Memory AO3 Flashcards
Strength of research into coding (Baddeley).
Identified a clear difference between the two stores.
The idea of STM using mostly acoustic coding and LTM mostly semantic has stood the test of time.
Lead to MSM.
Weakness of research into coding (Baddeley).
Used artificial stimuli.
Word lists had no meaning to ppts, so findings may not tell us much about coding in different tasks in everyday life.
If information is more meaningful semantic coding may be used even for STM tasks.
Strength of research into capacity (Jacob).
Replicated.
Early psychological research often lacked adequate controls, however, others, such as Bopp and Verhaeghen, have confirmed Jacobs’ findings.
Weakness of research into capacity (Miller).
Overestimation.
Cowan (2001) reviewed other research, concluding STM capacity is only about 4+-1 chunks.
Suggesting the lower end (5) is more appropriate than 7.
Strength of research into duration (Bahrick).
High external validity.
As meaningful memories were investigated (people’s names/faces). When meaningless pictures were used recall rates were lower.
Weakness of research into duration (Peterson and Peterson).
Meaningless stimuli.
Ppts were asked to recall consonant syllables which doesn’t reflect everyday memory activities.
But it was a lab experiment = high internal validity.
Case study supporting MSM
Supporting evidence.
Case study - HM was marked with problems in LTM after the removal of his hippocampus but performed well in STM tests.
Suggests there are different types of memory stores.
But it is a case study. Lacks control variables, is prone to researcher bias and we are unsure of his prior memory function.
Weakness of MSM
Multiple types of rehearsal.
Craik and Watkins (1973) found two types of rehearsal maintenance and elaborative, with the type more important than the amount. Elaborative is needed for LTM, occurring when information is linked to existing knowledge.
This means prolonged rehearsal isn’t needed, which suggests MSM doesn’t fully explain LTM.
Strength of MSM
Research support.
Baddley (1966) found we mix up words that sound similar using our STM but mix up words with similar meanings in our LTM.
Showing they’re independent stores, as the MSM claims.
But lacks ecological validity as artificial stimuli were used.
Case study supporting different types of LTM.
Clinical evidence.
Clive Wearing suffered brain damage due to cold sore virus. He lost his episodic memory while his procedural was fully intact and semantic partially.
Supporting separate stores as one can be damaged while the rest are unaffected.
Case study. Lacks control variables, is prone to researcher bias and we are unsure of his prior memory function.
Weakness of multiple types of LTM.
Conflicting neuro-imaging evidence.
Buckner and Peterson (1996) concluded semantic memory is located on the left side of the pre-frontal cortex and episodic on the right.
Tulving et al (1994) found the left to be responsible for episodic coding and the right for episodic retrieval.
Challenging neurophysical evidence as there is poor agreement.
Low temporal validity - the development of technology means evidence may now be more precise and conclusive.
Strength of multiple types of LTM.
Real-life applicability.
Research has shown that memory loss relevant to age is specific to episodic memory.
Belleville et al 92006) devised an intervention to improve episodic memory in the elderly. After training ppts performed better on the test than the control group.
Distinguishing types enables the development of specific treatments.
Case study supporting WMM.
Clinical evidence.
KF suffered brain damage, he had poor STM ability for auditory information but could process visual information normally. His phonological loop was damaged but his visuospatial sketchpad was intact.
Supporting the existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores.
Case study. Lacks control variables, is prone to researcher bias and we are unsure of his prior memory function.
Weakness of WMM.
Lack of clarity over central executive.
Baddley (2003) describes the CE as the most important but least understood component, suggesting even he is unsure about it and it’s existence.
Challenging the WMM integrity as we cannot assume we know its role. Some psychologists suggest it may consist of separate subcomponents.
Showing the unjustifiable nature of the cognitive approach, a biological approach may result in more empirical evidence.
Strength of WMM.
Support for dual-task performance.
Baddley et al (19750 showed ppts had more difficulty doing two visual tasks than both visual and verbal due to not competing for the same subsystem.
Showing there are separate subsystems to process visual and verbal input.
Drug studies supporting Interference.
Coenen and van Luijtelaar (1997) found when a list of words was learned under the influence of diazepam, recall a week later was poor but when learned before taking diazepam recall was better than control groups.
showing forgetting can be due to interference reduce interference reduce forgetting.
Lab experiment - high internal validity due to high control.
Weakness of Interference.
Interference isn’t permanent and can be overcome.
Tulving and Psotka (1971) found recall to average about 70% for the first list becoming worse as more were learnt. At the end, ppts were given cued recall causing it to rise to 70%.
Showing the material access is temporarily lost but still in LTM.
Strength of Interference.
Real-world applicability.
Baddley and Hitch (1997) asked rugby players to recall names of teams played against during a season. Found players who played the most games had the poorest recall.
Suggesting interference is operational in real-world scenarios.
However conditions for interference to occur are relatively rare, so it may be better explained by other theories such as retrieval failure due to lack of cues.
Strength of retrieval failure.
Research support.
Eysenck (2010) argues that retrieval failure may be the main reason for forgetting from LTM. Studies have shown that retrieval failure occurs in both real-life situations and highly controlled lab conditions.
Validity is increased as research is in agreement and has consistently measured the effects of retrieval failure.
Lab exp lacks ecological validity whilst field lacks control over extraneous variables meaning it doesn’t allow for standardisation.
Contradictory evidence for retrieval failure.
Baddley (1997) argues context effects aren’t very strong in real life. They have to be very different before an effect is seen (land v underwater).
Doesn’t explain all instances of forgetting.
Weakness of retrieval failure.
Dependent on type of memory being tested.
Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment using a recognition test instead of recall. This found no context-dependent effect, with the performance the same across all conditions.
Suggesting it only applies when recalling information not recognising.
Strength of misleading information.
Real-world applicability.
Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) research into leading questions found that depending on the verb used affected the estimated mean speed, proving leading questions can bias an eyewitness even unintentionally.
This can be used to improve the way legal systems work, by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT.
Lab experiment - lacks ecological validity, real-life EWT may be more reliable due to the knowledge of real consequences.
Weakness of misleading information.
Some aspects are more accurate than others.
Sutherland and Hayne (2001) showed ppts a video. Their recall was more accurate for central details than peripheral. The ppts were likely focused on central features which were relatively resistant to misleading information.
This goes against the outcome predicted by substitution theory.
Presence of demand characteristics in EWT.
Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argued ppts don’t want to let researchers down resulting in them changing their behaviour.
Suggest EWT may be a manipulated version of the truth, based on what ppts perceive to be the ‘right’ answer based on societal norms.
Gabbert et al (2003) expanded on this idea after research into post-event discussion which found EWT often became a blend of what was watched and the co-witnesses version.
