memory Flashcards
(39 cards)
Multi-Store Model of Memory (MSM) AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Proposed by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968), the MSM describes memory as a linear system with three stores:
1️⃣ Sensory Register – Duration: Less than 1 second, Capacity: Very large, Coding: Modality-specific. In a raw, unprocessed form.
2️⃣ Short-Term Memory (STM) – Duration: 18-30 seconds, Capacity: 7±2 items (Miller), Coding: Acoustic.
3️⃣ Long-Term Memory (LTM) – Duration: Unlimited, Capacity: Unlimited, Coding: Semantic.
AO2 (Application):
• The serial position effect supports MSM, showing that people tend to recall the first (primacy effect) and last (recency effect) items in a list better than those in the middle.
• Baddeley (1966) found that words with similar sounds are more difficult to recall in STM than words with different sounds, suggesting that STM is coded acoustically.
Multi-Store Model of Memory (MSM) AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Supported by HM case study, where STM was impaired but LTM remained intact.
• Supporting evidence: Studies like the serial position effect support the existence of separate stores for short-term and long-term memory.
• The clear distinction between STM and LTM has provided a foundation for later research on memory models (e.g., the Working Memory Model).
❌ Weaknesses:
• Oversimplified: The MSM is too simplistic, as it suggests a linear flow of information, but newer research shows that LTM and STM are not as distinct as the model proposes.
• Lack of explanation: MSM doesn’t explain how information is transferred from STM to LTM (e.g., rehearsal, elaboration).
Synoptic Links:
• Biological approach: HM case study (hippocampus damage).
• Cognitive approach: Supports information processing models.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember MSM Features:
“Some Silly Lemurs Drink Coffee”
• Sensory Register
• STM
• LTM
• Duration
• Capacity
Working Memory Model (WMM)
AO1 (Knowledge):
Proposed by Baddeley & Hitch (1974), the WMM focuses on active processing in STM, consisting of:
1️⃣ Central Executive – Controls attention, limited capacity.
2️⃣ Phonological Loop – Deals with auditory information (phonological store + articulatory control process).
3️⃣ Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad – Visual and spatial tasks.
4️⃣ Episodic Buffer – Integrates information from other components and LTM.
AO2 (Application):
Explains dual-task performance, e.g., listening to music while driving affects concentration.
Working Memory Model (WMM) AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Supported by KF case study, where verbal STM was damaged, but visual STM was intact.
• Explains real-life multitasking and individual differences in memory performance.
• Supporting evidence: Studies like Baddeley’s dual-task research provide strong support for the separate components of the WMM.
• Practical applications: The model can explain memory issues in real-life scenarios, such as cognitive difficulties in individuals with brain injuries or learning disabilities.
❌ Weaknesses:
• Unclear CE: The central executive is vague and lacks clarity. It is not well understood how it functions, and there is little empirical evidence about its specific nature.
• Lack of biological evidence: The WMM lacks direct biological evidence linking memory components to specific brain regions.
• Lacks evidence for the Episodic Buffer.
Synoptic Links:
• Cognitive neuroscience: Brain scans show different areas active during verbal vs. visual tasks.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember WMM Components:
“Cows Play Violins Eagerly”
• Central Executive
• Phonological Loop
• Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad
• Episodic Buffer
Types of Long-Term Memory (LTM) AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Proposed by Tulving (1972):
1️⃣ Episodic Memory – Personal experiences (e.g., first day of school).
2️⃣ Semantic Memory – Knowledge and facts (e.g., capital of France).
3️⃣ Procedural Memory – Skills and actions (e.g., riding a bike).
AO2 (Application):
Explains why Clive Wearing could play the piano (procedural memory intact) but couldn’t recall his wedding day (episodic memory damaged).
Types of Long-Term Memory (LTM) AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Brain scan evidence shows episodic memory activates the hippocampus, while procedural memory activates the cerebellum.
• Supports the idea that LTM is not a single store.
❌ Weaknesses:
• Case studies like Clive Wearing lack generalisability.
• Unclear whether semantic and episodic memories are entirely separate.
Synoptic Links:
• Biological approach: Brain damage and localisation of function.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember Types of LTM:
“Every Silly Penguin”
• Episodic
• Semantic
• Procedural
Explanations for Forgetting – Interference Theory AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Interference occurs when two sets of information compete, leading to forgetting.
1️⃣ Proactive Interference – Old information interferes with new (e.g., struggling to learn a new phone number after memorising the old one).
