Psychology ERQ Flashcards
(9 cards)
Evaluate one or more models of memory
Memory is an essential cognitive process that allows us to encode, store, and retrieve information. To explain how memory works, psychologists have created several models. Two key models include the Multi-Store Model (MSM), proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968, and the Working Memory Model (WMM), introduced by Baddeley and Hitch in 1974. This extended response question will explain both models, discussing their strengths and weaknesses, and the use research evidence to support each one.
The Multi-Store Model describes memory as a linear process made up of three distinct stores: sensory memory, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). Information moves from one store to the next through attention and rehearsal. Each store differs in terms of capacity, duration, and the way it encodes information. According to this model, rehearsal plays a key role in transferring information from STM to LTM. In sensory memory, the capacity is very large, as it takes in all sensory input. Duration is extremely short, typically less than a second. It encodes information based on the sense involved (e.g., iconic for visual, echoic for sound). The capacity in short term memory is limited to about 7±2 items. Duration is around 15–30 seconds, but this time range can be extended through rehearsal. Encoding is mainly acoustic (based on sound). In long term memory the capacity is potentially unlimited. Duration can last from minutes to a lifetime. Encoding is primarily semantic (based on meaning), though it can also be visual or acoustic.
One study that supports the Multi-Store Model is by Glanzer and Cunitz (1966). In their experiment, participants were asked to recall a list of words. Some of the results from the experiment was the serial position effect where people remembered the first and last items in a list better than the middle ones. The primacy effect means we remember the first items because we had time to rehearse them. The recency effect means we remember the last items because they are still in short-term memory. In addition, the asymptote effect describes the lower recall of items positioned in the middle of a list, as they are less likely to be remembered than those at the beginning or end. This decline in memory performance highlights the constraints of both short-term and long-term memory when learning and recalling information. When a distractor task was added before recall, the recency effect disappeared and the primacy effect stayed, suggesting that short-term and long-term memory are separate systems with different functions.
A major strength of the Multi-Store Model is that it is backed by well-controlled laboratory research, such as the Glanzer and Cunitz study, which gives the model strong internal validity. It also introduced the important idea that memory consists of different stores, which shaped further research in cognitive psychology. However, one weakness is that it has low ecological validity, as recalling word lists does not reflect how we use memory in real life. The model is also criticised for being too simplistic because it assumes that rehearsal is the only way to transfer information into long-term memory, which is not always the case.
In contrast, the Working Memory Model focuses specifically on the structure of short-term memory and proposes that it consists of several different components. At the centre of the model is the central executive, which directs attention and allocates tasks to other components. The phonological loop handles verbal and auditory information, while the visuospatial sketchpad deals with visual and spatial information. Later, the episodic buffer was added to integrate information from different sources and link short-term memory with long-term memory.
One piece of research that supports the WMM is a study by Baddeley and colleagues (1974). In this dual-task experiment, participants were asked to carry out two tasks at the same time. It was found that people could perform a verbal task and a visual task simultaneously much more easily than they could do two visual tasks at once. This suggests that STM is not a single store but has separate components for handling different types of information.
The WMM provides a more detailed and realistic explanation of short-term memory compared to the MSM, especially as it can account for everyday tasks like multitasking. It is supported by both experimental research and brain imaging studies, which show that different areas of the brain are active when processing visual versus verbal tasks. However, a key limitation is that the central executive is difficult to study directly because it is not clearly defined and lacks a precise explanation of how it works or how much information it can hold. Another limitation is that the WMM focuses mainly on short-term memory and does not explain how long-term memory functions.
In conclusion, both the Multi-Store Model and the Working Memory Model have contributed greatly to our understanding of how memory works. The MSM provides a clear and structured overview of the different memory systems, while the WMM gives a more detailed picture of the processes involved in short-term memory. Although each model is supported by research evidence, they both have limitations, the MSM is too simplistic, while the WMM lacks an explanation for long-term memory. Together, these models show that memory is a complex and multi-layered process that cannot be fully explained by just one theory.
