memory(paper 1) Flashcards
(17 cards)
Features of STM and LTM(coding,duration,capacity)A01 and A03 :
AO1 – Coding (Baddeley, 1966)
Baddeley investigated how information is encoded in STM and LTM. He presented participants with four word lists: acoustically similar (e.g., “cat, mat”), acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar (e.g., “big, large”), and semantically dissimilar.
For STM, recall was tested immediately. For LTM, recall was tested after 20 minutes.
He found STM is encoded acoustically, as participants confused similar-sounding words. LTM is encoded semantically, as meaning-based confusion occurred after delay.
✅ AO3 – Coding
P: A limitation is that the task lacks real-world meaning.
E: Remembering word lists doesn’t reflect real-life memory use.
E: This reduces ecological validity.
L: So, the findings on how memory is coded may not generalise to everyday situations.
AO1 – Capacity of STM
Capacity refers to how much info STM can hold.
Jacobs (1887) found the digit span of STM was about 9.3 for numbers and 7.3 for letters. Participants were given sequences like “7, 4, 2” and had to recall them in order.
Miller (1956) suggested the STM capacity is about 7 ± 2 items and that we improve it using chunking (e.g., grouping “1, 9, 4, 5” as “1945”).
✅ AO3 – Capacity
P: Miller’s estimate of 7 ± 2 may be too high.
E: Cowan (2001) found STM is likely limited to about 4 chunks.
E: This contradicts Miller and suggests STM is more limited than first thought.
L: So, Miller may have overestimated STM capacity.
AO1 – Duration
STM Duration – Peterson & Peterson (1959):
They used consonant trigrams (e.g., “XRP”) and prevented rehearsal by asking participants to count backwards in threes. Recall was tested after intervals from 3 to 18 seconds.
They found STM duration is about 18–30 seconds without rehearsal.
LTM Duration – Bahrick et al. (1975):
Participants took part in photo recognition and free recall tests of old classmates.
In photo recognition, accuracy dropped to around 70% even after nearly 50 years, showing that LTM can last a lifetime, though it becomes less accurate.
✅ AO3 – Duration
P: A limitation of Peterson & Peterson’s study is the use of meaningless trigrams.
E: This doesn’t reflect how we use memory daily, like remembering names or tasks.
E: This reduces external validity.
L: So the findings may not reflect real-life memory duration.
🟢 OR Bonus AO3 – LTM Duration Strength
P: A strength of Bahrick’s study is it tested real-life memories.
E: Recognising classmates is more meaningful than word lists.
E: This improves ecological validity.
L: So, the findings are more applicable to how memory works in real settings.
Discuss the multi-store model of memory A01:+ draw it out
Multi-Store Model of Memory (MSM) – AO1 Summary
The Multi-Store Model explains memory as a linear system with three separate stores: Sensory Register (SR), Short-Term Memory (STM), and Long-Term Memory (LTM). Information moves through the stores via key processes: attention, rehearsal, and retrieval.
🔹 Sensory Register (SR)
Receives sensory input from the environment (e.g., sights, sounds).
Made up of separate stores: iconic (visual) and echoic (auditory).
Large capacity, but very brief duration (less than a second).
Attention is required to transfer information from SR to STM.
Most information here is lost unless attention is paid.
🔹 Short-Term Memory (STM)
Temporary store for information we are consciously aware of.
Limited capacity (only a few items).
Limited duration (about 18–30 seconds).
Information is coded acoustically (based on sound).
If not rehearsed, information will decay or be displaced.
Maintained through maintenance rehearsal (repeating it).
Rehearsal can transfer info into long-term memory.
🔹 Long-Term Memory (LTM)
A more permanent store for processed and rehearsed information.
Capacity and duration are potentially unlimited.
Information is mainly coded semantically (based on meaning).
When we want to recall information, it is retrieved from LTM back into STM to be used.
