Memory (A03) Flashcards
(9 cards)
A03 for coding, capacity, and duration of memory
+ive Controlled lab studies: One strength of the lab studies in this are is that they are highly controlled, carefully manipulating variables (e.g timings, amounts, or coding) so that differences can be seen between conditions. This is a strength of research in this area because the findings have been replicated many times suggesting good validity.
-ive Weaknesses of Bahrick’s quasi experiment: One issue with Bahrick’s study is that the independent variable was 15 or 48 years or more, so it very difficult to control for confounding variables during this time e.g the number of conversations about high school that each P was having. Though the ecological validity of the study is good (recalling names and faces is memory task we do daily in real life settings) the internal validity could be affected by poor control.
-ive Artificial stimuli: One issue with the lab studies in this area in that they often use stimuli that have little value in real life tests of memory (e.g.. Nonsense trigrams, random letters, grids of letters) . This means that research may not really tell us how people use their memory in the dynamic and complex scenarios in everyday settings.
A03 for multi-store model
+ive Research support: comes from HM’s case study, where the removal of hippocampus to stop epileptic fits, resulted in inability to make new long term memories. This shows that STM and LTM have different stores. However, these results aren’t replicable and he is unique and his neurochemistry may be different. Additionally, HM was shown to have procedural memory — he had no cognitive recollection of mirror drawing but he had the ability to do so. This suggests that early case studies like this provide only limited support at the best.
+ive Research support: Baddley found we tend to mix up words that sound similar when using STM but words that mean similar when using LTM. Shows STM is acoustic and LTM is semantic, so they are different and it supports MSM’s view that the stores are different and independent.
-ive: How do we keep LTM? One weakness of the model is that in its early form it couldn’t account for how people sometimes hold onto information for long periods of time without any rehearsal. Based on this they added elaborative rehearsal at a later date, suggesting that the greater the links we make to existing long term memories the more likely we are to retrieve it. Maintenance rehearsal for storage in LTM has to some extent therefore become a redundant process.
+ive Incredibly influential: One strength of the MSM is that it led to huge amounts of follow up research that pushed our understanding in of the nature of memory to a deeper level. Specifically, the WMM built on and developed elements of the theory to become the contemporary explanation for short term memory.
A03 for working memory model
+ive Dual task studies support multiple stores: A strength of the WMM is that it has differentiation with STM stores. This is supported by the dual task study in which Ps do a digit span test as well as a verbal reasoning test. As the number of digits increased, the participants did take longer to answer the verbal reasoning questions but only by a fraction of a second. This helps us understand the fact that STM isn’t held in one store and shows why we can multitask because different stores hold the verbal and visual information separately. However, until 2000 it didn’t include the episodic buffer, where activities that take information that is dual encoded (e.g reading) is help in order, showing that the model is overcoming limitations found in new research.
-ive C.E is vague: One issue with the model is that the processes involved in the C.E are not described in detail. Baddeley himself noted that they were the least understood of the components. Some have argued that this it is little more than attention where as others have described several processes that the C.E is responsible for including shifting and updating. This is clearly a limitation of the model.
+ive Support from KF: One issue The KF Case Study supports the Working Memory Model. KF suffered brain damage from a motorcycle accident that damaged his short-term memory. KF’s impairment was mainly for verbal information - his memory for visual information was largely unaffected. This shows that there are separate STM components for visual information (VSS) and verbal information (phonological loop) thus clearly supporting the model. PealH: However it could be argued that case study.
+ive Influential: One of the main strengths of the model is the amount of follow up studies and influence the WMM has had. It has inspired huge amounts of research that have deepened our understanding of the processes involved in STM and been applied in to a range of application in the real world including education. One of its primary uses is as a standardised tool in the diagnosis of dyslexia. This is important because it shows how important the model is in using psychology to improve people’s lives.
A03 for types of LTM
+ive Evidence from brain scans: Some studies have shown that the cerebellum is important in earlier stages of motor skill learning. It is necessary for coordinating the specific repertoire of movements that are needed for well-executed skilled motion and for organizing the timing of these movements. Brain scans also found that when the participants were using their episodic memory, part of the frontal cortex (frontal lobes) was active, This suggests that episodic memory and semantic memory are two separate systems therefore supporting distinct types of memory.
+ive RWA: Perhaps showed that episodic memories could be improved in older patients with mild cognitive impairments. Trained participants performed better than a control group which suggest that understanding the nature of LTM allows specific treatments to be created.
-ive: Declarative or not?: Some researchers have argued that episodic and semantic memories are actually one store. i.e) one’s that we can “declare” we have access to: i.e) they can be consciously recalled. As opposed to non-declarative LTM like the skills and abilities in procedural memories. This is a massive issue
A03 for interference as explanation of forgetting
+ive Supporting field study: One supporting study is McGeogh and McDonald (1931) ask Ps to learn two sets of words and then tested them on the fist set finding that the bigger the similarity (synonyms or antonyms over numbers or no second list) the poorer the recollection. This supports the interference as an explanation of forgetting.
-ive Lack of E.V on the supporting research: Most of the strongest evidence is provided by laboratory experiments which lack ecological validity and may therefore not truly explain the nature of interference in day to day tasks. We must therefore be careful generalising from the robust findings in the lab to forgetting in other settings particularly if the lab studies used contrived situations.
+ive Supporting field study: Baddeley and Hitch (1997) studied rugby players forgetting the names of the teams they had played. Results found that it depended more on the number of teams they had played in the interim rather than the amount of time and so the interference of all the different teams they had played had caused them to forget
-ive: Interference may be overcome by using cues:
One massive issue for the theory is that Tulving and Psotska (1974) found that in an interference experiment where Ps were loosely given the categories of the information to be learned. Interference still had an effect until they were reminded of the categories (types of accommodation, types of rank in the military). This suggests that when cues are reinstated recall improves showing that interference may not be as big of an issue as lack of cues in forgetting.
