memory Flashcards
(110 cards)
1
Q
What is coding in memory?
A
The process of converting information between different formats for storage in memory.
2
Q
What did Baddeley (1966) study, and what were the four groups?
A
He studied coding in STM and LTM using four word lists:
Acoustically similar (e.g., cat, cab)
Acoustically dissimilar (e.g., pit, few)
Semantically similar (e.g., great, large)
Semantically dissimilar (e.g., good, huge)
3
Q
What were Baddeley’s findings about memory coding?
A
STM uses acoustic coding, and LTM uses semantic coding.
4
Q
What is capacity in memory?
A
The amount of information that can be stored in memory.
5
Q
What did Jacobs (1887) find about digit span?
A
The mean span was 9.3 for numbers and 7.3 for letters.
6
Q
What did Miller (1956) suggest about chunking?
A
The capacity of STM is about 7 ± 2 items, and chunking can increase capacity.
7
Q
What is duration in memory?
A
The length of time information is held in memory.
8
Q
What did Peterson and Peterson (1959) find about STM duration?
A
STM lasts about 18–30 seconds without rehearsal.
9
Q
What did Bahrick et al. (1975) find about LTM duration?
A
LTM can last a lifetime, as participants could recall names of classmates after 48 years.
10
Q
PEEL evaluation of Baddeley’s study on coding
A
Point: Baddeley’s study supports separate memory stores.
Evidence: STM was found to use acoustic coding, whereas LTM used semantic coding.
Explanation: This supports the idea of distinct memory systems, as suggested by the multi-store model.
Link: However, later research has shown some exceptions, meaning the findings may not apply to all memory tasks.
11
Q
PEEL evaluation of Jacobs’ study on digit span
A
Point: Jacobs’ study has high validity.
Evidence: The study has been replicated in later research.
Explanation: This means the findings are reliable and support the idea that STM has a limited capacity.
Link: However, some factors (e.g., distractions) could have affected participants’ performance, making results less valid.
12
Q
PEEL evaluation of Miller’s chunking theory
A
Point: Miller’s estimate of STM capacity may be too high.
Evidence: Research by Cowan (2001) suggests STM is limited to about four chunks rather than seven.
Explanation: This suggests Miller overestimated STM capacity.
Link: Therefore, the lower estimate of around five chunks may be more accurate.
13
Q
PEEL evaluation of Peterson and Peterson’s STM study
A
Point: The study used meaningless stimuli.
Evidence: Trigrams (random consonant sequences) were artificial and not representative of everyday memory tasks.
Explanation: This reduces ecological validity as findings may not apply to real-life situations.
Link: However, the controlled nature of the study ensures internal validity.
14
Q
PEEL evaluation of Bahrick et al.’s LTM study
A
Point: The study has high external validity.
Evidence: The research involved meaningful real-life memories, such as recalling classmates’ names.
Explanation: This means findings are more applicable to real-world memory than artificial lab-based studies.
Link: However, extraneous variables like rehearsal of names could have influenced recall, affecting accuracy.
15
Q
What is the Multi-Store Model (MSM)?
A
A model by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968, 1971) that describes how information flows through three memory stores: sensory register, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM).
16
Q
How does information transfer between stores in MSM?
A
Information moves through attention, rehearsal, and retrieval processes.
17
Q
What is the sensory register?
A
A memory store for each of the five senses, storing information briefly before it is processed.
18
Q
What are the key features of the sensory register?
A
Coding: Modality-specific (e.g., visual in the iconic store, auditory in the echoic store).
Capacity: Very large.
Duration: Very brief (less than half a second).
19
Q
What determines whether information moves from the sensory register to STM?
A
Attention – if attention is paid to the information, it enters STM; otherwise, it decays.
20
Q
What are the key features of STM?
A
Coding: Acoustic (sound-based).
Capacity: 7 ± 2 items (Miller, 1956).
Duration: About 18–30 seconds (Peterson & Peterson, 1959).
21
Q
How is information retained in STM?
A
Through maintenance rehearsal.
22
Q
How does information transfer from STM to LTM?
A
Prolonged rehearsal.
23
Q
What are the key features of LTM?
A
Coding: Semantic (meaning-based).
Capacity: Unlimited.
Duration: Can last a lifetime (Bahrick et al., 1975).
24
Q
How is information retrieved from LTM?
A
Information is transferred back to STM for recall.
25
PEEL evaluation of MSM research support
Point: The MSM is supported by studies showing STM and LTM are separate stores.
Evidence: Baddeley (1966) found STM uses acoustic coding, whereas LTM uses semantic coding.