Multi-store model of memory A03
PEEL 1 – Evidence for separate memory stores
Point: One strength of the MSM is that it is supported by evidence showing that short-term and long-term memory are separate systems.
Explain: Research has found that people tend to confuse words that sound similar when using short-term memory, but confuse words with similar meanings when using long-term memory.
Elaborate: This suggests that short-term memory is based on how things sound, while long-term memory is based on meaning.
Link: This supports the idea that STM and LTM are separate and work differently, as the model proposes.
PEEL 2 – Lack of real-world application
Point: A limitation of the MSM is that much of the supporting research uses artificial materials.
Explain: Studies often involve remembering lists of letters, numbers, or meaningless consonant syllables(Peterson and Peterson), which do not reflect everyday memory use.
Elaborate: In real life, people are more likely to remember meaningful information, such as names or faces, rather than random sequences.
Link: This reduces the external validity of the model, as it may not accurately explain how memory works in real-world situations.
PEEL 3 – Rehearsal may not be the only factor
Point: Another criticism is that the model focuses too much on rehearsal as the way information is transferred to long-term memory.
Explain: In reality, people often remember information without rehearsing it, especially if it is meaningful or emotionally important.
Elaborate: This suggests that how deeply we think about or engage with the information might be more important than just repeating it.
Link: Therefore, the model may oversimplify the process of memory by relying too heavily on rehearsal.
PEEL 4 – Support from brain-damaged patients
Point: Another strength of the MSM is that case studies support the idea that STM and LTM are separate.
Explain: Some individuals have shown the ability to recall old memories but are unable to form new long-term memories following brain injury.
Elaborate: This indicates that short-term memory can work normally while long-term memory is impaired, or vice versa.
Link: This supports the idea that STM and LTM involve separate processes and are located in different areas of the brain.
Types of long term memory A01:
Types of Long-Term Memory: AO1
Episodic Memory
A long-term memory store for personal events and experiences, like a diary. Memories are time-stamped and include when, where, and who was involved. They must be retrieved consciously and with effort (e.g., your last visit to the dentist).
Semantic Memory
A long-term memory store for knowledge about the world, including facts, word meanings, and social customs (e.g., capital of France). We don’t remember when we learned these. It is less personal and more shared knowledge, and less vulnerable to forgetting than episodic memory.
Procedural Memory
A long-term memory store for skills and how to do things (e.g., tying shoelaces). Acquired through practice, these memories are recalled without conscious effort and can be hard to explain because they’re accessed unconsciously.
Types of long-term memory A03:
PEEL 1: Case Studies Support Different LTM Types
Point: A strength of the different types of long-term memory is that clinical case studies support their existence.
Evidence: Some patients show damage to one type of memory, such as episodic memory, while other types like procedural memory remain intact.
Explanation: This suggests there are separate memory stores because one can be impaired without affecting the others.
Link: Therefore, this supports the idea that long-term memory is made up of different, distinct stores.
PEEL 2: Brain Scans Show Different LTM Areas
Point: Brain imaging studies provide further support for different types of long-term memory.
Evidence: Different areas of the brain are activated when recalling episodic versus semantic memories.
Explanation: This physical evidence increases the validity of the idea that different types of LTM exist.
Link: This strengthens the theory by showing a biological basis for separate memory stores.
3.Point: A strength of identifying different long-term memory stores is that it has practical real-life applications.
Evidence: Targeted memory training can improve specific types of memory, such as episodic memory, in people with memory difficulties.
Explanation: This shows that by understanding the different types of long-term memory, psychologists can develop effective treatments tailored to individual needs.
Link: Therefore, distinguishing between LTM stores benefits people by allowing specific and helpful interventions.
4.Point: A limitation of research supporting different types of long-term memory is its reliance on clinical case studies.
Evidence: These studies often lack control over important variables, such as the exact location and extent of brain damage.
Explanation: Because of this, it is difficult to generalise the findings to all people or to fully understand how long-term memory functions in healthy individuals.
Link: Therefore, the generalisability of these findings is limited.
