Paper 1 - Memory AO3 Flashcards
(30 cards)
1
Q
What is a strength of the multi store model regarding STM and LTM being separate stores ?
A
- Experimental evidence supporting the idea that STM and LTM = separate stores.
- Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) presented participants with a list of 20 words. Found they recalled words from the beginning (primacy effect) and end (recency effect) of the list better than those in the middle.
- Supports as primacy effect shows rehearsal transferred early words to LTM, while the recency effect shows later words were still in STM. This pattern, called the serial position effect, supports the idea that STM and LTM are distinct and separate memory stores.
2
Q
What is a strength of the multi store model regarding brain damage case studies ?
A
- Case studies support the idea of separate memory stores.
- Milner (1966) studied HM, who had his hippocampus removed to treat epilepsy. After surgery, he could not form new long-term memories but his STM remained intact.
- Suggests LTM and STM are separate, as LTM = impaired while his STM functioned normally. Providing real-life support for the model’s claim that damage to one store can occur without affecting the other.
3
Q
What is a limitation of the multi store model regarding issue with maintenance rehearsal ?
A
- Overemphasises role of rehearsal in transferring information to LTM.
- Brown and Kulik (1977) described flashbulb memorie which are highly detailed and long-lasting memories of shocking events which are encoded into LTM without rehearsal.Contradicts MSM’s claim that maintenance rehearsal is necessary for LTM formation
- Suggesting the model is too simplistic and cannot fully explain how all types of long-term memories are formed.
4
Q
What is a limitation of the multi store model regarding issue with believe that STM = unitary store ?
A
- MSM assumes STM is a unitary store, but research suggests otherwise.
- Shallice and Warrington (1970) studied KF, who had brain damage after a motorbike accident. He struggled to recall verbal information but could remember visual material.
- Shows STM is not a single store but instead has separate components for different types of information—an idea better explained by the Working Memory Model.
5
Q
What is a strength of working store memory model regarding experimental support ?
A
- Evidence from dual-task studies.
- Baddeley et al. (1975) found that participants had difficulty completing two visual tasks simultaneously, such as tracking a moving light while performing a visual task, but could perform a visual and verbal task at the same time.
- Shows that visual tasks compete for limited resources in the visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS), whereas visual and verbal tasks use different components
6
Q
What is a strength of working store memory model regarding evidence from brain damage patients?
A
- WMM is supported by case studies of brain-damaged patients.
- Shallice and Warrington (1970) studied KF, who had difficulty processing verbal information in STM but could process visual information normally after a motorbike accident. Showing the damage being restricted to the phonological loop
- Supports the WMM’s claim that the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad are separate systems, as one can be damaged while the other remains intact. Such dissociations provide real-world evidence for the model’s structure.
7
Q
What is a limitation of working store memory model regarding evidence from brain damage patients?
A
- Case study evidence may lack generalisability
- KF’s case is unique and involved brain damage, which could have caused other cognitive impairments. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise his performance to the wider population.
- Weakens the support case studies offer for the WMM, as the findings may not reflect how memory typically functions in people without brain injury.
8
Q
What is a limitation of working store memory model regarding one of the stores not being unitary ?
A
- WMM is the lack of clarity regarding the central executive and some do not agree with the notion that its a unitary store.
- Slinger and Damasio studied EVR who had a cerebral tumour removed and he performed well in tasks requiring reasoning but not those regarding decision making skills
- Explanation is unsatisfactory
9
Q
What is a strength of the types of LTM regarding other brain scanning?
A
- Idea that there are different types of LTM is that it is supported by brain scan evidence.
- Tulving et al. (1994) used PET scans and found that episodic memories were recalled from the right prefrontal cortex, while semantic memories were recalled from the left prefrontal cortex. Other research has also shown that procedural memories are associated with the cerebellum.
- Provides physical, biological evidence that different types of LTM are stored in distinct parts of the brain. This supports the claim that LTM is not a single, unitary store but consists of separate components.
10
Q
What is a strength of the types of LTM regarding other evidential support?
A
- Case studies of brain-damaged patients provide support for separate types of LTM.
