Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
89 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Luftus and Palmer (1974) (1)
|
Experiment 1: 45 students, shown 7 films of accidents -> questionnaire with 1 critical Q (speed of car): smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted. More violent=higher speed. (Smashed 41mph/contacted 30mph) ~~ memory was altered by misleading info.
|
EWT
|
|
|
Loftus and Palmer (1974) (2)
|
Experiment 2: 3 groups, all shown accident film of 1 min. 1:smashed, 2:hit, 3:control. (Again higher speed for smashed than hit)
1 week later- 1/10Qs about glass(there wasn't any): smashed: 16 yes. Hit: 7 yes, control: 6 yes. ~~higher speed more likely to think of broken glass. Misleading info changes storage. |
EWT
|
|
|
When did Loftus and Palmer did their two key studies with verbs?
|
1974
|
EWT
|
|
|
Who did the two experiments with verbs (and glass)?
|
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
|
EWT
|
|
|
Loftus et al. (1978)
|
2 groups: slides leading up to an accident > identify original slide of sign after consistent or misleading Q about stop/yield sign. = consistent Qs 75% correct. Misleading Qs 41% correct.
|
Supports Loftus and Palmer (1974) EWT
|
|
|
When did Loftus et al. Did yield/stop sign experiment?
|
1978
|
EWT
|
|
|
Who did stop/yield sign experiment?
|
Loftus et al. (1978)
|
EWT
|
|
|
Beckerian and Bowers (1983)
|
Re-plicated stop/yield sign- except when identifying original slides he showed them in order (unlike Loftus). = recall was now the same for both groups. ~~ misleading Qs effect recall - not storage.
|
Un-supporting Loftus and Palmer EWT
|
|
|
Who replicated stop/yield sign?
|
Bekerian and Bowers (1983)
|
Un-supporting loftos and palmer ewt.
|
|
|
Bekerian and Bowers (????)
|
1983
|
Un supporting loftus and palmer ewt.
|
|
|
Wells and olsen (2003)
|
Found no difference between ability of men/women.
|
Individual differences EWT
|
|
|
Yuille and Cutshall (1986)
|
Interviewed 13 witnesses to real armed roberies in Canada. > 4+ months after crime, with 2 misleading Qs, still perfect accuracy that matched their initial statement. = post event info may not effect memory in real EWT.
|
Un supporting Loftus and Palmer EWT.
|
|
|
Yuille and Cutshall (????)
|
1986
|
Un-supporting Loftus and Palmer EWT
|
|
|
13 witnesses in Canada= perfect?
|
Yuille and Cutshall (1986)
|
Unsupporting Loftus and Palmer EWT
|
|
|
Foster et al. (1994)
|
If people thought they were watching a real crime and that it mattered = more accurate
|
Validity of Loftus and Palmer EWT
|
|
|
Foster et al. (????)
|
1994
|
Validity of Loftus and Palmer EWT
|
|
|
Found that if participants cared more they were more accurate?
|
Foster et al (1994)
|
Validity of Loftus and Palmer EWT
|
|
|
Who found CI is better for older people?
|
Mello and Fisher (1996)
|
Strengths of CI
|
|
|
Christianson and Hubinette (1993)
|
Questioned 58 real life witnesses to back robberies ~> threatened = more accurate VS unaroused/onlookers. ~> Even 15 months later. ~~ anxiety enhances EWT
|
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - enhances
|
|
|
Christianson and Hubinette (????)
|
1993
|
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - enhances
|
|
|
58 real witnesses = anxiety enhances accuracy : who?
|
Christianson and Hubinette (1993)
|
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - enhances
|
|
|
Deffenbacher et al. (2004)
|
Meta-analysis of 18 studies: high levels of stress = negative impact on accuracy.
|
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - negative
|
|
|
Deffenbacher et al. (????) meta analysis.
|
2004
|
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - negative
|
|
|
Who did a meta-analysis of 18 studies and found negative effects of anxiety on accuracy?
|
Deffenbacher et al. (2004)
|
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - negative
|
|
|
Johnson and Scott (1976)
|
1: heard a conv in next room - then a guy came in holding a pen with grease.
2: heard argument in next room - then a guy came in with a knife with blood. ~> they had to identify the guy from pics ~> 1=49% accurate. 2=33% accurate. == weapon focus effect : weapon distracted attention from the face. |
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - weapon focus effect
|
|
|
Johnson and Scott (????)
|
1976
|
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - weapon focus effect
|
|
|
Two condition- pen VS knife - weapon focus effect - who?
|
Johnson and Scott (1976)
|
Anxiety on accuracy of EWT - weapon focus effect
|
|
|
Fisher and Geiselman (1992)
|
After some research = retrieval Cues = made the cognitive interview.
|
CI
|
|
|
Fisher and Geiselman (????)
|
1992
|
CI
|
|
|
Who made the CI?
|
Fisher and Geiselman (1992)
|
CI
|
|
|
CI
|
1: Report everything
2: Recreation of context 3: Changing the order 4: Changing perspective (1+2 - consistency. 3+4 - different retrieval routes.) |
CI
|
|
|
Limitations of CI
|
-It's difficult to understand how effective it is because it is a collection of techniques.
