention to tasks and controls slave systems.
- VSS: processes visual and spatial info in a mental space often called ‘inner eye’, divided into visual cache and inner scribe.
- Phonological loop: deals with auditory info and preserves order info arrives in, divided into phonological loop and articulatory process.
- Episodic buffer: Brings together material from other subsystems into one memory.
AO3:
Strength = Clinical evidence from Shallice and Warrington.
- KF had poor STM ability for auditory info but could process visual info.
- Phonological loop was damaged but VSS was intact.
- Supports existence of separate visual and acoustic stores.
Strength = Studies of dual-task performance support the separate existence of VSS.
- Baddeley: participants carried out visual and verbal task at same time, performance was similar to when carried out separate.
- When both tasks were visual, declined.
- Both tasks competed for same slave systems.
- Shows there must be separate slave system that processes visual input.
Limitation = Lack of clarity over nature of the CE.
- Baddeley: CE is most important but least understood component.
- Needs to be more specific than just ‘attention’.
- CE is an unsatisfactory component, challenges integrity.
Describe and evaluate the cognitive interview as a way of improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. (16)
AO1:
- CI is a method of interviewing that helps to retrieve more accurate memories, and recall information that may have otherwise been forgotten.
- 4 techniques:
1) Report everything: recall all information/details even if they seem irrelevant or trivial, helps to remember info that may have been forgotten.
2) Reinstate the context: recall feelings, thoughts etc to try and encourage state cues to influence the recall of other memories.
3) Reverse the order: change the order of events to prevent the person reporting their expectations of how the event happened.
4) Change perspective: This prevents the use of own schemas and expectations.
- Enhanced cognitive interview is used for children and very nervous people to build more of a relationship and reduce anxiety.
AO3:
Strength = Real world application.
- Use in the police force to gain more accurate EWT.
- Enhanced helps other people to also contribute valuable evidence.
Limitation = Some elements may be more useful.
- Milne and Bull: each of the 4 techniques used alone produced more info than the standard interview.
- However, report everything and reinstate the context produced the best recall than other elements.
- Reduced credibility.
Limitation = Time-consuming.
- More time and needs specialist training
- Takes time to establish report and gain all valuable evidence.
- Not a realistic or practical method.
Other:
- Asking interviewees to recall events may be traumatic and cause them distress.
Describe and evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting. (16)
AO1:
- Form of forgetting when we don’t have sufficient cues to recall info.
- Encoding specificity principle: Tulving, cues at learning must be the same at recall.
Context-dependent forgetting
- Godden and Baddeley’s study: learnt a list of words in 1 of 4 conditions.
- Land and water, land and land, water and land, water and water.
- Recall was 40% in the non-matched conditions.
State-dependent forgetting
- Carter and Cassaday’s study: learn a list of words/passages in 1 of 4 conditions.
- Drug and no drug, drug and drug, no drug and drug and no drug, no drug.
- When there was a mismatch, the recall was worse.
AO3:
Strength = Real-world application
- Baddeley suggests that the idea of cues are ‘worth paying attention to’.
- Can help with real-world forgetting and helping to recall vital information.
Strength = Research support
- Two studies in AO1.
- They demonstrate the impact of a lack of cues.
- Eysenck and Keane: argue retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting.
Limitation = Context effects may depend on the type of memory being tested.
- Godden and Baddeley: participants had to say whether they recognised a word when it was read to them rather than recalling it themself.
- When there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all 4 conditions.
Discuss different types of long term memory. (16)
AO1:
Episodic:
- Recalling personal events, memories are complex and timestamped, will contain several elements (eg people and places).
Semantic:
- Shared world knowledge, not time stamped, it is less vulnerable to distortion.
Procedural:
- Knowledge of actions or skills, becomes automatic, can find them hard to explain.
AO3:
Strength = Clinical evidence.
- Case study of HM.
- He could not recall stroking a dog half an hour before but didn’t need the concept of a dog explaining.
- Supports idea of different types of LTM.
Limitation = Issues with case studies.
Limitation = Conflicting research linking LTM types to brain areas.
- Buckner and Petersen: looked at evidence of location of semantic/episodic, semantic is on the left of PFC and episodic is on the right.
- However, some research implies the opposite.
Strength = Real-world application.
- Allow psychologists to understand memory loss.
- For example, developing intervention to improve memory in older people.
Describe and evaluate interference as an explanation for forgetting. (16)
AO1:
- Two pieces of info disrupt each other and cause forgetting/distortion.
- Proactive: old memory interferes with new.
- Retroactive: new memory interferes with old.
McGeogh and McDonald:
- Gave participants a list of 10 words, they had to learn these until they could recall them 100%.
- The most similar material produced the worst recall.
- Explanations: previously stored info makes new info harder to store, or new info overwrites previous similar memories.
AO3:
Strength = Real-world application.
- Baddeley and Hitch: asked rugby players to recall teams they had played.
- Those who played the most games, had poorest recall.
- Increased validity.
Limitation = Interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues.
- When people are given cues, recall improves.
- Interference can cause a temporary loss of accessibility to material.
Limitation = Issues with validity.
- Lab studies.
- Researchers can control variables, artificial materials.