- For example, both HM and Clive Wearing had impaired episodic memory but retained their semantic and procedural memory. They were unable to recall past events but could still understand language and perform learned skills
- Supports the existence of different LTM stores, as it shows that one type of memory can be damaged while others remain intact
11
Q
What is a limitation of the types of LTM regarding other lack of distinction between stores?
A
- Distinction between episodic and semantic memory is not always clear-cut.
- Episodic memories often form the basis for semantic memories, as knowledge is usually acquired through personal experiences. Over time, these memories may lose their connection to the original event and become semantic in nature.
- Blurring boundaries between the two types of memory challenging the idea that they are entirely separate, sp division may be more complex than the theory proposes.
12
Q
What is a limitation of the types of LTM regarding case study evidence?
A
- Case study evidence has limited generalisability.
- Patients like HM and Clive Wearing have unique experiences and brain damage, which makes it difficult to apply their findings to the wider population.
- While case studies provide rich, in-depth data, they may not be reliable evidence for how memory functions in most people, reducing their usefulness in supporting the different types of LTM.
13
Q
What is a limitation of the interference theory regarding individual differences ?
A
- Some people are less affected by interference than others.
- Kane & Engle (2000) found that individuals with a greater working memory span were less susceptible to proactive interference. Participants with lower working memory spans showed greater proactive interference when recalling word lists.
- Suggests that interference affects individuals differently, depending on their working memory capacity.
14
Q
What is a limitation of the interference theory regarding its low ecological validity ?
A
- Evidence mainly comes from laboratory studies.
- These studies often use artificial stimuli (e.g., word lists, nonsense syllables) that do not reflect real-life memory tasks. Participants may also lack motivation as there are no real consequences for forgetting.
- Lowers ecological validity, meaning the findings may not apply to real-life situations where memory is more meaningful
15
Q
What is a strength of the interference theory regarding RL evidence ?
A
- There is evidence from real-life studies.
- Baddeley & Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall teams they had played against. Recall was affected by the number of games played since, rather than how long ago they occurred.
- This supports retroactive interference in real life, as new memories (recent games) disrupted recall of older ones.
16
Q
What is a strength of the interference theory regarding its practical applications ?
A
- Research = applied to real-world scenarios.
- Danaher et al. (2008) found that exposure to two competing advertisements in a week impaired recall and recognition of the ads.
- This suggests that interference can reduce the effectiveness of advertising. A possible solution is to repeat an advertisement multiple times in a single day rather than spreading it out over a week, minimizing interference from competing ads and improving recall.
17
Q
What is a strength of explaining the theory of forgetting regarding its practical applications ?
A
- Practical applications in real life
- For instance, students are advised to revise in the same room where they will take exams to reduce context-dependent forgetting. Smith (1979) also found that simply imagining the learning environment can have a similar effect on improving retrieval
- Shows that understanding retrieval failure can help improve memory performance in everyday situations like exams, highlighting its real-world usefulness
18
Q
What is a limitation of explaining the theory of forgetting regarding context issues ?
A
- Only occurs when the environments are significantly different
- Baddeley (1997) argued that changing rooms, for example, may not produce noticeable forgetting because the environments are too similar
- This suggests that findings like those from Godden & Baddeley (1975) may be exaggerated due to the extreme contrast between underwater and land environments, limiting real-world applicability
19
Q
What is a limitation of explaining the theory of forgetting regarding it only being suitable for certain types of memory tests ?
A
- Doesn’t apply across all memory tasks
-Godden and Baddeley (1980) repeated their underwater study but used a recognition test instead of recall. They found no difference in performance between matching and non-matching environments, suggesting that context-dependent forgetting does not occur with recognition tasks - This shows that context effects are limited to specific testing conditions, reducing the overall reliability of the theory
20
Q
What is a strength of misleading information regarding affecingt the accuracy of EWT?
A
- Evidence that misleading information can affect the accuracy of EWT
- Braun et al. (2002) showed participants who had been to disneyland before fake Disneyland ads with Bugs Bunny. Many later reported shaking hands with him, even though Bugs Bunny is not a Disney character
- Suggests their memories were altered by the misleading adverts, supporting the idea that misleading information affects EWT accuracy.
21
Q
What is a strength of misleading information regarding RLA?
A
- Real-world practical uses
- Loftus (1975) said police must be careful when interviewing witnesses, as leading questions can distort memory
- Shows research into misleading information can help improve the accuracy of EWT in real-life cases
22
Q
What is a limitation of misleading information regarding view of being artificial?
