What is the coding of;
And who found it?
STM = acoustic, e.g. cat, cab
LTM = semantic, e.g. large, big
What’s an evaluative limitation of Baddeley’s (1966) work?
It used artificial material:
- no personal meaning, may use semantic for STM if meaningful –> generalise?
What is the capacity of the STM?
1) Jacob (1887):
- researcher recalls digits until they can’t be recalled correctly.
- = 9.3 numbers, 7.3 digits on average.
2) Miller (1956):
- span of 7+/-2 = improved by chunking
What’s an evaluative limitation of Jacob’s (1887) work?
Conducted a long time ago:
- early research lacked control of EVs, e.g. distraction.
- effects validity
What’s an evaluative limitation of Miller’s (1956) work?
Cowan (2001) concluded it was about 4 chunks, so lower end of 7+/-2 chunks.
What is the duration of the STM?
Petersen and Petersen (1959):
- 24 students given consonant syllables to remember and 3 digit number to count backwards from.
- = 80% after 3s, 3% after 18s
- = 18-30s
What’s an evaluative limitation of Petersen + Petersen (1959) work?
Used artificial stimuli:
- syllables don’t reflect real life memories.
- external validity, phone numbers?
What’s the duration of the LTM?
Bahrick et al. (1975):
- American participants ages 17-74 face recognition and free recall of high school photos.
- = 40 years after = 70% in photo recognition, free recall less accurate
What’s an evaluative positive of Bahrick et al. (1975) work?
- real life meaningful memories.
- Shepard (1967) found recall was lower if pictures wer meaningless
- any CVs?
What are the 3 types of LTM?
1) Episodic memory
2) Semantic memory
3) Procedural memory
What is the episodic memory?
Events from our lives, e.g. breakfast this morning.
- remember WHEN they happened, involve several elements such as people, place, also a conscious effort is needed to recall them
What is the semantic memory?
Our knowledge of the world, e.g. taste of an orange.
- not time stamped, less personal –> knowledge based.
What is the procedural memory?
Our actions and skills, e.g. riding a bike.
- recall effortless or without awareness, but hard to explain
Give 2 evaluative strengths of different types of LTM
1) Supporting evidence for episodic memory:
- HM + Clive Wearing both had difficulty recalling past events; but semantic memory almost unaffected.
- = one damaged, another unaffected.
2) Brain scans show different stores:
- Tulving et al. (1994).
- participants performed various tasks whilst being scanned with a PET scanner.
- semantic in left prefrontal cortex, episodic in right.
Give 2 evaluative limitations of different types of LTM
1) Problems with clinical evidence:
- based off case studies about damage done to memory.
- cannot control variables like location of brain damage.
2) Actually only two types of LTM?
- Cohen + Squire (1980)
- episodic and semantic together in one store called ‘declarative memory’ as they are consciously recalled.
- procedural different, and non-declarative
- = what is exact difference?
Who made the Multi-Store model of memory?
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
How does stimuli pass into the sensory register, and what is the; - Duration - Capacity - Coding (of the SR)
Passes into SR using our senses.
D - less than 1/2s
Ca - high
Co - depends on sense
How does SR pass info on to STM?
What is the: - Duration - Capacity - Coding (of the STM)
D - 18-30s
Ca - 5-9 items
Co - acoustic
How does STM pass info on to LTM?
By maintenance rehearsal.
What is the: - Duration - Capacity - Coding (of the LTM)
D - up to a lifetime
Ca - up to a lifetime
Co - semantic
Give evaluative weakness of the MSM
1) Evidence suggesting more than one type of STM:
- Shallice + Warrington (1970)
- KF had amnesia, STM for digits was poor but when listening but better when he read them to himself.
- = one for auditory, one for visual?
2) MSM only explains one type of rehearsal:
- Craik + Watkins *1973) suggest there is;
(i) maintenance = already in MSM
(ii) elaborative = linking info. to existing knowledge
3) Research supporting MSM uses artificial stimuli:
- e.g. digits in Petersen+ Petersen’s (1959) study.
- memories about facts, places, people etc not random letters.
- MSM lacking external validity, lab only?
4) MSM oversimplifies LTM:
- evidence to suggest LTM is not just one store.
- facts of the world (semantic), riding a bike (procedural)
Who made the Working Memory Model?
Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
What bridges the Central Executive and the LTM?
The Episodic buffer.
What does the Central Executive do?
Monitors data and allocates slave systems the relevant tasks; dependent on sense.
What comes under the Phonological Loop, and who do they do?
1) Articulatory Control System
= allows maintenance rehearsal to keep it in WM
2) Phonological store
= words you hear
What other slave system is there apart from the Phonological loop, and what does it do?
