Memory- P1 Flashcards
(16 cards)
MSMM AO1
- Multi-store model of memory: Atkinson and Shiffrin
- coding= the formatt in which a memory is stored
- capacity= how much info can be stored
- duration= the length of time a memory remains in the store
Sensory register
* acts as a filter for all sensory info, recieves all stimuli from the environment and passes it onto the STM if we pay attention to it
* coding=modality specific
* capactiy=very large
* duration=very short- 1/2 a second
Short-term memory
* temporary store for info which we recall immediately
* three things can happen to info here:
1. maintenance rehearsal= keeps it in STM
2. elaborative rehearsal= transfers it to LTM
3. decay= info is not rehearsed so is forgotten
* coding= mainly acoustic (baddeley identified more errors in p’s recalling similar sounding words than semantically similar words
* capacity= 7 +/- 2 chunks of info: Miller and Jacobs (digit span test)
* duration= about 18 seconds- Peterson and Peterson, trigrams
Long-term memory
* stores info that has been reheased for a long time
* coding= mostly semantic (meaning), Baddeley found most errors made with semantically similar words when using the LTM
* capacity= potentially unlimited
* duration= potentially unlimited, Bahrick 17-74 year olds all had some recall
MSMM AO3
- S: research support- Jacobs, Miller, Baddeley, Peterson and Peterson, Barhrick= all highly controll lab studies, Baddeley found different coding in the STM vs LTM, this suggests they are seperate
- W: HOWEVER- lab studies lack ecological validity, memory looks very different (more complex) in real life situations
- S: evidence from Clive Wearing case study: brain damage due to a virus, could hold a short conversation (STM) but couldn’t form new LTMs, suggests that the stores are seperate
- W: HOWEVER- lacks complexity- Clive had some LTMs but not all, could play piano but not recognise photos of his time at university- suggests the stores are not unitary
- S: KF case study- STM reduced to 2 digits (impaired) but could still form new LTMs- suggests seperate stores
- W: HOWEVER: incomplete explanation- MSMM doesn’t explain how he could make new LTMs without a functioning STM
Working model of memory AO1
- Baddeley and Hitch’s model of STM- concerned with the ‘mental space’ that is active (working)
- central executive- ‘supervisory’ role, directs attention to the slave systems, delegates, limited capactiy, modality free coding
- phonological loop- deals with auditory info, acoustic coding, divided into…
1. phonological store= stores info you hear
2. articulatory control system= inner voice, allows for maintenance rehearsal - visuo-spatial sketchpad- stores visual and apatial info, limited capacity of 3-4 objects, divided into…
1. visual cache= stores visual data
2. inner scribe= records objects in the visual field - episodic buffer= added by Baddeley in 2000, temporary store, allows the central executive to access info in the LTM abd integrate it with the other stores
Working model of memory AO3
- S: evidence from dual tasks (Baddeley)- pot p’s to carry out visual and verbal tasks at the same time, when using 2 seperate stores (e.g. one visual, one verbal tasks) performance was better than when using one store (e.g. 2 visual tasks) as the store would be overwhelmed
- S: case study evidence- KF: after brain injury KF had poor ability to process auditory info but could process visual info as before (he could recall letters and digits better if he read them than if he heard them), indicates that his VSS was intact but his PL was damaged= stores are seperate
- W: HOWEVER- he may have had other cognitive impairments (from his motor bike accident) which could have damaged his acoustic processing so it is hard to establish cause and effect
- W: lack of clarity in the central executive- Baddeley acknowledged that it is the most important but least understood, needs to be more clearly specified than just ‘attention’- some psychologists believe it may have sub-sections
Types of LTM AO1
Tulving proposed that there are 3 types of LTM in criticism of the MSMM being oversimplified
episodic memory
* memory of events from our lives
* time-stamped
- several components in one memory
- require conscious recall
semantic memory
- knowledge of facts about the world and meanings of words and concepts
- e.g. Paris is the capital of france
- not time stamped
- require conscious recall
procedural memory
- memory of actions or skills
- do not require conscious recall
- ability becomes automatic through practice
- not time stamped
Types of LTM AO3
- S: case study support: Clive Wearing and HM: both had brain damage, both had issues with episodic memory but semantic and procedural were relatively good, both knew how to walk and speak- one store can be damaged whilst another is intact (supports the idea that they are separate)