A
- Criticised for being artificial
- Loftus & Palmer (1974) asked participants to watch film clips of car accidents, which is very different from experiencing a real-life accident. Real eyewitnesses would likely feel shock or anxiety, which can affect memory. Also, participants may not have taken the task seriously, as there were no real consequences for incorrect answers. Foster et al. (1994) found that when participants thought their answers would influence a real trial, their recall was more accurate
- Suggests that much of the research lacks ecological validity, so findings may not apply to real life.
23
Q
What is a limitation of misleading information regarding not always affecting accuracy of EWT?
A
- Evidence that misleading information does not always affect the accuracy of EWT
-Yuille & Cutshall (1986) interviewed 13 people who had witnessed an armed robbery in Canada. The interview included two leading questions, however, the witnesses were able to provide accurate recall.
-Suggests that in real-life situations, EWT can remain reliable even with misleading information
24
Q
What is a limitation of anxiety and its effect on eyewitness testimony regarding weapon effect ?
A
- Weapon effect may not be caused by anxiety
- Pickel (1998) arranged participants to watch a thief enter a hairdressing salon : carrying scissors - high threat and low surprise, handgun - high threat and high surprise, wallet - low threat and low surprise, whole raw chicken - low threat and low surprise. Identification was the least accurate with high surprise condition in contract to high threat
- Suggests that reduced accuracy of identification due to the weapon focus effect could be due to surprise rather than anxiety.
25
What is a limitation of anxiety and its effect on eyewitness testimony regarding field studies ?
- Field studies of the effect of anxiety on the accuracy of EWT lack control
- Researchers usually interview real life eyewitnesses time after crime took place, the period between crime and interview many things happened that researcher has no control over. eg. eyewitness discussed events with co-witness, interviewed by police and read/ seen accounts of crime in media
- Suggests that research in this area may lack internal validity.
26
What is a limitation of anxiety and its effect on eyewitness testimony regarding ignoring extraneous variables ?
- Ignore the influence of the extraneous variable of personality and its affect on accuracy of EWT
- Bothwell et al. (1987) assessed participants for neuroticism (personality characteristic where individuals become anxious quite quickly) . Participants tested were labeled as neurotic or stable. Found stable participants showed rising levels of accuracy as stress levels increased, however opposite was true for the neurotic group.
- Suggests that personality can influence the effect that anxiety has
27
What is a strength of cognitive interviews regarding evidence supporting its effectiveness ?
- Evidence supporting its effectiveness in improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
- Köhnken et al. (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 53 studies and found that, on average, the CI generated 34% more correct information than standard police interviews.
- Suggests CI is a reliable method of enhancing memory recall in eyewitnesses and is more effective than traditional techniques. The use of a meta-analysis also increases the validity of the findings use a large sample size, range of studies so conclusions =more generalisable.
28
What is a strength of cognitive interviews regarding evidence supporting effectiveness specifically older people?
- Particularly effective when used with older eyewitnesses.
- Mello and Fisher (1996) compared older (mean age 72) and younger (mean age 22) adults' recall of a filmed simulated crime. Participants were interviewed using CI or a standard interview. Found CI produced more information than the standard interview
- Shows that CI can help overcome age-related differences in memory recall as older adults may be more cautious due to negative stereotypes about their memory. Since the CI encourages reporting every detail, it may reduce this caution and improve accuracy.
29
What is a limitation of cognitive interviews regarding practical issues ?
- Practical issues with using it in real-life police settings.
- Kebbell and Wagstaff (1996) interviewed police officers and found that CI requires more time than is often available, and that it also requires special training which many police forces are unable to provide.
- In practice, CI may not be implemented correctly or consistently limiting its practical application in criminal investigations.
30
What is a limitation of cognitive interviews regarding issues with the elements themself ?
- Not all elements of the CI are equally effective
- Milne and Bull (2002) found when participants were interviewed ‘mental reinstatement of original context’ and ‘report everything’ components, recall improved significantly.
- Suggests that these components are the most useful for enhancing recall, while other techniques may be less effective. Therefore, using the full CI may be unnecessarily time-consuming, and a modified version focusing on the most effective components might be more practical and efficient