The Visuo-spatial sketchpad:
= stores visual and/or spatial info, such as how many windows are on a house.
Which case study supports the separate STM stores of the WMM?
Shallice + Warrington (1970) - KF had brain damage.
- Poor verbal ability but could process verbal info.
= phonological loop damaged; others intact.
- unique experiences however?
Apart from case studies, give 2 evaluative strengths of the WMM
1) Dual task performance studies support the VSS:
- Baddeley et al. (1975).
- found participants had difficulty performing two visual tasks than doing a visual and verbal task.
= both compete for same attention.
2) Support from brain scanning studies:
- Braver et al. (1997).
- participants did tasks involving the CE while being scanned.
- = found prefrontal cortex worked harder as the task harder –> physical location?
Give an evaluative criticism of the WMM
Lack of clarity over CE:
- doesn’t really explain anything.
- more than simply just paying attention
- separate components?
What is the definition of forgetting?
The inability to get access to memories in the LTM even though they’re available.
What are the two types of interference?
1) Proactive interference: old memories disrupting new ones.
2) Retroactive interference: new memories disrupting old ones.
Interference worse when memories are similar.
Who did research into the effects of similarity on interference?
McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
Describe McGeoch and McDonald’s (1931) study
- Participants asked to recall a list of words 100% accurately, they were then given a new list of words.
- 6 different lists, e.g. antonyms, synonyms.
- Similar material (synonyms) produced the worst recall.
- Different material increased the mean number of items recalled.
Give 2 evaluative strengths of interference as an explanation of forgetting
1) Lab study demonstrates interference in memory:
- show both types of interferences are likely causes of forgetting.
- labs control EVs –> more valid
2) Research support in real life:
- Baddeley + Hitch (1977).
- Asked rugby players to recall every rugby team they had played, week by week.
- = recall depended on games played in meantime, not how long ago.
Give 2 evaluative limitations of interference as an explanation of forgetting
1) Research uses artificial materials:
- different from things we remember in everyday life, e.g. someone’s face.
- lab explanation but not ‘every day’ forgetting?
2) Time allowed between learning in research:
- time for learning words very low.
- lab studies reduce experience into short time period.
- may not reflect how we learn and remember in real life?
- can we generalise from labs to real life?
What can a lack of cues cause?
What is the ‘encoding specificity principle’ and who came up with it?
(i) Tulving (1983).
(ii) Cues help retrieval if the same cues are present at encoding and at retrieval.
What are the two types of cues that can help retrieval?
1) Context-dependent forgetting: external/environmental cue e.g. weather.
2) State-dependent forgetting: internal cue, state of mind e.g. drunk.
Who’s the key study for context-dependent forgetting?
Godden and Baddeley (1975)
What was the procedure for Godden + Baddeley’s study?
- The cues were the location of learning and recall; in this case land or underwater.
- The context varied where they were asked to learn and recall the word lists.
What were the findings of Godden + Baddeley’s study?
- If the environmental context of learning and recall did not match, the accuracy was 40% lower than if they did.
- When external cues at learning were different from the ones at recall, this led to retrieval failure.
Give 2 evaluative strengths of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting
1) Range of evidence supports this explanation:
- e.g. Godden + Baddeley’s research with deep-sea divers.
- Eysenck (2010) - most important/main reason for forgetting in LTM –> increased validity.
2) Context-related cues have everyday applications:
- common in every day life, e.g. going upstairs and forgetting what you went upstairs for.
- shows = when we have trouble remembering something, we should go and revisit environment in which you first experienced.
- also seen is ‘context reinstatement’ of cognitive interview.
Give 2 evaluative limitations of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting
1) Context effects not strong in real life:
- Baddeley (1966) says contexts have to be very different to notice a significant effect
- e.g. learning in one room, and recalling in a different room would not have a significant effect.
- much real-life application?
2) ESP (Tulving) cannot be tested:
- leads to tautology.
- when a cue produces recall, we assume cue must have been present at learning.
- if there’s no recall, we assume cue was not encoded.
What are the two types of consequences come from leading questions?
1) Response-bias = influences kind of answer given.
2) Substitution = interference with eyewitness memory; distorting accuracy.
Who’s the key study for leading questions?
Loftus + Palmer (1974)
What was the procedure of Loftus + Palmer’s study?
- 45 participants watched clips of car accidents.
- Each asked ‘how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’
- 5 groups, all had a different verb = contacted-smashed.
What were the findings of Loftus + Palmer’s study?
- Contacted produced a response of 31.8mph.
- Smashed produced a response of 40.5mph
= Smashed suggested a faster speed than contacted.
What are the two possible consequences of discussing an event after it happened?
1) Memory contamination = mixing of memories with others.
2) Memory conformity = go along with others for NSI + ISI.