-not all police stations use all 4 parts of CI -many of Kohnken et al's research was lab study on students- not real world situations. |
CI
|
|
|
Kohnken et al. (1999) meta-analysis
|
53 studies. -> found an increase of 34% in amount if correct information produced in CI VS a standard interview.
(Mostly lab research) |
Strengths of CI
|
|
|
Kohnken et al. Meta analysis (????)
|
1999
|
Strengths of CI
|
|
|
Meta analysis of CI?
|
Kohnken et al. (1999)
|
Strengths of CI
|
|
|
Mello and Fisher (1996)
|
2 groups, 1: 72yrs, 2: 22yrs. Both watched a crime and then were given an interview -> CI produced more information, and the difference was greater for older people.
|
Strengths of CI
|
|
|
Mello and Fisher (????)
|
1996
|
Strengths of CI
|
|
|
Yarmey (1993)
|
He stopped 651 adults in public places and asked them to recall a woman they talked to for 15 seconds 2 minutes before. (18-29) and (30-44) age groups were more confident that the (45-65) age group. ~> no significant difference in their accuracy due to age.
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Who asked 651 adults in a public place and found no difference in accuracy due to age in 1993?
|
Yarmey
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
When did Yarmey found no difference in accuracy due to age after he asked people in a public place?
|
1993
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Parker and Caranza (1989)
|
Compared primary and collage students. They asked them to identify criminal from a picture after a slide sequence of a mock crime. They found that the children were more confident but had more errors than the collage students.
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Memon et al. (2003)
|
Compared the accuracy of a 16-33 age group and a 60-82 age group EWT. He found that when the delay difference of interview was 35 minutes (short) there was no difference, but when it was 1 week (long) the older group were significantly less accurate.
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Anastasi and Rhodes (2006)
|
Studied 3 age groups - all had to rate 24 pictures for attractiveness than had a filler activities ~> after a filler activity they had 48 pictures they had to identify the 24 original pics from.
They found that young and middle groups were more accurate than old one, but all age groups were more accurate in identifying pictures of faces from their own age group. |
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Brigham and Malpass (1985)
|
They explained the own-age-bias as the more ocntact we have with a group of people the more time we spend with them so we get better at recognising individuals from that group so if we have less than we are worse = differential experience hypothesis = own age + own race bias!
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Yerkes - Dodson Law (1908)
|
He concluded that if the arousal amount is middle the performance is enhanced (best) but if the arousal is just a little or very intense the performance is decreased (curve/cup law)
|
Effect of Anxiety on EWT
|
|
|
Rinolo et al (2003)
|
Titanic survivors said it was in half = no one believed = it was true.
traumatic but still remembered correctly |
Effect of Anxiety on EWT
|
|
|
Steblay (1992)
|
Meta-analysis of studies found that a weapon does decrease the ability to remember the person holding it.
|
Effect of Anxiety on EWT
|
|
|
Who had the curve-kind law of anxeity VS performance?
|
Yerkes - Dodson
|
Effect of Anxiety on EWT
|
|
|
When did Yerkes - Dodson made his law?
|
1908
|
Effect of Anxiety on EWT
|
|
|
Who compare primary children with collage students?
|
Parker and Carranza
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
When did Parker and Carranza did their study?
|
1989
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Who looked at the delay- effect and age link in 2003?
|
Memon et al.
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
When did Memon et al. looked at the difference of delay on accuracy compared with ages?
|
2003
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
When did Anastasi and Rhodes found an own-age-bias?
|
2006
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Who did the research of the own age bias?
|
Anastasi and Rhodes
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Who explained the own age bias?
|
Brigham and Malpass
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
When did Brigham and Malpass explain the own age bias?
|
1985
|
Effect of Age on EWT
|
|
|
Strengths of multi-store model
|
There is evidence for 3 different stores
It has good structure It stimulated a lot of research |
Evaluating MSM
|
|
|
Limitation of Multi-store model
|
Oversimplified
KF case study shows STM/LTM is not just one unit. --- Schachter et al (2000) said that LTM has 4 stores - semantic, episodic, procedural, and perceptual-representation system... |
Evaluating MSM
|
|
|
Strength of working-memory-model
|
It explains many case-study findings. and is supported.
It focuses on process and not only on rehearsal like the MSM. It offers a better explanation of STM than the MSM. |
Evaluating WWM
|
|
|
Limitation of working-memory model
|
CE is not explained properly = EVR case study had a tumour removed but still had good reasoning but could not make decisions properly.
Mostly supported by case studies which cannot be generalised. |
Evaluating WWM
|
|
|
Ruckin et al. (2003)
|
Asked participants to recall a set of words and pseudo words (no meaning) and monitored the brain while they did it.