2️⃣ Retroactive Interference – New information interferes with old (e.g., learning a new language and forgetting vocabulary from a previously learned one).
AO2 (Application):
Baddeley & Hitch (1977) found rugby players who played more games forgot the names of previous teams due to retroactive interference.
• Underwood (1957) found that participants’ recall of new lists of words was impaired by previous lists.
• McGeoch & McDonald (1931) showed that when participants learned similar lists, retroactive interference was stronger.
Explanations for Forgetting – Interference Theory AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Lab studies (e.g., McGeoch & McDonald) show interference effects when participants recall word lists.
• Real-life applications in education (e.g., revision schedules to avoid learning similar subjects back-to-back).
❌ Weaknesses:
• Lacks ecological validity due to artificial lab settings.
• Doesn’t explain all types of forgetting (e.g., forgetting due to emotional trauma).
• Individual differences: Older adults may experience more interference due to cognitive decline.
Synoptic Links:
• Cognitive approach: Memory is an active process, not a passive store.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember Interference Types:
“PR for Interference”
• Proactive = Remembering old info disrupts new.
• Retroactive = New info disrupts old.
Explanations for Forgetting – Retrieval Failure AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Memory is not always an accurate record of events; it can be influenced by context and the environment in which retrieval occurs. This is related to the encoding specificity principle, which suggests that memory is better when retrieval occurs in the same context as encoding.
Forgetting occurs due to the absence of cues that trigger memory.
1️⃣ Context-Dependent Forgetting – Recall is better when external environment matches the original learning context (e.g., revising in the same exam room).
2️⃣ State-Dependent Forgetting – Recall is better when internal state (e.g., mood or intoxication) is the same as during learning.
AO2 (Application):
Godden & Baddeley (1975) found divers who learned words underwater recalled them better when tested underwater than on land.
• Goodwin et al. (1969) showed that state-dependent forgetting occurs when participants who learned information in a certain state (e.g., drunk) recalled it better when in the same state.
Explanations for Forgetting – Retrieval Failure AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Real-life applications in eyewitness testimony (cognitive interview uses context reinstatement).
• Supported by Carter & Cassaday (1998) on state-dependent forgetting (anti-histamine study).
❌ Weaknesses:
• Context effects are weak in real-life situations.
• Artificial lab studies reduce ecological validity.
• Not all memories rely on context or state-dependent cues; other factors such as rehearsal or attention are also important.
• Cues may not be sufficient on their own to trigger recall in real-life situations.
Synoptic Links:
• Cognitive interview techniques in forensic psychology.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember Retrieval Failure:
“CUE for Forgetting”
• Context-Dependent
• Underwater Study
• External and Internal Cues
Factors Affecting Eyewitness Testimony – Misleading Information AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Misleading information can distort memory through:
1️⃣ Leading Questions – Questions that suggest a certain answer (e.g., “How fast was the car going when it smashed into the other car?”).
2️⃣ Post-Event Discussion – When witnesses discuss an event, their memories become contaminated by others’ accounts.
AO2 (Application):
• Loftus & Palmer (1974) found that participants who were asked leading questions (e.g., “How fast was the car going when it smashed into the other car?”) estimated the speed to be higher than those who were asked less leading questions. Smashed vs hit.
• Gabbert et al. (2003) showed that when participants discussed an event, 71% of ppl incorporated incorrect details from others’ accounts into their own memories (memory conformity).
Factors Affecting Eyewitness Testimony – Misleading Information AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• • Lab-based evidence: Loftus & Palmer’s studies are considered classic, providing clear evidence for how leading questions can affect eyewitness recall + High control in lab settings allows for establishing cause and effect.
• Practical implications: Highlights the need for careful questioning by police and the dangers of relying too heavily on eyewitness testimony in court.
❌ Weaknesses:
• Artificiality: Laboratory settings in Loftus & Palmer’s studies may lack ecological validity, as the participants were watching videos rather than experiencing a real accident.
• Individual differences: Some individuals may be more susceptible to misleading information than others.
Synoptic Links:
• Ethical considerations in protecting witnesses from psychological harm.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember Misleading Information:
“Loftus and Gabbert Lead the Way”
• Loftus = Leading questions
• Gabbert = Post-event discussion
Factors Affecting Eyewitness Testimony – Anxiety AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Anxiety can affect recall in two ways:
1️⃣ Weapon Focus Effect – High anxiety narrows attention to central details (e.g., the weapon), reducing recall of peripheral details.