Working memory model A01:
Working Memory Model (WMM) – AO1 Summary
The Working Memory Model explains how short-term memory is actively used during tasks like reasoning, learning, or comprehension. It is made up of a central executive and three slave systems.
Central Executive:
Controls attention and coordinates the other components. It has very limited capacity and does not store information itself. It allocates tasks to slave systems depending on the type of information.
Phonological Loop:
Processes verbal and auditory information.
It is divided into:
Phonological store – stores the sounds of words you hear.
Articulatory process – allows for maintenance rehearsal by silently repeating words (inner voice).
This system is used for tasks like listening and repeating spoken words.
Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad:
Deals with visual and spatial information. It is used for tasks like visualising objects or planning spatial movement (e.g., picturing a route or shape). It has limited capacity.
Episodic Buffer:
A temporary, general store that integrates information from the phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, and long-term memory. It maintains a sense of time sequencing and helps link working memory to long-term memory. It also has limited capacity (around 4 chunks).
Dual Task Performance:
The model explains how people can perform a visual and verbal task together better than two tasks using the same system. This supports the idea of separate stores within working memory.
Working Memory model A03:
- Dual-task performance supports separate stores (Strength)
Point: A strength of the WMM is that dual-task studies support the idea of separate components.
Evidence: People perform worse when doing two visual tasks at the same time compared to doing a visual and verbal task together.
Explain: This is because two visual tasks compete for the same store, while visual and verbal tasks use different systems.
Link: This supports the idea that the WMM has separate stores for different types of information, like visual and verbal. - Case study support from brain damage (Strength)
Point: Another strength is support from case studies of people with brain damage.
Evidence: Some individuals have poor verbal memory but intact visual memory.
Explain: This shows that visual and verbal memory are stored in different areas, supporting the idea of separate systems in the model.
Link: This adds validity to the WMM’s structure and supports the existence of separate components. - Problems with case studies (Limitation)
Point: A limitation of the WMM is that it relies on evidence from brain-damaged patients.
Evidence: Case studies often involve individuals with unpredictable effects from injury or trauma.
Explain: These individuals may have difficulty paying attention and therefore simply underperform on certain tasks, making it hard to know if results are due to memory differences or general cognitive issues.
Link: This matters because the results of a single case study are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate and difficult to generalise to the general population. - Lack of clarity over the central executive (Limitation)
Point: A limitation of the WMM is that the central executive (CE) is not clearly defined.
Evidence: It is often described vaguely as simply controlling attention without explaining how it functions.
Explain: Some suggest the CE may have multiple subcomponents rather than being a single system, indicating the model’s explanation is incomplete.
Link: This means the WMM does not fully explain how the central executive works, reducing its overall clarity and completeness.
Explanations for forgetting: Interference A01:
One memory disrupts the ability to recall another. This is called interference.
Interference occurs when two pieces of information conflict with each other, resulting in forgetting one or both, or in some distortion of memory.Mainly used to explain forgetting in LTM. Once information has reached LTM it is more or less permanent.Therefore, any forgetting of LTMs is most likely because we can’t get access to them even though they are available. Interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them, and this is experienced as forgetting.
Types of Interference
Retroactive Interference (RI): New information interferes with recalling older information. For example, learning new phone numbers may make it difficult to remember old ones.
Proactive Interference (PI): Older memories interfere with recalling new information. For instance, past knowledge can disrupt learning new facts or names.
Supporting Study Example
Research has shown that when participants learn two lists of words, recall of the first list is worse if the second list is similar in meaning. This supports the idea that interference is stronger with similar material.
Explanations for forgetting: Interference A03:
1.Point: Interference explains forgetting in real-life situations.
Evidence: Recall accuracy depends more on the number of intervening events than time passed.
Explain: For example, if someone moves schools and meets many new people, learning new names can interfere with recalling names from the old school. This shows interference can affect everyday memory, supporting its practical relevance.
Link: Therefore, interference is a valid explanation for some real-world forgetting.