Discuss one or more models of memory using one or more studies.
Memory is a process that allows us to take in information, store it, and retrieve it when needed. To explain how this complex system works, cognitive psychologists have developed several models. Two of the most influential models are the Multi-Store Model (MSM) and the Working Memory Model (WMM). This extended response question will explain each model, discuss the research that supports them, and explore their strengths and limitations.
The Multi-Store Model, proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968, describes memory as a system made up of three distinct stores: sensory memory, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). According to the model, information from our environment first enters sensory memory, where it lasts for less than a second. If we pay attention to this information, it moves into short-term memory, which holds around seven items for roughly 20 seconds. If we then rehearse this information, it can be transferred into long-term memory, which has a very large capacity and can retain information for a lifetime. The MSM sees memory as a linear process, where information passes from one store to the next in a fixed sequence.
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) conducted a study that supports the Multi-Store Model. They gave participants a list of words to remember and asked them to recall the words either immediately or after a delay. When asked to recall them straight away, participants tended to remember the first few words well, this is called the primacy effect, and also the last few words, known as the recency effect. However, when there was a delay before recall, the recency effect disappeared, while the primacy effect remained. This suggests that the first words had already been rehearsed and transferred to long-term memory, while the last words were still in short-term memory and were lost during the delay. This evidence supports the MSM’s claim that STM and LTM are separate stores.
Despite its strengths, the Multi-Store Model has several limitations. One key criticism is that it oversimplifies how memory works. It presents memory as a one-way process in which information flows in a straight line from sensory memory to STM and then to LTM. The model also assumes that rehearsal is the only way to transfer information into long-term memory, but in real life, people often remember important or emotional experiences without rehearsing them at all. Another weakness is that the MSM treats short-term memory as a single store, which later research has shown is inaccurate.
To address some of these issues, Baddeley and Hitch proposed the Working Memory Model in 1974. This model focuses specifically on short-term memory and suggests that it is not one single store but instead has multiple parts. The central executive controls attention and coordinates the other systems. The phonological loop is responsible for processing spoken and written information. The visuospatial sketchpad handles visual and spatial data. Later, the episodic buffer was added to the model to combine information from different sources and connect working memory to long-term memory. The WMM explains how people can perform two tasks at once, for example, speaking while reading because separate systems manage different types of information.
Research by Baddeley and his colleagues in 1975 supports the Working Memory Model. In one study, they found that people could remember short words more easily than long words. a finding known as the word length effect. This supports the idea that the phonological loop has a limited capacity and is designed to process sound-based information. Other studies using dual-task techniques have also supported the model. For instance, when participants performed a visual task and a verbal task at the same time, their performance was not affected. However, when they had to do two visual tasks at once, performance declined. This shows that the visual and verbal parts of working memory are separate systems that can function independently.
The Working Memory Model has several strengths. It gives a much more detailed and realistic explanation of short-term memory than the MSM and helps explain how people are able to multitask in everyday life. It is supported by strong experimental research and also by brain imaging studies that show different areas of the brain are active during different memory tasks. However, one limitation is that the central executive is not well understood. Researchers still don’t know exactly how it works or how much information it can handle. Another weakness is that the WMM mainly focuses on short-term memory and doesn’t explain how long-term memories are stored.
In conclusion, both the Multi-Store Model and the Working Memory Model have helped psychologists understand how memory works. The MSM introduced the idea of separate memory stores and is supported by research such as the Glanzer and Cunitz study. However, it is too simple and does not accurately explain how short-term memory operates. The WMM gives a better understanding of short-term memory by explaining it as a system with multiple components. This model is supported by studies like the word length effect and dual-task experiments. While both models have limitations, they have been very influential in shaping how we understand memory
Evaluate one or more studies investigating reconstructive memory
Reconstructive memory is the idea that memory isn’t like a video recording. Instead, it’s an active process shaped by things like our past experiences, cultural background (schemas), and outside information. This means our memories can be changed by how questions are asked or by details we learn after something happens. Two well-known studies that support this theory are Loftus and Palmer (1974) and Bartlett (1932). These studies show how memory can be distorted, but they also raise questions about how real-life these experiments are.