- W: HOWEVER- issues with studying brain damaged people- researchers lack control over what they are studying, often we don’t know anything about their memory/brain before the damage so hard to judge the impact
- S: real- world application- understanding types of LTM is useful to treat those with memory issues, as people age they often experience memory loss but this is usually worse in episodic memory, knowing this psychologists can develop ways to ‘train’ the episodic memory
- W: conflicting neuroimaging evidence- whilst some show separate areas of the brain for separate types of LTM, other research suggests that the left hemisphere is responsible for encoding whilst the right hemisphere is responsible for retrieval
Theories of forgetting- interference AO1
- interference= when two pieces of info disrupt one eachother which leads to one or both being forgotten/ distorted, means we are unable to access memories in the LTM
- reteroactive interference= a newer memory interferes with an older similar memory
- proactive interference= an older memory interferes with a new similar one
- effect of similarity= intereference is worse when memories are similar (proactive and reteroactive interference)
- McGeoch and Mcdonald- p’s learnt a list until their recall was 100% accurate, then learnt another list (which was either semantically similar or similar sounding to list 1), they were then tested on the original list and those whose second list was semantically similar to the first had worst recall
Theories of forgetting- interference AO3
- S: research support: Baddeley and Hitch- asked rugby players to recall the names of teams they’d played in the season, those who’s played the most had worse recall (most interference)
- HOWEVR: interference is rare in everyday situations- conditions for interference (similarity) are rare in everyday life unlike in lab studies- which lack ecological validity
- W: interference and cues: Tulving and Potska- interference is temporary and can be overcome by cues, interference only causes temporary memory loss not forgetting
- W: validity issues- most supporting evidence takes place in a lab using artifical materials and methods, in everyday life we often learn something then have to recall it a long time after
Theories of forgetting- retrieval failure AO1
- retrieval failure= we forget due to insufficient cues (triggers that allow us to access the memory)
- when we first store info, associated cues are stored at the same time, if these cues are not available at the time of recall, retrieval failure occurs
- encoding specificty principle= cues must be present at the time of learning and recall
- state-dependent forgetting= occurs when we try and fail to remember somethin in a different internal state to that which we learnt it in
- context-dependent forgettinf= occurs when we try and fails to remember something in a different environment to that which we learnt it in
Theories of forgetting- retrieval failure AO3
- S: research support
-Godden and Baddeley: context dependent- asked divers to learn and recall lists of words either on land or under water, those who learnt and recalled in the same environment (e.g. learnt and recalled underwater) had better recall= context- dependent forgetting
-Carter and Cassaday: got p’s to learn and recall words in a drowsy or non-drowsy state using anti-histamines, those who learnt and recalled in the same state (e.g. drowsy) had better recall, state-dependent forgetting - W: issues with research- the change in environment or state has to be very great to cause forgetting, in real life situations, differences are unlikely to be as big as on land vs underwater
- S: some real-world application- understanding the impact of cues can help us to remember things in everyday life e.g by going back to the context (room) in which we learnt it
- W: recall vs recognition- context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested Godden and Baddeley replicated their study but tested recognition of words rather than recall, recognition was not impacted by context
EWT- anxiety AO1
Anxiety= a state of physical arousal in response to stress, it can make it better or worse
Anxiety makes EWT worse
* weapon focus effect
* tunnel theory= enhances recall for central aspects (weapon) but makes recall of peripheral details worse
* Johnson and Scott- lab study, p’s in waiting room, 2 conditions (low/high anxiety), low anxiety overhear a conversation about faulty equipment then see a man holding a pen, high anxiety overhear a hostile exchange, sound of breaking glass, crashing then a man emerges with a blooded paper knife. They asked the p’s to identify the man, 49% accurate for low anxiety, 33% accurate for high anxiety= anxiety makes facial recognition worse
Anxiety makes EWT better
* anxiety triggers the fight or flight response which increases alertness= may improve memory