- Short time frames in studies (Limitation)
Point: Lab studies on interference use very short intervals between learning and recall.
Evidence: Learning and recalling happen within minutes in most experiments.
Explain: This does not reflect how we learn and forget over longer periods in real life, so interference may be overestimated.
Link: Thus, the findings may lack generalisability to everyday memory. - Artificial tasks in research (Limitation)
Point: Most interference research uses artificial materials like word lists.
Evidence: These tasks do not mimic real-life memory use.
Explain: As everyday memory involves richer, meaningful information, interference effects found may lack mundane realism.
Link: This limits the applicability of interference theory to real-world forgetting. - Interference explains only some forgetting (Limitation)
Point: Interference requires specific conditions, like similarity between memories.
Evidence: Forgetting happens mainly when memories are very similar.
Explain: Since this is rare, interference alone cannot explain all forgetting. Other theories are also needed.
Link: Hence, interference is a partial explanation of forgetting.
Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure A01:
Retrieval Failure AO1 (With Brief Procedures)
Retrieval failure theory suggests forgetting happens because we lack the right cues to access stored long-term memories.
According to the Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP), memory is best recalled when the retrieval cues match those present during encoding.
In one study, participants learned words grouped into categories (e.g., fruits, countries). They recalled more words when given the category names as cues at retrieval than when recalling without cues, showing that cues aid memory access.
Context-dependent forgetting occurs when external environmental cues at learning are different from those at recall. For example, in a study, divers learned words either underwater or on land and were tested in both settings. Recall was better when learning and recall environments matched.
State-dependent forgetting involves internal cues such as mood or physiological state. In one experiment, participants learned information in different states (e.g., relaxed or anxious) and recall was better when the internal state at retrieval matched the state during learning.
Explanations for forgetting: Retrieval failure A03:
1.Point: One strength of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting is the strong scientific research support.Evidence: Several experimental studies demonstrate the importance of retrieval cues, context-dependent learning, and state-dependent forgetting.Explain: Because these studies operationalise independent and dependent variables, they can clearly show cause and effect between the absence of cues and forgetting, which strengthens the theory’s validity.
Link: This means the evidence supporting retrieval failure is highly scientific, improving the overall credibility of the explanation.
- Real-life Applications (Strength)
Point: Retrieval failure theory helps improve everyday memory.
Evidence: People recall information better when learning and recall contexts match.
Explain: This supports useful techniques like studying in the same environment as exams.
Link: Therefore, retrieval failure has practical value in improving memory performance. - Limited Real-life Context Effects (Limitation)
Point: Context effects are not very strong outside extreme conditions.
Evidence: Memory is unlikely to be affected by minor environmental changes, such as moving to a different room.
Explain: This suggests retrieval failure due to context cues lacks mundane realism—the everyday environments we experience are usually too similar for context-dependent forgetting to occur significantly.
Link: Therefore, retrieval failure may overestimate the role of context in everyday forgetting, limiting its real-world application. - Retrieval Cues Don’t Always Work (Limitation)
Point: Retrieval cues don’t explain all types of forgetting.
Evidence: Complex learning, such as detailed theories or interconnected knowledge, cannot be triggered by simple cues used in many studies.
Explain: This highlights the limited ecological validity(how much it relate or generalise to real-life) of retrieval failure research, meaning it may not fully capture how memory works in real-life situations.
Link: Therefore, retrieval failure cannot provide a complete explanation of forgetting, and other theories are needed to account for all types of memory loss.
Misleading questions +past event discussion factors affecting eye witness testimony A01:
Leading Questions and Eyewitness Testimony
Research shows that leading questions can distort an eyewitness’s memory and reduce the accuracy of their recall. For example, participants watched a short video of a car accident and were later asked how fast the cars were going. Some were asked using the verb “smashed,” while others heard the verb “hit.” A week later, participants were asked if they had seen broken glass, even though there was none. Those who heard the word “smashed” were more likely to falsely remember seeing broken glass compared to those who heard “hit” or were not asked about speed. This demonstrates how the wording of questions can change an eyewitness’s memory, leading them to recall details that didn’t actually happen.