2️⃣ Inverted U Hypothesis (Yerkes-Dodson Law) – Moderate anxiety improves performance, but too much or too little anxiety impairs memory.
AO2 (Application):
• Johnson & Scott (1976) found participants who witnessed a man with a knife had poorer facial recognition than those who saw a man with a pen.
• Yuille & Cutshall (1986) found witnesses of a real-life shooting with high anxiety had more accurate recall months later.
Factors Affecting Eyewitness Testimony – Anxiety AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Real-life studies (Yuille & Cutshall) have high ecological validity.
• Supports the role of emotional state in memory recall.
• Practical applications: This research can inform police questioning strategies and improve the accuracy of eyewitness accounts.
❌ Weaknesses:
• Ethical issues: Inducing anxiety in lab settings is unethical.
• Individual differences: Different people respond to anxiety in different ways, and factors such as personality may influence recall.
• Conflicting evidence: Some studies show that anxiety can improve recall, while others show that it impairs recall. This suggests that the relationship may not be straightforward.
Synoptic Links:
• Biological approach: Role of adrenaline and the fight-or-flight response.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember Anxiety Effects:
“Worry Warps Witness Memory”
• Weapon Focus Effect
• Witness accuracy
• Yerkes-Dodson Law
Cognitive Interview (CI) AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Developed by Fisher & Geiselman (1992), the Cognitive Interview aims to improve eyewitness recall by reducing suggestibility and increasing accuracy. It involves four main techniques:
1️⃣ Context Reinstatement – Mentally recreating the physical and emotional context of the event to trigger memories.
2️⃣ Report Everything – Witnesses are encouraged to recall all details, even if they seem trivial or irrelevant.
3️⃣ Reversing the Order – Recalling events in a different order to prevent recall from being influenced by expectations.
4️⃣ Changing Perspective – Recalling the event from different perspectives (e.g., what another witness might have seen).
AO2 (Application):
• Fisher et al. (1987) found the CI improved the accuracy of recall in real-life police interviews.
• Helps witnesses provide richer, more accurate accounts of events.
Cognitive Interview (CI) AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Studies show that CI improves accuracy compared to standard police interviewing techniques (Fisher et al., 1987).
• Effective in obtaining detailed, accurate information in criminal investigations.
❌ Weaknesses:
• Time-consuming and requires skilled interviewers, making it impractical in some situations.
• Risk of increased misinformation: Encouraging witnesses to recall everything can lead to false memories.
Synoptic Links:
• Psychological applications in forensic psychology, such as criminal investigations.
• Cognitive approach: Focus on improving the retrieval of memory through structured techniques.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember CI Techniques:
“R-E-R-C”
• Report Everything
• Encourage Context Reinstatement
• Reverse the Order
• Change Perspective
The Effect of Age on Memory AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Age can affect memory performance, with differences in:
1️⃣ Younger Children – Often have less effective memory strategies and are more susceptible to misleading information.
2️⃣ Older Adults – May experience decline in episodic memory, particularly in recalling specific details.
AO2 (Application):
• Foley et al. (2002) found that older adults have more difficulty in recall and recognition tasks, especially under stressful conditions.
• Younger children are more prone to false memories, especially under suggestive questioning.
The Effect of Age on Memory AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Studies with children and older adults have shown age differences in eyewitness accuracy.
• Real-life relevance in court settings where age can impact a witness’s reliability.
❌ Weaknesses:
• Age-related differences may be influenced by factors such as cognitive development or health conditions.
• Research often lacks ecological validity in experimental settings.
Synoptic Links:
• Cognitive development in children (Piaget’s stages of cognitive development).
• Cognitive decline in older adults (biological explanations for aging).
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember Age Effects:
“Cognitive Aging Alters Recall”
• Children’s memory
• Aging adults
• Accuracy
• Recall
Improving the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony – The enhanced Cognitive Interview AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
To improve eyewitness testimony accuracy, researchers suggest several methods:
1️⃣ The Cognitive Interview (CI) (covered earlier)
2️⃣ The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) – Fisher et al. (1987) improved the CI by adding elements such as focusing on the witness’s emotions and making the witness feel relaxed.
AO2 (Application):
• The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI) is especially useful in reducing anxiety and increasing recall accuracy in vulnerable witnesses (e.g., children or victims of trauma).