Loftus and Palmer wanted to see if the words used in a question could change what people remembered. Participants watched videos of car crashes and were asked how fast the cars were going using different verbs, like “hit,” “bumped,” or “smashed.” People who heard stronger verbs like “smashed” gave higher speed estimates. In a second part of the study, those who heard “smashed” were more likely to wrongly remember seeing broken glass. This shows that memory can be changed by post-event information, which supports the idea that memory is reconstructive.
This study was strong because it had high internal validity, everything was controlled, and the method was reliable. But it also had some weaknesses. The setting was a lab, not real life, so the results may not apply to actual eyewitness memories. Participants might have also guessed what the study was about and changed their answers (demand characteristics).
In contrast, Bartlett’s study looked at how culture affects memory. British participants read a Native American story called War of the Ghosts and were asked to recall it over time. They often changed unfamiliar parts, like swapping “canoe” for “boat” and removing strange or supernatural events. The story became shorter and more logical based on what made sense to them. This showed that memory is shaped by schemas, our existing knowledge and beliefs.
Bartlett’s research gave useful insight into how culture and personal experience affect memory. But it also had flaws. The procedures weren’t always consistent, and Bartlett chose which parts of the story counted as changes, which could be biased. Also, the story wasn’t familiar to the participants, so it was harder to remember, and not like a real-life situation.
Together, Loftus and Palmer and Bartlett’s studies support the idea that memory is reconstructive. They show that memory can be influenced by outside information and by what we already know. But they also have limitations, like low ecological validity, because the settings were artificial. Plus, they focus more on how memory fails, not how it works day to day.
In conclusion, reconstructive memory is supported by strong evidence from both studies. They show that memory is flexible and shaped by many factors, not just a copy of what really happened. Even though the studies aren’t perfect, this theory helps explain why our memories can sometimes be unreliable.
Discuss schema theory
Schema theory is the idea that we organise knowledge in our minds using mental structures called schemas. A schema is like a mental framework based on past experiences that helps us understand and respond to new situations. According to this theory, we don’t remember things as exact copies. Instead, our memories are shaped by the schemas we already have. This response will explain what schema theory is, how it works, and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses using research.
Schemas work like mental folders or blueprints in our brain. They help us process, organise, and remember information quickly by using what we already know. There are different kinds of schemas, like scripts for events (e.g., what happens at a restaurant), social schemas for people or groups, and self-schemas for how we see ourselves. When we come across new information, we use top-down processing, meaning we use our existing knowledge (schemas) to make sense of what we’re seeing or hearing.
One famous study that supports schema theory is Bartlett’s (1932) “War of the Ghosts” experiment. British participants read a Native American story and later had to recall it. Over time, their memories of the story changed, they shortened it, removed strange details, and made it more familiar to their culture, like changing “canoe” to “boat.” This showed that people use their own cultural schemas to reconstruct memories, proving that memory is influenced by what we already know, not just what actually happened.
Schema theory helps explain why we sometimes remember things wrongly or fill in memory gaps with details that “make sense” based on our experiences. It has a lot of research behind it and can be used in real-life settings like teaching, therapy, or courtrooms. It also explains how stereotypes form, which makes it useful for understanding social behaviour.
However, a key weakness of schema theory is that schemas are hard to study directly because they’re internal mental processes. The theory can also be vague, it doesn’t clearly explain where schemas come from or how they change. Some experiments used to support it, like recalling stories or office objects, might not show how memory works in real life, so the results might lack ecological validity.
Another limitation is that schema theory focuses on the content of memory (what we remember), not the processes like how information is stored or retrieved. Other models, like the Multi-Store Model, do a better job at explaining these processes. Also, not all memory errors are caused by schemas, things like emotion, trauma, or stress can also change how we remember events.