Who is the key study for post-event discussion?
Gabbert et al. (2003)
What was the procedure of Gabbert et al.’s (2003) study?
- Paired participants watched a videoed crime, but each saw different elements of the video.
- Both discussed it, after watching it, then individually recalled.
What were the findings of Gabbert et al.’s (2003) study?
- 71% recalled aspects of the event that they did not see, but had from a PED.
- Control group; no discussion = no errors.
How has research into misleading info had real-life applications?
- Practical use for police officers; consequences of using inaccurate EWT can be very serious.
- Loftus says police need to be careful about how to phrase questions; so not to distort memory.
- Improves legal system works.
Give a limitation of Loftus + Palmer’s study?
Used artificial materials:
- watching clips of accidents very different from experiencing it.
- Yuille + Cutshall (1986) found witnesses of a roberry had high accuracy.
Who suggested there may be individual differences in accuracy of EWT, and what do he/she/they mean?
- Anastasi + Rhodes (2006)
- Found that older people were less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness testimony; but all age groups were more accurate when identifying their own age.
How does research into EWT lack external validity?
- Foster et al. (1994) - say what you remember as an eyewitness is more important than remembering in real life
= b/c the testimony may lead to a successful conviction.
- Same not true for studies?
Which 2 psychologists say anxiety has a negative effect on memory?
Johnson + Scott (1974)
Describe the procedure of Johnson + Scott’s study?
- Participants sat in a waiting room, and heard an argument where one person immerged.
- Low-anxiety situation = a man comes through with pen + greasy hands.
- High-anxiety situation = heated argument, followed by someone holding a paper knife with blood on it.
What were the findings of Johnson + Scott’s study?
- 49% of participants in low anxiety identified him successfully.
- 33% of participants in high anxiety identified him correctly
Why was there a lower percentage of recall in the high anxiety situation?
Weapon-focus effect; source of danger and anxiety.
Which 2 psychologists say anxiety has a positive effect on the memory?
Yuille + Cutshall (1986)
Describe the procedure of Yuille + Cutshall’s study?
- Real-life crime, where the thief was shot dead.
- 21 witnesses, 13 agreed to participate.
- Participants interviewed 4-5 months after incident.
What were the findings of Yuille + Cutshall’s study?
- Very accurate, little change after 5 months for main aspects.
- Participants who reported the highest levels of stress were most accurate;
= 88% compared to 75% for the least-stressed witnesses.
Who came up with the Inverted-U theory?
Yerkes and Dodson (1908)
According to the Inverted-U theory, the relationship between performance and arosual/stress is what?
Give 2 limitations of Johnson + Scott’s study
1) May test surprise not anxiety:
- may focus on weapon because they are surprised not scared.
- Pickel (1998) - used scissors, handgun, wallet and raw chicken: accuracy was poorer for unusualness
= effect of anxiety EWT is what exactly?
2) Ethical issues:
- creating anxiety purely for research purposes
- real-life studies beneficial; psychologist don’t have to created traumatic event.
- don’t challenge findings, just how research is conducted.
Give 1 limitation of Yuille + Cutshall’s study
1) Field studies lack control of variables:
- things may happen in the meantime which researchers cannot control, e.g. discussing event with media.
- EVs may be responsible for (in)accuracy.
How is the Inverted-U theory too simplistic?
- Anxiety has many elements inc. cognitive, emotional, behavioural and physical.
- I-U only assumes poor performance is linked to physiological arousal.
Who came up with the different elements of the cognitive interview?
Fisher + Geiselmann (1992)
What is the cognitive interview based off?
Psychological insight into how memory works
What does ‘report everything’ mean?
- Include all details of the event, even if they’re irrelevant = may trigger other memories.
What does ‘reinstate the context’ mean?
- Return to the crime and imagine the environment, based on context-dependent forgetting.
What does ‘reverse the order’ mean?
- Events recalled in a different chronological order; prevents people using expectations rather than actual events and prevents dishonesty.
What does ‘change the perspective’ mean?
- Recalling from other people’s perspectives; prevents the influence of expectations and schema on recall.
Give an evaluative strength of the CI?
1) Some elements are useful:
- Milne + Bull (2002) found each element was equally valuable.
- Combo of ‘report everything’ and ‘reinstate the context’ produced the best recall than others individually.
How do Kebbel + Wagstaff criticise the CI
- Much more time-consuming than a standard police interview.
- Requires special training; forces can only spare a few hours.
How do Kohnken et al. (1999) criticise CI
- Produces an increase in inaccurate info as well as correct info.
- 81% increase in correct info; 61% increase in incorrect info.
= treat all info cautiously?
How might research into CI be unreliable?
- Variations of it are used of CI, enhanced CI, and police forces use their own methods.