Found more brain activity when real words were recalled = so STM is part of the LTM |
MSM evaluation
|
|
|
Glanzer and Cuntiz (1966)
|
Had a list of 20 words - each seen one at a time and then recall all of them straight after. => people tended to recall best at the start and the end = bad in the middle of the list.
Primacy effect: first words are rehearsed and pass to LTM. Recency effect: Last words are close enough to the time of recalling that they are still in the STM. |
MSM evaluation
|
|
|
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
|
Participants heard 3 random constanents => counted backwards in 3s or 4s from a random 3 digit number (filler) => for either 3-18 (gaps of three) seconds interval before they had to say the three constants.
~~> 2% remembered after 18 seconds but not after === duration of STM = 18s |
STM Duration
|
|
|
Brandimote (1992)
|
found that visual encoding is possible if verbal encoding is not.
|
STM encoding
|
|
|
Jacobs (1887)
|
Used the digit span techniques, and found that the capacity was 9.3 for digits and 7.3 for letters.
|
STM capacity
|
|
|
Simon (1974)
|
Found that people had shorter capacity for longer chunks
|
STM capacity
|
|
|
Miller (1956)
|
Found that the span of STM is 7±2. Found that we chunk things so its actually 7 chunks.
|
STM capacity
|
|
|
Cowan (2001)
|
Criticised Miller and said it was actually about 4 chunks.
|
STM capacity
|
|
|
Nairne et al (1999)
|
Showed a tray of items to remember (each items each trial unlike peterson) = found it was 96 seconds
|
STM duration
|
|
|
Baddeley et al (1996)
|
Found that STM encodes acoustically because acoustically similar words were muddled in the STM.
Found that LTM encodes semantically because it had muddled words if they were semantically similar. |
ENCODING
|
|
|
Frost (1972)
|
He showed that LTM recall was related to visual as well as semantic categories.
|
LTM encoding
|
|
|
Bahrick et al (1975)
|
Asked people to put names to faces from their high school yearbook ~> found that 48 years later people were still 70% accurate
|
LTM duration
|
|
|
Shepard (1967)
|
Showed 612 memorable pictures on at a time. => 1 hour later they had to recognise them amid other pics == almost perfect recall.
=> 4 months later it was 50% recall. |
LTM duration
|
|
|
HM case study
|
He had his hippocampus removed in surgery against epilepsy. He could remember everything before the surgery but not create new long term memories == hippocampus is a gateway to create long term memories.
-- His duration was about 20 seconds = duration of STM = similar to PP. |
PP. MSM.
|
|
|
KF case study
|
He had normal LTM recall, but ad STM; digit span of 1.
He performed almost normally on semantic-related tasks (EB) but performed better on tasks if material was presented visually rather than auditory = damaged phonological loop. |
support WWM
|
|
|
SC case study
|
He had ok learning abilities - exception of being unable to learn word pairs that were presented out-load == damaged phonological loop.
|
|
|
|
Squire et al
Beardsly |
Found the hippocampus is active when long term memories are accessed or engaged.
--- Found the Preforntal cortex is active when STM is (thought to be) active. |
BRAIN
|
|
|
Hitch and Baddeley (1976)
|
Participants had to either perform 1 central-executive task and checked for time or they could have had another task (2) at the same time that either involved the CE and articulatory process or just the articulatory process.
Found that task 1 was slower when task 2 involved both CE + PL. ~> the speed of task 1 was the same when performed by itself or when task 2 was using only PL. == EVIDENCE FOR SEPARATE COMPONENTS. |
supporting WWM *****
|
|
|
Bunge et al (2000)
|
Used fMRI to see which part of the brain were most active during performance of 1 or 2 tasks. ~> found that the same places were active during dual or single tasks = but more active during dual task.
|
CE support
|
|
|
Baddeley et al (1975a)
|
Found out PL hold the amount of information that you can say in 2 seconds.
|
PL support
|
|
|
Baddeley et al (1987)
|
Participants were shown words and then asked for immediate recall ~> performance was much better for semantically related words (sentences) than unrelated words. = EB LINKED TO LTM.
|
EB support
|
|
|
Baddeley et al (1975b)
|
Participants were given a visual tracking task - they had to do one of 2 tasks on top = 1: describe all angles on the letter F. (VSSP) 2: verbal task (PL).
~~> found that task 1 was difficult to perform whilst task 2 was not. |
VSSP support
|
|
|
Who made the WWM?
|
Baddeley and Hitch
|
WWM
|
|
|
When was the WWM made?
|
1974
|
WWM
|
|
|
Who made the MSM?
|
Atkinson and Shiffrin
|
MSM
|
|
|
When was the MSM made?
|
1968
|
MSM
|
|
|
Marsh et al
|
Found that if participants didn't expect to have to remember the letters the duration was 2 seconds.
|
Duration - evaluating P+P.
|
|
|
Parts of the phonological loop
|
articulatory process = inner voice.
phonological store = what we hear (inner ear) |
WWM
|