In conclusion, schema theory is a useful way to understand how our past knowledge shapes memory and perception. It is supported by strong research like Bartlett’s study and has many practical applications. But it has weaknesses too, schemas are hard to test, and the theory doesn’t explain everything about memory. Still, it’s an important idea in cognitive psychology because it shows how memory is not fixed but flexible and influenced by experience.
Evaluate one or more models of thinking and decision-making
Thinking and decision-making are key parts of how we behave. Psychologists have created models to explain how we make choices. One important model is the dual process theory. It says we use two different types of thinking: one that is fast and automatic, and another that is slow and logical. In this response, this extended response question will explain the strengths and weaknesses of this theory and how well it helps us understand decision-making.
The dual process theory says there are two systems in the brain. System 1 is fast, automatic, and based on emotion. We use it for simple, everyday decisions or quick reactions. System 2 is slow and logical. We use it when solving complex problems or thinking carefully. These two systems sometimes work together, but they can also give different results. This helps explain why people sometimes make fast choices and other times take their time to think things through.
When people make fast decisions, they often use mental shortcuts which is System 1 thinking. Although it helps save time and energy, it can lead to mistakes. For example, people may think something is more common just because they saw it in the news. This happens because System 1 focuses on things that feel emotional or recent. So, while System 1 is useful, it’s not always accurate.
A strength of System 1 is that it’s quick and helpful in daily life. But it can also cause bias and errors because it’s influenced by emotions and stereotypes. The dual process theory explains this clearly, but it doesn’t fully explain why we still trust these fast judgments. Also, in real life, it’s hard to know when someone is using System 1 or System 2, because the two systems can mix.
In contrast, System 2 is used when we stop and think carefully. For example, when solving maths problems or making big decisions, people often slow down, think about their options, and make logical choices. System 2 usually gives better answers than System 1, but it takes more time and effort. Also, people don’t always use it, especially if they are tired or under pressure.
System 2 helps us make rational and careful decisions. But a weakness of the theory is that it doesn’t always explain why people don’t use System 2 when they should. People don’t always want to spend the effort. Also, some critics say that the idea of just two systems is too simple, because thinking is more complex in real life.
The dual process theory is a good model because it shows the difference between fast and slow thinking. It helps explain why people make quick or thoughtful decisions. It is supported by many experiments, but it also has weaknesses. It can be hard to tell which system someone is using, and real-life thinking may not fit perfectly into just two categories. So, it may be too simple to explain all types of thinking.
In conclusion, the dual process theory is a helpful way to understand how people make decisions. It gives a clear idea of how we think fast and slow. It works well for many situations, but it doesn’t explain every detail of thinking in real life. Even with its limits, it’s still a useful model to study how we make choices.
Discuss one or more research study/ies related to one model or theory of thinking and decision-making
Thinking and decision-making are the mental processes we use to make judgments, solve problems, and choose between options. A well-known model that explains this is the Dual Process Theory. According to this theory, we use two types of thinking. System 1 is fast, automatic, and based on intuition and emotion. System 2 is slow and logical. Studies like Alter et al. (2007) and Yuille and Cutshall (1986) show how these two systems work in different situations.
Alter et al. (2007) tested whether making people think harder would lead them to use System 2. University students took a short test called the Cognitive Reflection Test. One group saw the questions in an easy-to-read font, and the other group saw them in a hard-to-read font. The group with the harder font performed better. The researchers believed this happened because the difficult font slowed people down, making them think more carefully and use System 2 instead of guessing quickly with System 1.
This study supports Dual Process Theory because it shows that people are more likely to use logical thinking when tasks are harder. However, it also has limitations. It used a simple test rather than real-life decisions, which makes it less realistic. Also, the study didn’t measure brain activity, so we can’t be sure which system was used, it only looks at behaviour.
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) studied a real robbery in Vancouver to see how emotion affects memory. They interviewed 13 eyewitnesses and compared their answers to police records from right after the crime. Even months later, the witnesses gave accurate details, even when asked confusing questions. The study found that strong emotions actually helped memory rather than making it worse.