* Yuille and Cutshall- conducted a study on real life eyewitnesses of a high anxiety crime (shooting in a gun shop) 13/21 witnesses took part, interviewed 4-5 months after the shooting and their accuracy was compared to their original testimony, they also rated their stress levels- those who reported the highest stress levels had the most accurate recall
EWT- anxiety AO3
anxiety makes ewt worse
* S: support- Valentine and Mesout: ‘horror labrynth’ in the London dungeon, heart rate monitors abd questionairres measured anxiety, those with high anxiety had worse recall of actors they’d seen
* W: unusualness rather than anxiety- in Johnson+ Scott’s study, p’s may have focussed more on the knife because they were surprised by it, other research suggests that facial recall is worse when the weapon is unusual in the context
anxiety makes ewt better
* S: Yuille and Cutshall’s study has high ecological validity as they are real-life eyewitnesses to a real crime
* W: Yerkes Dodson law- this suggests that the relationship anxiety and recall have is an inverted ‘U’, medium levels of arousal make it more accurate but very high and very low make it less accurate
HOWEVER: too simplistic- ignores the fact that anxiety has cognitive, behavioural and emotional elements- only looks at physical arousal
EWT- misleading information AO1
Leading questions
* questions which suggest a certain answer in their phrasing
* substitution explanation= the wording actually changes the memory
* response bias explanation= wording of a question can alter their answer but not their memory
* Loftus and Palmer- investigated effects of p’s hearing different words (e.g. bumped, collided, smashed) which asked about their memory of a car crash video, they had to estimate the car’s speed and the verb used made a difference- ‘smashed’ caused the highest estimate
Post-event discussion
* post-event discussion= when witnesses discuss the events with other witnesses
* Gabert et al: pairs of p’s watched videos of the same crime from different viewpoints showing different details, they then discussed what they had seen in groups, 71% recalled things they hadn’t be shown in their video but they had picked up in their conversation
* memory conformity- may be due to the desire for social approval or because they feel others are more likely to be right
EWT- misleading information AO3
leading questions
* S: implications on courtroom procedure- impacts how police should go about their questioning and how much trust courts put into EWT, psychologists can be asked to be expert witnesses to explain the limitations of EWT to juries
* W: issues with Loftus and Palmer’s research- p’s had little emotional involvement and knew their answers didn’t matter, may not be generalisable to real-life
* W: Yuille and Cutshall- vancouver gun shop study, when interviewed 4 months later, their recall was still very good despite leading questions
post-event discussion
* S: practical applications- if witnesses are informed of the impact of contaminating their memory with 2nd hand info their recall may be more accurate
* W: Gabert’s study lacks ecological validity as the p’s had little emotional involvement
Cognitive interview AO1
Fisher and Geiselman- recommended techniques the police could use based on psychological insights into how memory works
- report everything- witnesses encouraged to include every single detail even if it seems irrelevant, trivial memories may trigger more important ones
- mental reinstatement of the original context- witnesses should return to the original crime scene in their mind, including their emotions, links to context- dependent forgetting
- reverse the order- to prevent people reporting their expectations of how events take place, helps prevent dishonesty
- change the perspective- witnesses recall the event from others’ perspectives, disrupts the effects the schema (effects of expections)
Enhanced cognitive interview- Fisher et al
* added onto the CI, focussed on the social dynamics of the interaction
* e.g. the interviewer needs to know when to establish and relinquish eye contact
* also includes: reducing eyewitness anxiety, minimising distractions, asking open-ended questions
Cognitive interview AO3
- S: research support: Geiselman et al- meta analysis of 53 studies found an average of 34% increase in the amount of correct info for CI vs standard interview, CI prompts more accurate recall
-further support: Stein and Memon = p’s watched video of an abduction, the CI produced richer, more detailed accounts that the standard interview - W: methodology- these studies mainly used volunteer witnesses in a lab setting, artificial situation, doesn’t reflect the feelings of real life witnesses
- W: some elements are more useful than others: report everything- reporting everything and reinstating the context produced the best recall, it is difficult to assess the CI as a whole, often institutions only use parts of it, hard to draw comparisons
- W: time-consuming: takes more time and training= economic impact, needs more funding, most institutions only use parts