Explanation: This supports the idea that STM and LTM are distinct, as MSM suggests.
Link: However, MSM relies on artificial tasks (e.g., word lists), so findings may not apply to real-life memory use.
26
PEEL evaluation of MSM's focus on artificial materials
Point: Many studies supporting MSM use artificial stimuli.
Evidence: Research like Jacobs’ digit span test and Baddeley’s word lists use meaningless syllables.
Explanation: These tasks do not reflect how memory works for everyday information like names or facts.
Link: Therefore, MSM may not fully explain memory in real-world contexts.
27
PEEL evaluation of MSM’s claim of only one STM store
Point: MSM assumes STM is a single store, but research suggests otherwise.
Evidence: Shallice & Warrington (1970) studied KF, a brain-damaged patient whose STM for digits was poor when heard but better when read.
Explanation: This suggests separate STM stores for auditory and visual information.
Link: MSM oversimplifies STM, as it does not account for multiple stores.
28
PEEL evaluation of MSM’s emphasis on rehearsal
Point: MSM states prolonged rehearsal is key for LTM storage, but this is not always the case.
Evidence: Craik & Watkins (1973) found elaborative rehearsal (understanding meaning) is more important than just repeating information.
Explanation: This means MSM’s explanation of rehearsal is too simplistic.
Link: Elaborative rehearsal better explains LTM storage than MSM’s maintenance rehearsal.
29
What did Tulving (1985) propose about LTM?
He suggested that LTM is not a single unitary store and consists of three types: episodic, semantic, and procedural memory.
30
What is episodic memory?
A type of LTM that stores personal experiences, including details of events, people, objects, and behaviors.
31
What are the three key features of episodic memory?
Memories are time-stamped (we remember when they happened).
They involve several elements (e.g., places, people, objects, and behaviors).
They require conscious effort to recall.
32
What is semantic memory?
A type of LTM that stores general knowledge, facts, and meanings of words and concepts.
33
How does semantic memory differ from episodic memory?
Semantic memory is not time-stamped (we don’t usually remember when we learned facts), and it requires conscious effort to recall.
34
What is procedural memory?
A type of LTM that stores knowledge of how to do things, such as motor skills and learned behaviors.
35
How is procedural memory different from episodic and semantic memory?
It does not require conscious effort to recall and is typically retrieved automatically.
36
PEEL evaluation of clinical evidence from HM and Clive Wearing
Point: Clinical case studies support the idea of separate LTM stores.
Evidence: HM and Clive Wearing had damaged episodic memories but intact procedural and semantic memories.
Explanation: This suggests different types of LTM are stored in different brain areas.
Link: However, case studies lack control over variables, making it hard to establish cause and effect.
37
PEEL evaluation of brain scan studies on LTM
Point: Neuroimaging studies provide evidence for different LTM types.
Evidence: Brain scans show that episodic memory is associated with the right prefrontal cortex, while semantic memory is linked to the left prefrontal cortex.
Explanation: This supports Tulving’s claim that LTM has different components stored in distinct areas.
Link: However, conflicting findings suggest that memory processing is more complex than Tulving’s model implies.
38
PEEL evaluation of the practical benefits of LTM research
Point: Understanding types of LTM has real-world applications.
Evidence: Belleville et al. (2006) found episodic memory training helped older people improve memory recall.
Explanation: This suggests research into LTM can be used to develop memory improvement strategies.
Link: Such findings have practical benefits for enhancing cognitive function in aging populations.
39
What is the Working Memory Model (WMM)?
A model of short-term memory (STM) proposed by Baddeley & Hitch (1974), suggesting that STM is an active processor with multiple subsystems, each handling different types of information.
40
What is the central executive?
The central executive (CE) directs attention and allocates processing resources to different subsystems. It has a very limited capacity and no storage of its own.
41
What is the phonological loop?
A subsystem that processes auditory (sound-based) information and preserves word order. It consists of:
Phonological store
Articulatory process
42
Phonological store
Stores words we hear.
43
Articulatory process
Allows rehearsal of words to keep them in working memory.
44
What is the visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS)?
A subsystem that stores and processes visual and spatial information, often described as our 'inner eye.' It has a limited capacity (3–4 objects) and is divided into:
Visual cache
Inner scribe
45
Visual cache
Stores visual data.
46
Inner scribe
Records spatial arrangement of objects.
47
What is the episodic buffer?
The most recent addition to the WMM (added by Baddeley in 2000), it integrates information from the other subsystems into a single memory. It also links working memory to long-term memory.
48
PEEL evaluation of clinical evidence (KF case study)
P: Clinical studies support the idea of separate STM components.