This study didn’t directly test Dual Process Theory, but it challenges the idea that emotional situations lead to poor thinking, which is often linked to System 1. The results suggest that in emotional, real-life situations, people might still think clearly. This could be because the memory is meaningful or rehearsed, which may activate System 2. It also shows that System 1 and System 2 might not work completely separately, but can interact.
Overall, these studies show that how we think depends on many factors. Alter et al. support the idea that mental effort helps trigger logical thinking. Yuille and Cutshall show that emotion can sometimes improve memory and thinking. This suggests that System 1 and System 2 might not always work alone, they could work together more than Dual Process Theory suggests.
In conclusion, Dual Process Theory helps explain why we sometimes make quick decisions and sometimes think things through. But the model might be too simple because it only talks about two systems. Real-life thinking is more complex and depends on emotions, experience, and the situation. While Alter et al. supports the theory, Yuille and Cutshall reminds us that emotions can help, not hurt, our thinking. This shows we need to learn more about how both systems work together in real life.
Evaluate one or more research study/ies on one or more biases in thinking and decision-making
Biases in thinking and decision-making are mistakes people often make because of mental shortcuts, emotions, or the situation they’re in. These errors are linked to fast, automatic thinking what System 1 does in Dual Process Theory. This response looks at two studies, Alter et al. (2007) and Yuille and Cutshall (1986), to explore how different types of bias affect our thinking, and how people can sometimes avoid them.
One common bias is the intuitive bias, where people trust their gut feeling instead of thinking carefully. Alter et al. (2007) tested whether making something harder to read (called cognitive disfluency) would reduce this bias and make people think more logically. They gave people a test called the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), which has questions that seem easy but are actually tricky. Half of the group got the test in a clear font, and the other half got it in a harder-to-read font. The people who had the harder font did better, showing that when we slow down, we’re less likely to make quick mistakes.
This study shows that some biases can be reduced by changing the situation. Alter and his team found that making people think harder (by using a harder font) made them less likely to fall for intuitive bias. But the study has some limits. It used a lab task, not a real-life situation, so it’s unclear if the same thing would happen outside the lab. Also, the researchers didn’t directly prove that System 2 was being used—they guessed based on how people behaved.
A different kind of bias is the misinformation effect, where someone’s memory changes after being given false or leading information. Yuille and Cutshall (1986) studied this using a real event, a robbery in Vancouver. They interviewed 13 people who saw the crime, four to five months later, and asked some misleading questions to see if their memories would change. But most of the witnesses gave accurate answers, even with the misleading questions. This suggests that emotional, real-life memories might be more reliable than we think.
Yuille and Cutshall’s study is strong because it’s based on a real event, which makes it more believable than lab experiments. It challenges the idea that all memories are easily changed, and shows that strong emotions might help people remember things clearly. But the study had only 13 people, and there were no controls for things like how much stress they felt or if they saw news reports. Also, asking people to remember a robbery could have been upsetting for them.
Together, these studies show that cognitive biases are not always the same. In some cases, like Alter et al.’s study, we can reduce bias by changing how we think. In other cases, like Yuille and Cutshall’s, people seem to resist bias naturally, especially in emotional, real-life situations. So biases are influenced by how we think, how we feel, and the environment we’re in.
When we compare the two studies, each gives a different view. Alter et al. gives strong proof from an experiment, but it’s not very realistic. Yuille and Cutshall give real-world results that are meaningful, but with less control. Together, they show that bias isn’t just a fixed problem, it changes depending on the situation.
In conclusion, both studies help explain when and why biases happen. Alter et al. (2007) show that people can avoid intuitive bias if they’re made to think more deeply. Yuille and Cutshall (1986) show that in real-life emotional events, people can remember things accurately even when given false information. This shows that biases are not permanent, we can overcome them in the right situations. In the future, researchers should try to link real-life thinking with lab findings to better understand how bias works in everyday life.
