Memory

Question 1

How is STM stored, coded and the duration

Answer 1

Stored - 7+/- 2
Coded - acoustically
Duration - 18s

Question 2

How is LTM stored, coded and the duration

Answer 2

Stored - unlimited
Coded - semantically
Duration - lifetime

Question 3

Test for coding - Baddeley

Answer 3

Remember 4 lists semantically/acoustically similar/not similar. Immediate recall worse with acoustically similar. STM - acoustic LT - semantic

Question 4

Test for Capacity Jacobs

Answer 4

Jacobs 1887 - measured digital span (increasing digits of numbers had to remember), mean digits - 9.3, mean letters 7.3

Question 5

Test for Capacity Millar

Answer 5

7+/-2, recall in chunks

Question 6

Test for duration Peterson and peterson

Answer 6

Remember 3 letters count backwards from 3 digit number, intervals 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18
3s - 90%
18s - 3%
STM = 18s

Question 7

Test for duration Bahrick

Answer 7

17-74 year old memory book
50 photos recall faces /(11) free recall (2)
1. 90% - 17 years, 70% - 74
2. 60% - 17, 30% - 74
LTM = lifetime

Question 8

Evaluation of coding study

Answer 8

Helped develop multi - store model however test was artificial

Question 9

Evaluation of duration study (Jacobs/Millar)

Answer 9

Jacobs - replicatable therefore valid
Miller - overestimates STM capacity

Question 10

Evaluation of capacity study (Bahrick/Petersons)

Answer 10

Bahrick - high external validity
Peterson - meaningless stimulus/lacks external validity

Question 11

Explanations for forgetting - Interference

Answer 11

Block/forgotten in LTM
Harder when similar

Question 12

Explanations for forgetting - Interference (2 types)

Answer 12

Proative - old with new
Retroactive - new with old

Question 13

Test for interference (forgetting)

Answer 13

McGeoth and McDonald - effect of simularity
Learn words 100% = synonyms, antonyms, related, constant syllables (similar) , numbers, no words
Worst recall = syllable group

Question 14

Evaluation for interference

Answer 14

Real world - rugby players asked to recall names. Most played = worst recall
Only explains some - same memories/unimportant for everyday
Application - adverts, shown multiple times in one day - reduce interference

Question 15

Types of LTM

Answer 15

Semantic - Knowledge of world, dictionary, facts
Procedural - unconscious actions
Episodic - events, time stamped, names, places, concious

Question 16

Clive LTM case study

Answer 16

Episodic recall damaged however procedural and semantic unaffected. Remember how to play piano but not where he studied

Question 17

Evaluation of LTM

Answer 17

Case study evidence Clive +HM shows difference in LTM
Case study not generalisable
Difficult to actually see sections
Help memory in elderly people

Question 18

Multi-store model

Answer 18

Sensory memory - processes from stimulus/environment, duration limited
Attention - if non, info lost
STM - holds 18 sec, acoustic, 7+/-2 chunks
Maintenance rehearsal - repeat to ourselves
LTM - holds lifetime, semantic, unlimited
Retrieval - becomes available

Question 19

Evaluate MSM

Answer 19

Support - use scan to show STM/LTM, controlled lab
Case study - HM, removed hippocampus couldn’t make more LTM
Too simplistic - LTM/STM different stores

Question 20

The working memory model Central executive

Answer 20

Monitors in and out, limited storage, codes any

Question 21

The working memory model Phonological loop

Answer 21

Phonological store - hear
Arficulatory process - maintenance rehearsal
Preserves order
Capacity 2 sec
coded acoustic

Question 22

The working memory model LTM

Answer 22

Coded - semantically
Capacity - unlimited
Duration - lifetime

Question 23

The working memory model episodic buffer

Answer 23

Integrates info from all areas, sends to LTM

Question 24

The working memory model - Visuospacial sketchpad STM

Answer 24

Visual information
Visual cache - visualize
Inner scribe - arrangement
Capacity - limited 3/4 chunks
Coded - visual spacial

Question 25

Evaluation WMM

Answer 25

Evidence - B.F damaged PL but VSS still worked Case studies not generalized Some people just under perform/difficult attention Baddeley found harder to do 2 visual tasks and than 1 visual 1 verbal

Question 26

Retrieval failure

Answer 26

No cues so memories not acceptable

Question 27

Encoding specificity principle Tulving

Answer 27

Cues are present at encoding, they forget, cues aren't present so no retrieval

Question 28

Case study (context dependent) into retrieval failure

Answer 28

Godden and Baddeley, learnt words on land /underwater, tested retrieval same/different place. Highest recall when same place

Question 29

Case study (statet dependent) into retrieval failure

Answer 29

Goddwin remember words sober/drunk, recall better after 24 hours in same state

Question 30

Evaluation of retrieval failure

Answer 30

Support cues - school test, gave cues to students Tests lack mundane realism - can't explain all forgetting Real world - forgetting in real life

Question 31

Eyewitness anxiety negative effect

Answer 31

Johnson and Scott - patients waiting G1: someone has small conversation, walks in with greese hands and a pen G2: someone has an explosive argument, walks in with knife and blood People asked to recall out of pictures, the low anxiety recall 49%, high only 33% = weapon focus

Question 32

Tunnel theory

Answer 32

People focus on the weapon rather than the person

Question 33

Eyewitness anxiety positive effect

Answer 33

Actual crime, used 13 witnesses mix of anxiety, compared police report and interview 4/5 months. High stress = 88% accurate recall, 75% low

Question 34

Evaluation of eyewitness anxiety

Answer 34

Not weapon focus - walked into hairdresser with raw chicken and gun, both weird Support negative - London dungeons and heart rate, high anxiety = less anxious Support positive - interviewed bank robbery found no different between low/high anxiety, high even enhanced recall

Question 35

Eyewitness info misleading info - leading questions case study Loftus and Palmer

Answer 35

45 students asked 'How fast where the cars going when they ......' Verbs included hit, collided, smashed, bumped, contacted. Highest estimated speed at smashed lowest at contacted. Then asked if there was glass, faster (smashed) where more likely to say there was.

Question 36

Eyewitness info misleading info - post event discussion case study Gabbert

Answer 36

Watch video of a a car crash, different POV, let people discuss then asked questions. 71% recall said they saw something they didn't actually see. Conformity for social approval

Question 37

Evaluate misleading info

Answer 37

Misleading with Disney ad - bugs bunny Lack of ecological validity - tests aren't like reality/may not take it as seriously Real world support for criminal justice

Question 38

Improve eyewitness cognitive interview

Answer 38

Reinstate context (relax, trigger cues, return to environment) Report everything Reverse the order Change perspective (prevent schema)

Question 39

Evaluation of cognitive interview

Answer 39

Time consuming and money/training required Meta analysis compared cognitive with CI and 41% more correct and only 4/55 showed no difference Measured on quantity rather than quality - some incorrect info