• Köhnken et al. (1999) meta-analysis found the ECI increased the amount of correct information recalled without increasing the amount of incorrect information.
Improving the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony – The enhanced Cognitive Interview AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• The ECI has been shown to improve the quality and quantity of recall without adding false details.
• The techniques are widely used by police forces to increase the accuracy of testimonies.
❌ Weaknesses:
• Time-consuming and requires highly trained officers.
• May not be practical in high-pressure, fast-paced situations (e.g., urgent police investigations).
Synoptic Links:
• Psychological applications: Enhanced Cognitive Interview in real-life police work.
• Cognitive approach: Focus on the individual’s mental process and memory retrieval techniques.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember ECI Features:
“PEACE”
• Promoting relaxation
• Encouraging details
• Active listening
• Control over anxiety
• Empathy
Short-Term Memory (STM) and Long-Term Memory (LTM) AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
Short-Term Memory (STM) and Long-Term Memory (LTM) are two distinct memory systems:
1️⃣ STM – Temporarily holds limited information.
• Capacity: 7 ± 2 items (Miller, 1956)
• Duration: 18-30 seconds (Peterson & Peterson, 1959)
• Encoding: Primarily acoustic (Baddeley, 1966)
2️⃣ LTM – Stores information over extended periods.
• Capacity: Unlimited
• Duration: Potentially a lifetime
• Encoding: Primarily semantic (Baddeley, 1966)
AO2 (Application):
• Miller’s Magic Number: STM has a limited capacity, but chunking can help increase its capacity (e.g., remembering phone numbers in chunks).
• Rehearsal: Helps to transfer information from STM to LTM (e.g., repetition or elaborative rehearsal).
Short-Term Memory (STM) and Long-Term Memory (LTM) AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Lab-based research (e.g., Peterson & Peterson) supports the distinction between STM and LTM with clear findings on duration and encoding.
• Case studies (e.g., HM) show dissociation between STM and LTM (damage to the hippocampus affects LTM but leaves STM intact).
❌ Weaknesses:
• Over-simplification: The model may oversimplify memory processes. Other research suggests STM may not always work in the way the model suggests (e.g., working memory model).
• LTM encoding: The role of semantic encoding in LTM is not always clear (e.g., some memories are encoded visually).
Synoptic Links:
• Working memory model (Baddeley & Hitch): STM is better understood through the multi-component working memory model.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember Differences Between STM and LTM:
“Capacity Can Durably Encode”
• Capacity (unlimited for LTM)
• Chunking (helps STM)
• Duration (long for LTM)
• Encoding (acoustic for STM, semantic for LTM)
The Working Memory Model (WMM) AO1+2
AO1 (Knowledge):
The Working Memory Model (WMM), proposed by Baddeley & Hitch (1974), is an alternative to the multi-store model and divides STM into multiple components:
1️⃣ Central Executive – Oversees and coordinates cognitive processes; has limited capacity.
2️⃣ Phonological Loop – Stores and processes verbal and auditory information.
• Articulatory Control Process – Rehearses verbal information.
• Phonological Store – Holds verbal information briefly.
3️⃣ Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad – Stores and processes visual and spatial information.
4️⃣ Episodic Buffer – Integrates information from the phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, and LTM into a coherent episode.
AO2 (Application):
• Baddeley et al. (1975) demonstrated that people struggle with two tasks that use the same component (e.g., verbal tasks interfere with other verbal tasks), supporting the existence of separate components.
• Dual-task performance studies show different components are used for visual and verbal tasks (e.g., performing a visual and auditory task at the same time is easier than performing two visual tasks).
The Working Memory Model (WMM) AO3
AO3 (Evaluation):
✅ Strengths:
• Supported by evidence from neuropsychological cases (e.g., patient KF had poor verbal memory but intact visual memory, supporting the separation of the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad).
• Explains complex memory tasks more effectively than the multi-store model.
❌ Weaknesses:
• Central Executive is poorly defined; it’s unclear how it works or how it interacts with other components.
• Lack of research on the episodic buffer and how it works in complex memory retrieval tasks.
Synoptic Links:
• Cognitive approach: Explains cognitive processes, such as attention and memory, with more complexity than earlier models.
• Memory and perception: The WMM suggests that memory is an active process rather than a passive store.
🎯 Mnemonic to Remember the WMM Components:
“Cathy Pushed Vicky Every Time”
• Central Executive
• Phonological Loop
• Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad
• Episodic Buffer