With reference to one or more research studies, discuss the influence of emotion on cognition
Emotion plays a big role in how we think and remember, especially when it comes to emotional or important memories. One way emotion affects memory is through something called flashbulb memories. These are vivid, detailed, and long-lasting memories of events that are very emotional or shocking. A well-known study by Brown and Kulik (1977) looked at how strong emotions can make certain memories clearer than regular ones.
In their study, Brown and Kulik asked 80 American participants (half Black, half white) to describe when they first heard about important events like the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. They also had to describe a personal, emotional memory. People explained where they were, what they were doing, and how they felt. The results showed that people had strong, clear memories of these emotional events. Interestingly, Black participants remembered Martin Luther King Jr.’s death more vividly, probably because it felt more personal and emotional for them.
This study shows that emotion can make memories stronger and more detailed. The emotional impact of the event seemed to help people form clearer memories. Brown and Kulik believed that emotions act like a “flash” that captures the moment clearly in the brain. This shows that memory isn’t just about repeating facts, it’s also shaped by our emotions when the memory is formed.
But the study had some weaknesses. It asked people to remember events from years ago, so the memories might not be accurate. People can change or forget details without realising it. For example, a later study by Neisser and Harsch (1992) asked people about the Challenger explosion and found that even though people were confident in their flashbulb memories, many of their details were wrong. This shows that just because a memory feels vivid doesn’t mean it’s always correct.
Also, Brown and Kulik didn’t study what was happening in the brain or track how the memories were formed. It’s possible that people remembered these events well because they saw them again in the media or talked about them a lot. So, while emotion might help create strong memories, other factors like repetition and media exposure could also play a role.
In conclusion, Brown and Kulik’s study supports the idea that emotion has a strong effect on memory. Their work introduced flashbulb memories, showing how emotional events can lead to vivid, lasting memories. However, these memories aren’t always accurate. Emotion helps with remembering, but it doesn’t guarantee that memories are completely true. The study helps us understand how emotion and memory are linked, but more research is needed to know how reliable emotional memories really are.
Evaluate one or more research study/ies related to the influence of emotion on cognition
Emotion plays an important role in how we think and remember things. One example of this is the idea of flashbulb memories, these are clear, detailed memories of emotional or shocking events. A well-known study by Brown and Kulik (1977) looked at how these memories form. They believed that when something emotional or surprising happens, it creates a strong and vivid memory. Their study aimed to show how emotion affects memory by making it stronger and clearer.
Brown and Kulik asked 80 American people, half Black and half white—to remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard about big public events like the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. They also asked people to recall a personal emotional event. Most people gave very clear details about these moments. Black participants remembered Martin Luther King Jr.’s death more vividly than white participants. This shows that if something feels more personal and emotional, it might be remembered more clearly.
This study gives good evidence that emotion affects how we remember things. The strong emotions during these events seemed to help people remember them in more detail. Brown and Kulik said emotion works like a spotlight or a camera flash, it “captures” the moment and keeps it clear in your memory. This shows that emotional events are often remembered better than neutral or everyday events.
However, there are some problems with the study. It asked people to remember things from many years ago, which isn’t always reliable. People can change or forget parts of their memories over time, even if they feel confident. For example, a study by Neisser and Harsch (1992) found that people’s memories of the Challenger explosion were often wrong, even though they were sure they were right. So, flashbulb memories may feel accurate, but that doesn’t mean they always are.
Another issue is that the study didn’t check how often people thought or talked about these events. Maybe people remembered the events well not just because they were emotional, but because they talked about them a lot or saw them on the news. This makes it hard to know if emotion alone caused the strong memory. Also, the study didn’t look at biological evidence, like brain scans, which could have shown how emotional memories are stored in parts of the brain like the amygdala and hippocampus.
In conclusion, Brown and Kulik’s 1977 study helped show that emotion affects memory, especially through flashbulb memories. Emotional events often feel more vivid and last longer in our minds. But other research has shown that these memories are not always accurate. Brown and Kulik’s study also had some weaknesses, like relying on people’s memory of past events and not including brain data. Overall, emotion seems to make memories feel stronger and more confident, but not always more accurate.