Ev: Shallice & Warrington (1970) studied KF, a brain-damaged patient who had poor STM for auditory information but normal STM for visual information.
Expl: This suggests separate stores for visual and auditory memory, supporting the WMM.
L: However, brain injuries are unique and may have affected other cognitive functions, limiting the generalizability of the findings.
49
PEEL evaluation of dual-task performance
P: Dual-task studies provide strong evidence for separate components in working memory.
Ev: Baddeley et al. (1975) found that participants struggled more when performing two visual tasks simultaneously than when doing a visual and verbal task together.
Expl: This suggests that the VSS and phonological loop are separate systems because different types of tasks compete for the same resources.
L: This supports the idea that STM is made up of multiple subsystems rather than a single unitary store, as suggested by the MSM.
50
PEEL evaluation of the central executive
Point: The central executive is not well defined.
Evidence: Baddeley (2003) admitted that the CE is the most important but least understood part of WMM.
Explanation: There is little evidence on what the CE actually does, and it may be made up of multiple components rather than a single unit.
Link: This means WMM may not yet fully explain working memory, as some aspects remain unclear.
51
What is interference theory?
A theory that suggests forgetting occurs because memories interfere with one another, leading to distortion or forgetting.
52
When is interference most likely to occur?
When two pieces of information are similar.
53
What is proactive interference (PI)?
When older memories disrupt the recall of newer memories (e.g., calling a new student by an old student’s name).
54
What is retroactive interference (RI)?
When newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories (e.g., learning new phone numbers makes it harder to remember old ones).
55
What did McGeoch & McDonald (1931) investigate?
The effect of similarity on interference by making participants learn a list of words and then learn a second list with varying similarity.
56
What were the six groups in McGeoch & McDonald’s study?
Synonyms – words with the same meaning.
Antonyms – words with opposite meanings.
Unrelated words – words unrelated to the first list.
Consonant syllables – nonsense words.
Three-digit numbers – numerical data.
No new list – control group (no second list).
57
What were the findings of McGeoch & McDonald’s study?
Most interference occurred when the second list had similar meanings (synonyms).
Least interference occurred when the second list was different (numbers).
This supports the idea that similarity increases interference.
58
PEEL evaluation of Baddeley & Hitch’s (1977) rugby study
Point: Interference occurs in real-world situations.
Evidence: Rugby players struggled more to recall past matches if they had played more games, supporting the idea of retroactive interference.
Explanation: This suggests interference can explain forgetting in everyday life, not just in artificial lab experiments.
Link: However, interference effects may be exaggerated in controlled experiments where conditions are optimized for interference to occur.
59
PEEL evaluation of interference as a temporary effect (Tulving & Psotka, 1971)
Point: Interference may not cause permanent forgetting.
Evidence: Tulving & Psotka found that when participants were given category cues, their memory recall significantly improved.
Explanation: This suggests that interference does not erase memories but makes them temporarily inaccessible.
Link: This supports retrieval failure theory as a better explanation of forgetting in some cases.
60
Support from Drug Studies for interference as an explanation of forgetting
Point: Drug studies support interference as an explanation of forgetting.
Evidence: Cohen et al. (1997) found that participants on a drug that reduced memory processing showed less retroactive interference compared to those without the drug.
Explanation: This suggests that interference happens because new memories overwrite or disrupt older ones.
Link: However, the artificial nature of drug studies may limit generalizability to real-world memory processes.
61
What is retrieval failure?
A form of forgetting that occurs when information is stored in memory but cannot be accessed due to a lack of suitable cues.
62
What is the difference between accessibility and availability in memory?
Availability: Information exists in memory.
Accessibility: Information can be retrieved with the right cues.
63
What is the Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP)?
Tulving (1983) suggested that memory recall is best when the same cues present during encoding are also present at retrieval.
64
What happens if cues are absent at recall?
Forgetting is more likely to occur.
65
What is context-dependent forgetting?
Forgetting that occurs when the external environment at recall is different from when learning took place (e.g., forgetting something learned underwater when on land).
66
What is state-dependent forgetting?
Forgetting that occurs when an individual’s internal state at recall is different from when learning took place (e.g., recalling information when sober but forgetting it when drunk).
67
What was the procedure of Godden & Baddeley’s (1975) study on context-dependent forgetting?
Divers learned a word list in either land or underwater conditions.
They were tested for recall either in the same or a different context.
68
What were the findings of Godden & Baddeley’s study?
Recall was best when the learning and recall environments matched (e.g., learning underwater and recalling underwater).
69
What was the procedure of Carter & Cassaday’s (1998) study on state-dependent forgetting?
