Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology aqa a level paper 1 > Memory AO3 > Flashcards

Memory AO3 Flashcards

1
Q

Evaluate the nature of memory
(baddley)

A

P- Badddley not meaningful material
E- words no meaning to ppts
E- info meaningful semantic in stm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

evaluate the nature of memory
(Jacobs)

A

P- lacked control
E- ppts distrated
E- reduces internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

evaluate the nature of memory
(Conflicting)

A

P- conflicting research to miller
E- cowan reviewed and only 4 chuncks
E- accpected capactity wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

evaluate the nature of memory
(peterson and perterson)

A

P- artificial stimuli
E- trigrams don’t reflect life
E- lacks mundane realism and external validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

evaluate the nature of memory
(Bahrick)

A

P- high external validity
E- used real memories of school
E- findings accurtley represent life
C- confounding variables uncontrolled

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(Support)

A

P- large support distinct stm ltm
E- KF stm damage
E- exsist as seperate stores

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(logic)

A

P- Makes sense LTM semantic
E- eg, remeber idea of a speach
E- effective face validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(inspiration)

A

P- pioneering model inspired
E- shortcomings led to WMM
E- Beneficial contribution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(ecological)

A

P- little ecological validity
E- peterson and peterson nonsense trigrams investigating STM
E- findings may not be accurate reflecting life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(Types LTM)

A

P- evidence for different types of LTM
E- Clive wearing struggled semantic fine procedural
E- Ltm one stor inaccurate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(Types stm)

A

P- Evidence suggest types of stm
E- KF stuggle verbal fine visual
E- Stm one store inaccurate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

evaluate the multi store model (MSM)
(rehersal)

A

P- argued two types rehersal
E- msm descibes only maintenance
E- elaborative needed ltm when linked to existing knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

evaluate long term memory
(types LTM)

A

P- evidence support different ltm
E- HM learn procedural but not others. Got better at tasks he couldn’t remember doing
E- Showing LTM stores damage seperately.
C- However lack of control in case studies. Unrepresentative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

evaluate long term memory
(brain scans)

A

P- brain scans differnt types differnt parts
E- Episodic and Semantic in same place but diffent sides
E- showing different types ltm different stores suggesting accurate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

evaluate long term memory
(not seperate)

A

P- Episodic and semantic not seperate
E- instead should be decterative and non-declerative
E- difficult to seperate. Stored close together

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

evaluate long term memory
(treatments)

A

P- identifying types allows development treatments
E- Episodic memory improve on cognitive imparment when trained compared to control
E- real life applications, positive outcome

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(disorders)

A

P- centeral executive explain psychological disorders
E- schizophrenic patients shows baddleys disexecutive syndrome compared control. Handled by CE
E- Raises possibility Schizophrenia caused by CE
I- Active reaserch. Potential treatments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(KF)

A

P- support comes form KF
E- Poor smt for verbal but not visual
E- suggesting viso-spatial sketchpad not damaged.
I- supports seperate stores.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(Case study)

A

P- evidence from supporting CS treated cautiously.
E- Conserns unique cases- unreliable
E- no baseline. no control
I- no population validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(dual task)

A

P- dual task supports different sub systems
E- ppts struggle two tasks same system but not diff. Due to no competition for system
E- support exisitance seperate stm stores

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(implications)

A

P- critisised vss suggests spatial info is first visual
E- blind people have spatial awareness
E- vss overly simplified

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(lack clarity)

A

P- lack of clarity over CE
E- not explained
E- CE attentional process, role should be specified
I- WMM incomplete lacks internal validity

23
Q

Evaluate the working memory model (WMM)
(brain scans)

A

P- brain scanning studies support
E- ppts did tasks involving CE greater activity in LPC. Task difficulty increase so did activity
E- demands on CE increase, so work harder to function
I- high internal validity, biological basis

24
Q

Evaluate interference theory
(support retroactive)

A

P- Evidence support retroactive
E- ppts given 2 lists. If second was similar, recall of first was bad
E- shows interference stronger when similar. Valid explanation