Past Event Discussion and Eyewitness Testimony
Another factor affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony is discussion of the event with others. In one study, participants watched a crime video from different perspectives and then discussed what they saw with a partner. Many participants later recalled details they had not seen themselves but had heard during the discussion. This shows how individuals may conform to others’ accounts either due to wanting social approval (normative social influence) or believing others have more accurate information in uncertain situations (informational social influence). As a result, eyewitness accounts can become distorted through such social interactions.
Misleading questions +past event discussion factors affecting eye witness testimony A03:
2 universal peels you can use for anxiety or misleading questions:
1.Application to the Criminal Justice System
Point: A key strength of EWT research is its practical impact on criminal justice.
Evidence: DNA exonerations reveal that mistaken eyewitness identification is a major cause of wrongful convictions.
Explain: This shows how factors like anxiety (e.g., weapon focus) and misleading questions can lead to inaccurate recall, sometimes with serious real-world consequences.
Link: Therefore, understanding these factors helps improve police interviewing and reduce miscarriages of justice.
2.PEEL 2: Individual Differences Affect EWT Accuracy
Point: A limitation is that eyewitness accuracy varies due to individual differences.
Evidence: Older adults often struggle to remember the source of information, making them more vulnerable to misleading questions. Similarly, anxiety effects can vary depending on personality or age.
Explain: This means factors like age and personality influence how reliable eyewitness testimony is, making some witnesses more prone to errors.
Link: So, researchers and legal professionals must consider these differences when evaluating eyewitness accounts.
2 peels for only misleading qs:
3.Point: A limitation of research on misleading information, such as Loftus and Palmer’s study, is the lack of ecological validity.
Evidence: Their lab experiment involved artificial situations that don’t replicate real-life crimes, so participants may not have been emotionally involved or taken the task seriously.
Explain: This means the results might not accurately reflect how eyewitnesses recall events in real crimes, reducing how applicable the findings are.
Link: Therefore, conclusions drawn from such studies should be treated cautiously when applied to real-world eyewitness testimony.
4.Point: Another issue in lab studies on misleading information, like Loftus and Palmer’s, is demand characteristics.
Evidence: Participants may guess the study’s aim and give responses they think the researchers want, for example, saying they saw broken glass when they did not.
Explain: This means the study measures participants’ desire to please rather than their true memory accuracy, which questions the reliability of the results.
Link: This reduces the internal validity of the research, so conclusions about eyewitness testimony should be treated with caution.
Anxiety as a factor affecting eye witness testimony A01:
Anxiety and the Weapon-Focus Effect – AO1
Anxiety can influence eyewitness testimony by either reducing or sometimes improving the accuracy of recall. One key explanation is the weapon-focus effect, where the presence of a weapon during a crime increases anxiety and causes witnesses to focus on the weapon rather than the offender’s face, leading to poorer recall of important details.
Example Procedure:
In an experiment, participants overheard a heated argument followed by a man running through the room holding either a blood-covered knife or a pen dripping with grease. Participants who saw the knife were less accurate in identifying the man compared to those who saw the pen. This demonstrates how anxiety caused by the weapon draws attention away from the offender, impairing memory.
However, evidence from real-life cases shows that anxiety can sometimes improve recall. Witnesses who experienced high anxiety during crimes have been found to remember more details than less anxious witnesses.
To explain these contradictory findings, the Yerkes-Dodson Law is applied. This law proposes an inverted-U relationship between anxiety and performance, suggesting that moderate anxiety enhances memory accuracy, while very low or very high anxiety impairs it. Thus, the effect of anxiety on eyewitness accuracy depends on the level of arousal experienced.
Anxiety as a factor affecting Eye witness Testimony A03:
Anxiety PEEL 1: Real-life studies support anxiety’s negative effect
Point: A strength of research into anxiety and eyewitness testimony is that it’s supported by real-life evidence.