Participants learned and recalled information either on an antihistamine (drowsy) or in a normal state.
70
What were the findings of Carter & Cassaday’s study?
Recall was best when the internal state at learning and recall matched (e.g., learning on a drug and recalling on a drug).
71
PEEL evaluation of retrieval failure theory’s practical benefits
Point: Retrieval cues can help improve memory in real-world situations.
Evidence: Baddeley suggests people often forget things in one room but remember them when they return to the original room.
Explanation: This supports the idea that cues aid recall and suggests retrieval failure can be reduced by mentally reinstating the learning environment.
Link: This has practical applications for improving memory strategies in education.
72
PEEL evaluation of research support for retrieval failure
Point: There is strong research evidence supporting retrieval failure.
Evidence: Studies by Godden & Baddeley and Carter & Cassaday show that a lack of external or internal cues leads to forgetting.
Explanation: This suggests retrieval failure is a key explanation for forgetting, particularly in LTM.
Link: However, Baddeley (1997) argues that context effects are not as strong in real life, limiting their explanatory power.
73
PEEL evaluation of recall vs. recognition in retrieval failure research
Point: Context-dependent forgetting may depend on the type of memory test used.
Evidence: Godden & Baddeley (1980) found that when participants were tested on recognition rather than recall, context-dependent forgetting disappeared.
Explanation: This suggests retrieval failure only affects recall, not recognition, meaning its role in forgetting may be overstated.
Link: This weakens retrieval failure theory as a universal explanation of forgetting.
74
What is a leading question?
A question that, due to the way it is phrased, suggests a particular answer
75
What was the procedure of Loftus & Palmer’s (1974) study?
Participants watched clips of car accidents.
They were asked a critical question about the speed of the car, with different verbs used (e.g., "smashed," "bumped").
76
What were the findings of Loftus & Palmer’s study?
The estimated speed varied depending on the verb used.
"Smashed" led to the highest estimated speed (40.5 mph), whereas "contacted" led to the lowest (31.8 mph).
This shows that leading questions influence recall.
77
What is the response-bias explanation?
The wording of the question influences how participants estimate the event but does not change their memory.
78
What is the substitution explanation?
The wording of the question alters the participant's memory of the event, causing false recall.
79
What is post-event discussion (PED)?
When witnesses discuss an event with others, which may influence their memory.
80
What was the procedure of Gabbert et al.’s (2003) study?
Participants watched the same crime from different angles.
Some saw details others could not (e.g., a book in a room).
After discussion, participants individually recalled what they saw.
81
What were the findings of Gabbert et al.’s study?
71% of participants mistakenly recalled information they had not seen but had picked up from discussion.
In the control group (no discussion), the error rate was 0%.
82
What is memory contamination?
When information from other witnesses is combined with one’s own memory, leading to inaccuracies.
83
What is memory conformity?
When people go along with others' memories due to social pressure or wanting to be correct.
84
PEEL evaluation of practical applications of misleading information in the legal system
Point: Research into misleading information has important applications for the criminal justice system.
Evidence: Loftus (1975) suggested leading questions can distort memory, meaning police should phrase questions carefully.
Explanation: This research has helped improve interviewing techniques, such as the cognitive interview.
Link: However, studies use lab experiments, which may not fully reflect real-life stress and emotions in eyewitnesses.
85
PEEL evaluation of misleading questions affecting only certain memories
Point: Misleading information does not always affect all aspects of memory.
Evidence: Sutherland & Hayne (2001) found that participants given misleading questions remembered central details accurately but were misled on peripheral details.
Explanation: This suggests that while misleading questions may alter some memories, core details remain intact.
Link: This challenges the idea that leading questions always distort EWT.
86
What is anxiety in the context of EWT?
A state of emotional and physical arousal that can affect memory accuracy. It includes increased heart rate, sweating, and heightened emotions.
87
How does anxiety affect eyewitness testimony?
It can have either a negative or positive effect on recall, depending on the level of anxiety.
88
What is the weapon focus effect?
When anxiety narrows attention onto a weapon, reducing recall of other details.
89
What was the procedure of Johnson & Scott’s (1976) study?
Participants were in a waiting room and overheard an argument.
Low-anxiety condition: A man walked through holding a pen with grease on his hands.
High-anxiety condition: A man walked through holding a bloody knife.
90
What were the findings of Johnson & Scott’s study?
Low-anxiety condition: 49% correctly identified the man.
High-anxiety condition: Only 33% correctly identified the man.
Conclusion: The presence of a weapon distracted attention from other details.
91
How can anxiety improve recall?