A03 for absence of cues explanation of forgetting
+ive Evidence for context dependent learning: Baddeley (1975) found that divers who learnt a list of words either underwater or on the side of the pool were significantly more likely to recall them if they retrieved them in the same place that they learnt them. This is important because it clearly demonstrates the importance of the absence of cues in forgetting in a cleverly designed study.
+ive Research support antihistamine study: Carter and Cassaday (1998) gave anti-histamines to students while they learnt content for a test, and then for half of them when they retrieved in the information in the test. This study suggests that the drowsiness of anti-histamine can aid recall if it was present during encoding and retrieval. In a cleverly designed study this is therefore clear support for the study.
+ive RWA: The absence of cues has been used in several real world applications to benefit society…
1.) Eyewitness testimony: The basis of the Cognitive interview is re-establishing context.
2.) Helping Patients with Dementia. This is major strength of theory because it has implications for helping people in society, the main goal of psychology as a whole. This is important because it shows how the theory can help people perhaps even benefitting the economy in the case of the C.I because of its potential to reduce crime.
-ive Untestable: One issue is that ESP is actually untestable. Even though context effects have been found consistently we have no way of definitively linking the cue to the recall. It is an assumption and therefore difficult to test which is a problem for the theory.
-ive Very different contexts are required: The biggest issue for this theory of forgetting is that huge differences must be present during learning and retrieval for an effect to occur. Baddeley himself argued this meant it had very little significance in everyday settings and therefore limits the theories potential applications.
eyewitness testimony: misleading info
-ive Demand characteristics: One criticism of the misleading information research is that they may suffer from demand characteristics. In that, the students may have guessed what was expected of them in the experiment i.e) they may have picked up on the unusual nature of the question or the odd discussion afterwards and changed their behaviour to what they thought was expected of them. This is important because it means that students memories for the event weren’t being tested rather their ability to go along with a behavioural requirement of taking part in an unusual lab study.
-ive Lack of E.V: they watched film clips which is different from witnessing a real car accident due to lack of stress. This may be a limitation because these studies aren’t analysing a true experience which may solidify memory more during a post-event discussion and leading questions may not inhibit eyewitness testimonies when one has experienced the event.
-ive High E.V study finds no effects: Another study with high E.V Yuille and Cutshall found no effect of leading questions on EWT. In the follow up study on a real life Canadian bank robbery found that 6 months after witnesses were not affected by a leading question about the colour of a car door used in the event. This suggests that in a real study where anxiety is high leading questions had no effect, contradicting Loftus’ research.
+ive RWA: A strength of both pieces of research is that they have had massive RWA. Loftus’ work led to police being more wary of their phrasing as they acknowledged it could affect the results of the testimony. Loftus led to an acknowledgement into the inaccuracies of eyewitness testimonies. Gabbert also supports this point, as police now encourage witnesses not to discuss the event they witnessed with anyone else. Therefore, the avoidance of the situations in Loftus’ and Gabbert’s studies have led to improvements within this field.
effects of anxiety on EWT
-ive Demand characteristics: One criticism of lab studies in this area is that they suffer from demand characteristics. In that, the students may have guessed what was expected of them in the experiment i.e) they may have picked up on the unusual nature of the dramatic argument. This is important because it means that students memories for the event weren’t being tested rather their ability to go along with a behavioural requirement of taking part in an unusual lab study.
-ive Ethics: Though using participants who have experienced situations of high anxiety can increase validity, it can also cause psychological harm which leads to potential questions of whether this research is truly necessary if that leads to the detriment of a participant’s mental health. Though Johnson and Scott’s study would not invoke a negative response, Yuille and Cutshall’s study could, and with field studies there is always a risk of consent which could upset the participant.
-ive Contradictory chicken leg study: Pickel ran a replication of the Johnson and Scott study but in a hairdressers where an assailant ran out from the back through the shop brandishing a knife, an oily pen or a piece of raw chicken. They found no difference between the raw chicken condition and the bloody pen suggesting that the unusualness of the object may cause distraction rather than the weapon focus.
-ive Poor control in field studies: Though the Canadian bank robbery study suggests anxiety has a positive effect on recall, field studies lack control; there is no measure as to whether the participants had discussed the event after the event and the sample size was very small. This is a limitation of this research because there are a number of extraneous variables that could affect recall.
A03 cognitive interview
+ive Supporting meta analysis: Köhnken et al: completed a meta analysis of 53 studies and found an 81% increase of correct information at the point of recall when using the enhanced cognitive interview instead of a standard interview. This is a strength because studies like this one suggest there are practical benefits to using enhanced cognitive interview.
-ive However, the cognitive interview also enhances the chances of false positives, as suggested by the same study, which also found a 61% increase of incorrect information.
-ive Variations: The police force tend to use different variations of the cognitive interview, potentially due to different training or involving their own methods. This would consequently result in any corresponding research being limited in validity due to those exact cognitive interview techniques not being used in the police’s interviews.
+ive ECop: Milne and Bull: They found each individual element was equally valuable, but combinations of certain elements of the cognitive interview can be more beneficial than others (such as the combination of “report everything” and and “context reinstatement” produced better recall). This is a strength because this suggests the police can only use two aspects and increase the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies
-ive Time consuming: One issue with the The C.I is that it takes much more time than a standard interview, due to more time needed for establishing a rapport with the participant. Additionally, there is more time needed to train officers for the cognitive interview and many forces have not been able to provide more than a few hours (as suggested by Kebbell and Wagstaff 1996). This means it’s unlikely the proper version of the cognitive interview is actually used which explains the potentially mixed reviews from the police force. This also limits its real world applications.