Evidence: In actual crimes, witnesses often experience high anxiety, which can reduce the accuracy of their recall.
Explain: This supports lab findings, suggesting that anxiety negatively affects memory and that the research is relevant beyond controlled settings.
Example: For instance, witnesses to violent crimes often recall fewer details accurately due to their heightened anxiety.
Link: Therefore, the theory that anxiety impairs eyewitness accuracy is strengthened by its consistency with real-life events.
2.Anxiety PEEL 2: Surprise may explain inaccuracy, not anxiety
Point: A limitation of anxiety research is that poor memory might be caused by surprise, not anxiety.
Evidence: In some situations, unusual objects or unexpected events might distract witnesses more than fear or stress.
Explain: This means it’s unclear whether anxiety is the true cause of poor recall, reducing the validity of the weapon focus explanation.
Example: For example, witnesses might remember less when something surprising happens, like seeing a person carrying a raw chicken instead of a weapon, because their attention is on the unexpected object rather than feeling anxious.
Link: So, other factors like surprise may play a larger role than anxiety in reducing eyewitness accuracy.
Discuss cognitive interview as a method of improving accuracy of eye witness testimony:A01:
The Cognitive Interview (CI): AO1 Summary
The cognitive interview uses different retrieval strategies to improve eyewitness memory, unlike standard police interviews that ask simple direct questions.
Four main components that make up CI:
Report Everything: Witnesses are encouraged to recall every detail, even if it seems irrelevant. This helps because memories are linked, so more details act as cues to retrieve further memories.
Mental/Context Reinstatement: Witnesses mentally recreate the original environment and feelings during the event. Context acts as a key retrieval cue, improving recall.
Changing the Order: Witnesses recall events in a different sequence (e.g., backwards). This disrupts the influence of schemas—mental frameworks or “scripts” that shape what people expect and remember in familiar situations. Changing the order reduces memory distortion caused by these expectations.
Changing the Perspective: Witnesses imagine the event from another person’s viewpoint to reduce the effect of their own schemas on recall, promoting a more accurate memory.
Discuss cognitive interview as a method of improving accuracy of eye witness testimony:A03:
- Research Support (Strength)
Point: The cognitive interview has strong research support showing it improves eyewitness recall.
Evidence: A large review of studies shows that witnesses remember more accurate details when the cognitive interview is used.
Example: For instance, eyewitnesses who experienced the cognitive interview were able to remember more details about a simulated crime scene than those who were asked simple, direct questions.
Explain: This suggests the technique is effective at increasing the amount of correct information recalled from memory.
Link: However, it’s important to consider that the improvement might be due to specific parts of the interview rather than the whole process. - Useful Components (Strength)
Point: Some parts of the cognitive interview are especially useful on their own.
Evidence: Research shows that using ‘report everything’ combined with ‘context reinstatement’ leads to better recall than other parts individually.
Explain: This means even if the full cognitive interview isn’t practical, these components can still improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
Link: Therefore, police can use these key techniques to make interviews more effective, even if time or training limits the full interview. - Increased Quantity But Also More Errors (Limitation)
Point: The CI increases both correct and incorrect information recalled.
Evidence: Research shows that while witnesses recall more details with the CI, they also report more mistakes. For example, an increase in accurate info is matched by an increase in inaccurate details.
Explain: This shows that while the CI boosts memory output, police need to be cautious about the accuracy of all information collected.
Link: Therefore, the CI’s results must be carefully evaluated. - Practical Issues with Time and Training (Limitation)
Point: The CI requires more time and special training than is often available to police.
Evidence: Reports highlight that police often shorten interviews and lack CI training, limiting its use. For example, many forces skip components or don’t fully apply the method due to time constraints.
Explain: These factors reduce the effectiveness of the CI in real-life investigations.
Link: Consequently, the CI is not always applied as intended in practice.