Anxiety triggers the fight-or-flight response, increasing alertness and memory recall.
92
What was the procedure of Yuille & Cutshall’s (1986) study?
They interviewed witnesses of a real-life shooting in a gun shop.
13 witnesses were re-interviewed after 5 months.
Accuracy was compared with their original police statements.
93
What were the findings of Yuille & Cutshall’s study?
High-anxiety witnesses had more accurate recall (88%) than those with lower anxiety (75%).
Conclusion: High stress improved memory recall in real-life situations.
94
What is the Yerkes-Dodson Law?
A theory that suggests moderate anxiety improves performance, but too much or too little anxiety reduces accuracy.
95
How does the Yerkes-Dodson Law explain EWT?
Low anxiety → Poor recall due to low alertness.
Moderate anxiety → Best recall due to optimal alertness.
High anxiety → Poor recall due to excessive stress.
96
PEEL evaluation of Issues with the Weapon Focus Effect
Point: The weapon focus effect may be due to unusualness, not anxiety.
Evidence: Pickel (1998) found that participants recalled details worse when a man held a raw chicken rather than a weapon.
Explanation: This suggests that surprise, not anxiety, reduced memory accuracy.
Link: Therefore, Johnson & Scott’s study may not explain how anxiety affects EWT.
97
PEEL evaluation of research support for negative effects of anxiety (Valentine & Mesout, 2009)
Point: High anxiety negatively affects recall.
Evidence: Valentine & Mesout found that participants with higher anxiety had worse recall in a haunted house experiment.
Explanation: This supports the idea that extreme anxiety reduces eyewitness accuracy.
Link: Suggests that weapon focus effects occur due to anxiety rather than surprise.
98
PEEL evaluation of real-world studies supporting anxiety improving recall (Christianson & Hübinette, 1993)
Point: Some real-world studies show that anxiety enhances memory.
Evidence: Christianson & Hübinette found that victims of actual bank robberies had more accurate recall than bystanders.
Explanation: Suggests high stress enhances memory for real-life events.
Link: This supports Yuille & Cutshall's findings that anxiety can improve EWT.
99
PEEL evaluation of lack of control in real-world studies (Christianson & Hübinette)
Point: Real-life studies lack control over extraneous variables.
Evidence: Post-event discussion or media influence may have affected witnesses’ recall over time.
Explanation: This means the accuracy of recall may not be solely due to anxiety.
Link: Reduces the internal validity of real-world EWT studies.
100
What is the Cognitive Interview (CI)?
A method of interviewing eyewitnesses to improve memory accuracy, developed by Fisher & Geiselman (1992) based on psychological insights into memory retrieval.
101
What are the four main techniques used in the Cognitive Interview?
Report everything
Reinstate the context
Reverse the order
Change perspective
102
What is the purpose of reporting everything?
Witnesses are encouraged to recall every detail, even if it seems irrelevant, as small details may trigger important memories.
103
What is the purpose of reinstating the context?
Witnesses mentally recreate the crime scene and their emotional state to trigger context-dependent forgetting.
104
What is the purpose of reversing the order?
Recalling events in a different sequence helps prevent expectations or dishonesty from influencing memory.
105
What is the purpose of changing perspective?
Witnesses recall the event from another person’s viewpoint, reducing the influence of personal schemas.
106
What is the Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)?
A refined version of the CI developed by Fisher et al. (1987), focusing on building rapport, minimizing distractions, and adapting interview techniques to individual witnesses.
107
Support for the Effectiveness of CI Köhnken et al., 1999 meta-analysis
Point: Research supports the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview.
Evidence: Köhnken et al. (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 55 studies and found a 41% increase in accurate recall with CI compared to a standard police interview.
Explanation: This suggests CI helps retrieve more information from memory.
Link: However, the ECI also led to more incorrect information, meaning quality may be sacrificed for quantity.
108
PEEL evaluation of the usefulness of CI components (Milne & Bull, 2002)
Point: Not all CI techniques are equally useful.
Evidence: Milne & Bull (2002) found that report everything and context reinstatement produced more recall than the other two techniques.
Explanation: This suggests that some parts of CI are more effective than others.
Link: Police may benefit from using selective techniques rather than the full CI.
109
PEEL evaluation of the CI being time-consuming (Kebbell & Wagstaff, 1997)
Point: CI requires more time and resources than standard police interviews.
Evidence: Kebbell & Wagstaff (1997) found that police officers often do not use CI fully due to time constraints.
Explanation: The need for training and lengthy interviews makes CI less practical for everyday use.
Link: This limits the widespread adoption of CI, despite its benefits.
110