25
Evaluate interference theory (Lab xperiments)
P- more likely in lab, due to artificial nature E- common task in studys not same as remebering faces, names E- lacks generalisabiloty I- reduces external validity. lacked mundane realism
26
Evaluate interference theory (everyday situations)
P- reaserch support from everyday situations E- rugby players asked to recall names of teams played often missed one out. Did not depend on how long ago but how many E- can apply irl I- increases external validity can use to prevent forgetting
27
Evaluate interference theory (unrepresentative of life)
P- learning infomation for a study doesn't represent everyday life E- May learn 2 lists 20 mins appart then recall one a few mins after that E- setup to cause max interference I- studies overemphasise it's effect. reduce applicability
28
Evaluate interference theory (overcome)
P- interference effects overcome by cues E- when given catagoried lists, recall dropped as learnt more but given cue it rised again E- interference can be reduced I- limits explanatory power as can be reversed
29
Evaluate retrieval falure theory (different to real world)
P- very different to real life E- context effects not strong irl. Must be extreme to see a difference E- learning and recalling in seperate rooms won't give same effect I- limitation as not reflective. limited applicability
30
Evaluate retrieval falure theory (applications)
P- real life applications E- explains a common occourance E- results used to help those with problems remebering I: worth trying to remember where you learnt it- cognitive interview
31
Evaluate retrieval falure theory (test)
P- impossible to test context dependent E- Assume cue and memory formed at same time. If not we assume it was not encoded E- expriments have low internal validity, not testing what they want I: reducing validity of supporting reasearch
32
Evaluate retrieval falure theory (range of experiments)
P- Lab, field and natural experiments support E- Godden and Baddley context dependent carter and cassidey state dependent E- increases likelihood it's valid.
33
Evaluate loftus and Palmers reasearch (mundane realism)
P- Lacked mundane realism E- task involved watching a video, easy to geuss they'd be asked questions E- Irl don't know going to be a witness. Lack of emotions in lab I- lacks internal validity
34
Evaluate loftus and Palmers reasearch (population validity)
P- lacks population validity E- all american students E- not experienced drivers compared to older. Impact susceptibility. May not be generalisable I- older less suseptable to leading questions as better judge of speed
35
Evaluate Gabbert et al's reaserch (Mundane realism)
P- lacked mundane realism E- Partcipants watched a video, unusual E- geussed they'd be questioned I- lack of emotions. Decrease external validity
36
Evaluate Gabbet et al's research (population validity)
P- has good population validity E- used a mix of students and adults E- people of all ages impacted by PED I- easy to generalise results
37
Evaluate Gabbet et al's research (Good control)
P- Good control E- lab conditions E- PED can change people's memories I- gives the research validity
38
Evaluate loftus and palmers reaserch (Control)
P- good control E- lab conditions E- the verb impacts the answer I- gives it internal validity
39
Evaluate Misleading infomation (applications)
P- has practical applications E- cognitive interview E- retriveal accurate I- benefits society, reduces false accusations
40
Evaluate misleading infomation (artificial)
P- uses artificial tasks E- Loftus and Palmer ppts watch video E- different from witnessing irl reduces external validity I- reaserch is limited in use. not generalise
41
Evaluate misleading infomation (individual)
P- individual differences in accuacy of EWT E- study show ppl between 18-45 more accuate than people 55-78 E- studies should test all age groups
42
Evaluate misleading infomation (true irl)
P- dispite reaserch, may not have an impact IRL E- ppts know they're in study. Answers have no effect E- Real EWT people aware of effect I- lab studies have low extrenal validity
43
Evaluate misleading infomation (lab experiments)
P- lab experiments low exernal valididty E- Argue answers are demand characteristics E- leads to please you screw you act unnaturally I- eyewitness anticipate being subject to leading legal arguments.
44
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT (wepon focus)
P- wepon focus effect caused by something else E- Pickel found surprise conditions led to better identification of perpetrators than threataning ones E- supports result of surprise rather than anxiety I- limits our knowledge of cause due contradictory evidence. Reduced validity
45
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT (real life applications)
P- real life applications to this research E- help determine witness credibility. Optimal level of anxiety for max accuarcy E- findings useful for those questioning witnesses I- benefit to justice system anxiety accounted for less wrong accusations
46
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT (feild studies)
P- feild studies lack control E- reaserchers interview real eyewitnesses. No control over PED E- extraneous variables, may measure something else I- reduces internal validity, not useful determining effects
47
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT (Inverted- U)
P- Focuses only on physiological effects E- physcial changes affect accuracty E- Anxiety is more complex. Ignores cognitive element I- may have different effects on EWT due to individual needs. Cannot be generalised
48
Evaluate the effect of anxiety on EWT (ethics)
P- Ethical issues should be considered E- creating anxiety in lab is unethical, psychological harm, purely for reaserch E- does not challenge findings but questions need I- issue in real life studies. Causes psychological harm recalling distressing events
49
Evaluate the cognitive interview (helpful)
P- helpful when interviewees are older E- produced more infomation if older. Due to over caution feeling like wasting time. CI importance of everything E- more effective with older I- allows them more accurate valid recounts
50
Evaluate the cognitive interview (variations)
P- difficult to establish effectiveness as there's many variations E- collection of related techniques eg Thames Valley police don't use changing perpectives E- hard to conclude which areas are effective
51
Evaluate the cognitive interview (valuble)
P- each element thought to be equal in value E- used individually they all produce more info C- found report everything and context reinstatement together produce better recall E- some elelments more important. Pointless to use all 4
52
Evaluate the cognitive interview (time)
P- time consuming E- more time to establish rapport with witness E- takes up more resources I- reluctant to use. Less applicable
53
Evaluate the cognitive interview (incorrect)
P- increase incorrect info E- 81% increase correct. 61% increase incorrect E- used carefully I- police limited production of incorrect info. Discard the method

Psychology aqa a level paper 1 (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions