MEMORY - needs ao3 Flashcards
(19 cards)
MULTI-STORE MODEL AO1
STIMULUS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT
SENSORY REGISTER takes in all stimulus from the environment, from all senses. Coding is modality-specific (visual in iconic, acoustic in echoic, etc), Duration is very brief, under half a second, Capacity is very high
~ Attention must be paid for transfer into STM
SHORT TERM MEMORY is a limited capacity store of temporary duration. Coding is acoustic, Duration is about 18 seconds unless rehearsed, Capacity is 5±2 items.
~ Maintenance rehearsal keeps information in the STM, and enough rehearsal moves it into the LTM
LONG TERM MEMORY is a permanent memory store. Coding is mostly semantic (in terms of meaning), Duration is potentially up to lifetime, and Capacity is potentially unlimited
MULTI-STORE MODEL AO3
✔ = Research support that distinguishes STM and LTM - Baddely found we mix up words with similar sounds with our STM and similar meanings with our LTM. Indicates different coding stores
✘ = However, these supporting studies rarely use everyday information. They’re artificial lab studies that use artificial stimuli e.g. meaningless consonant syllables. May not be valid
✘ = Evidence suggests there is more than one STM store - KF had poor recall for digits when he heard them, but far better recall when he read them. Indicates several stores that can be impacted separately
✘ = Argues that prolonged rehearsal isn’t needed for STM-LTM transfer - instead, that elaborative rehearsal (i.e. linking information to your existing knowledge) is what transfers from STM to LTM.
WORKING MEMORY MODEL AO1
Short term memory model by Baddeley and Hitch
CENTRAL EXECUTIVE has a supervisory role, monitoring incoming data and allocating subsystems to tasks. Limited storage capacity.
PHONOLOGICAL LOOP deals with auditory information and preserves the order in which information is received. Phonological store stores the words you hear, articulatory process allows maintenance rehearsal.
VISUO-SPATIAL SKETCHPAD stores visual and spatial information for recall. 1995 - Visual cache to store visual data, inner scribe to record arrangement of objects in visual field.
EPISODIC BUFFER added in 2000, a temporary store for information. Integrates visual, spatial and verbal information, maintains time sequencing, and links to the LTM.
WORKING MEMORY MODEL AO3
✔ = Clinical evidence: KF had poor STM of auditory information (damaged PL) but could process visual information normally (intact VSS).
-✘= Impossible to determine if
KF’s deficiency was caused by
damage to the PL, or if it was
down to other impairments.
✔ = Dual-task performance studies: Baddeley et al (1975) found participants struggled to perform 2 visual tasks simultaneously but could do a visual and a verbal task simultaneously.
-✘= These studies have high
controls and use artificial
tasks, not reflective of
everyday memory use.
✘ = Central executive: Baddeley claimed the CE was the most important yet least understood aspect. A lack of clarity over a vital component doesn’t make the model reliable.
CODING OF MEMORY
Baddeley 1966 - Immediate recall was worse with acoustically similar words, meaning STM is acoustic. Recall after 20 minutes was worse with semantically similar words, LTM is semantic
✔ = Identified separate memory stores, that STM is acoustic and LTM is semantic, leading to the creation of the MSM
✘ = Used artificial stimuli, meaning the words have no personal meaning to pps, and tells us little about coding for everyday memory tasks
CAPACITY OF MEMORY
Jacobs 1887 - Pps were read 4 digits and asked to repeat back, with more and more numbers being added. On average, 9.3 numbers and 7.3 letters could be recited immediately after they were presented.
✔ = Replications have been performed, such as in Bopp and Verhaegehen 2005
Miller 1956 - Miller observed daily practice and noted things come in 7s - deadly sins, days of the week, notes on the musical scale, etc. Span of STM is 7±2.
✘ = Miller’s research may overestimate STM - Cowan (2001) estimated it to be as low as 4±1 chunks.
DURATION OF MEMORY
Peterson and Peterson 1959 - Students given a consonant syllable (e.g. HYM) and a three digit number to count back from. Recall of the consonant syllable was 80% after 3 seconds, only 3% after 18 seconds. STM duration without rehearsal is 18 seconds.
✘ = Meaningless stimuli, doesn’t reflect everyday tasks
Bahrick et al 1975 - Pps had a recognition test of 50 photos from their high school yearbook, then a free recall test of listing names from their graduating class. Recognition test was 90% accurate after 15 years, free recall was 60%.
✔ = High external validity - Done with meaningful memories. Studies with meaningless stimuli showed lower recall rates
LONG TERM MEMORY STORES AO1
Store 1: Episodic memory
- Stores events (‘episodes’) from our lives
- They are time-stamped
- They are complex, often involving people, places, objects and behaviours
- They require a conscious effort to recall
Store 2: Procedural memory
- Stores our knowledge of the world, such as the meanings of words
- They aren’t time-stamped
- They require less conscious effort to recall
Store 3: Semantic memory
- Stores how we do things, like walking or driving a car
- Not time-stamped
- They are automatic actions that rarely require conscious recall - explaining the step-by-step procedure can thus be difficult
LONG TERM MEMORY STORES AO3
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING - INTERFERENCE AO1
- Interference occurs when two pieces of information interrupt each other
- Proactive interference is when an older memory interferes with a new one
- Retroactive interference is when a newer memory interferes with an old one
- Interference is worse when memories are similar - PI may be due to old memories making new information harder to store, RI may be new information overwriting similar older information
McGeoch and McDonald 1931 - pps were asked to perfectly learn a list of words to perfection. They were then given a new list - synonyms, antonyms, unrelated, consonant syllables, 3-digit numbers, or they just rested (control). Recall was the worst for synonyms, showing that recall is worst when memories are similar
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING - INTERFERENCE AO3
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING - RETRIEVAL FAILURE AO1
- Forgetting due to a lack of cues, if the cues aren’t present then you may not remember memories that are there
- Encoding specificity principle = same cues present at encoding as at retrieval
- Links between encoded cues and things to be remembered. Either meaningful link, or context/state dependent
- Godden and Baddeley - Context-dependent. Deep-sea divers learned word lists and later recalled them, e.g. learn on land + recall on land, or learn underwater and recall on land. Accurate recall was 40% lower in mismatched conditions
- Carter and Cassaday - State-dependent. Pps learned word lists either on drug/not on drugs and recalled in same/opposite condition. Recall was significantly worse in mismatched conditions.
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING - RETRIEVAL FAILURE AO3
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - MISLEADING INFORMATION AO1
- Loftus and Palmer - Leading questions. 45 pps were shown clips of car accidents and asked ‘How fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/contacted/collided/bumped into each other’. ‘Contacted’ produced a mean speed of 31.8mph and ‘smashed’ was 40.5mph
- Response-bias explanation - Has no effect on the memory, but influences the answer given
- Substitution explanation - Interferes with the memory, distorting accuracy
- Gabbert et al - Post-event discussion. Paired pps watched a video of a crime, filmed so each pp could see elements the other couldn’t. Both pps discussed what they had seen before completing independent recall tests. 71% wrongly recalled aspects they hadn’t seen but had discussed. Control had no discussion and no errors.
- Memory contamination - When co-witnesses discuss, they mix misinformation from others with their own memories
- Memory conformity - Witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or because they believe the others are correct (NSI/ISI)
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - MISLEADING INFORMATION AO3
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - ANXIETY AO1
- Johnson and Scott - Anxiety has a negative effect. Pps waited in a waiting room believing they were going to take part in a lab study. 2 conditions - casual conversation, then saw a man walk through with a pen; or, high-anxiety, with a heated argument, then breaking glass, then saw a man walk through with a bloody knife.
- 49% of pps in low-anxiety and 33% in high could identify the man.
- Funnel theory of memory - enhanced memory for central events, caused by weapons focus in this situation
- Yuille and Cutshall - Anxiety has a positive effect. 13 witnesses of a real crime participated. People closer to the crime and who reported higher stress (high anxiety) had better recall 4-5 months later than people further away or less stress (low anx.)
- Inverted U theory - Relationship between performance and stress is an inverted U. High and low has poor recall, medium is optimal
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - ANXIETY AO3
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW AO1
- Based in cognitive understanding of memory
- REPORT EVERYTHING: Witnesses are encouraged to include every detail of an event, no matter how irrelevant, to try and trigger other memories
- REINSTATE THE CONTEXT: The witness returns to the crime scene in their head, recalling the weather, the scene, their emotions. Based on context-dependent forgetting
- REVERSE THE ORDER: Events are recalled in different orders. Prevents people from basing their descriptions on their expectations of how it should have gone, and prevents dishonesty
- CHANGE PERSPECTIVE: Witnesses recall events from other people’s perspectives. Prevents influence of own schema on memory
- ENHANCED COGNITIVE INTERVIEW - Fisher et al, involves a focus on social dynamics of the conversation, efforts to reduce anxiety, minimise distractions, getting them to speak slowly, asking open-ended questions
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW AO3
