Memory Evaluation Flashcards
Evaluation of coding research
Seperate memory stores:
Baddeley’s study idebtified a clear difference between memory stores. This was an important step in our understanding of the memory system, which lef to the multi-store model.
Artificial stimuli:
Baddeley’s findings may not tell us much about coding in different kinds of memory tasks, especially in everyday life. Study had limited application.
Evaluation of capacity research
A valid study:
The study is old which may have had confounding variables however Jacobs’ study has been replicated by controlled studies which confirms findings.
Not so many chunks:
Miller may have overestimated STM capacity. Cowan (2001) concluded capacity of STM is 4+/-1 chunks.
Evaluation of duration
Artificial stimuli in STM study:
Recalling consonant syllables in Peterson’s study does not reflect everyday memory activities where we try to remember something meaningful. Study lacks external validity.
High external validity:
Bahrick et al. investigated meaningful memories. When studies on LTM used meaningless pictures, recall rates were lower.
Multi-store model strength
Research support:
Baddeley found we mix up acoustically similar words when using STM and semantically similar words with LTM.
Studies show STM and LTM are desperate and independent memory stores, like how MSM depicts them.
Multi-store model limitations
Counter evidence:
The memory studies don’t have meaningful information.
This means the MSM may not be a valid model of how memory works in everyday life (where we remember more meaningful information)
More than one STM store:
Shallice and Washington (1970) studied a client with amnesia. They had a poor STM when reading aloud but better when reading to themselves.
This suggests MSM is wrong in claiming that there is just one STM for all types of information.
Elaborating rehearsal:
Craik and Watkins (1973) found the type of rehearsal is better than the amount- elaborative rehearsal is needed for LTM storage.
This occurred when you link information to existing knowledge.
This suggests MSM doesn’t fully explain how LTM storage is achieved.
Types of long term memory research strengths
Clinical evidence:
Case studies of HM and Clive Wearing- both had episodic memory damaged but their semantic and procedural memory was unaffected. This supports Tulving’s view that there are different, separate memory stores in the LTM.
Real world application:
Belleville et al. (2006) devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people. The trained people did better on a episodic memory test than a control group. This shows that distinguishing between types of LTM enables specific treatment to be developed.
Types of long term memory research limitations
Case study issues:
The main limitation is that they lack control of variables l. Researchers have no prior knowledge on the patients memory. This limits what clinical studies can tell us about different types of LTM.
Conflicting neuroimaging evidence:
Buckner and Petersen (1996) found semantic is on the left and episodic on the right of the prefrontal cortex. However Tulving linked episodic with left and semantic with right. No neurophysical evidence for types of memory.
Working memory model strengths
Clinical evidence:
Shallice and Washington’s (1970) case study of KF. KF had poor auditory information processing but could process visual information.
This supports the existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores
Dual task performance:
Baddeley et al.’s (1975) participants carried out a visual and verbal task at the same time, their performance was similar to when the tasks were carried out separately.
When both tasks were verbal or visual, performance declined.
This shows there must be separate slave systems for visual and verbal processing.
Working memory model limitations
Counterpoint to clinical evidence:
KF may have had other cognitive impairments (besides damaged phonological loop) which could affect his cognitive performance.
Nature of the central executive:
Lack of clarity over nature of the CE.
Some psychologists believe the CE is separate components which challenges the integrity of the WMM.
Validity of the model:
The dual-task studies are unlike the tasks we preform in everyday life. This lacks external validity and has limited application.
Interference research strengths
Real-world interference:
Baddeley and Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall names of teams they had played against that season. Players who played the most games (most interference) had the poorest recall.
This shows interference applies to atleast some real-world situations, increasing validity.
Support from drug studies:
Researchers found recall was better when information was learnt before taking diazepam as the drug prevented new info being processed.
This shows that forgetting can be due to inference.
Interference research limitations
Counterpoint to real world application:
Conditions necessary for interference to occur in everyday life are rare, unlike in lab conditions.
This suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories.
Interference and cues:
Tulving and Psotka (1971) found recall progressively got worse as more listed where added for participants to remember. However, recall rose again when they were told the categories of the lists.
This shows interference causes temporary loss, which wasn’t predicted by the theory.
Retrieval failure research strengths
Real-world application:
Retrieval cues can help overcome some forgetting in everyday life. When we have trouble remembering, it is probably worth recalling the environment in which you learnt it.
Research can give us strategies to improve recall.
Research support:
(See AO1)
This evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real world situations as well as lab controlled conditions.
Retrieval failure limitations
Counterpoint to support:
Baddeley said contexts effects are not very strong in everyday life. Different contexts must be very different before an effect is seen.
This means retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not be a good explanation.
Recall versus recognition:
Hidden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test. They found no context-dependent effect.
This suggests retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting as it only applies to recall.
Misleading information and PED strengths
Real-world application:
Police officers must be careful how they phrase a question.
Psychologists explain the limit of EWT to juries.
This shows psychologists can improve the legal system.
Misleading information and PED limitations
counter point to application:
Loftus and Palmer’s participants watched a clip which is a very different from witnessing a real event. A real EWT is more important than participants’ responses.
This suggests EWT is more dependable than studies suggest.
Evidence against substitution:
When participants were later asked misleading questions about a clip, their recall for central details was more accurate as they were more focused on them.
This suggests original memories for central details were not distorted.
Evidence against memory conformity:
After PED, participants blended details from both clips.
This suggests the memory itself is distorted through contamination rather than conformity.
