Memory

Front 1

MULTI-STORE MODEL

Back 1

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)

Sensory Register: Where information is inputed.

*Two stores in it: iconic (visual info) and echoic (auditory)

* iconic=information encoded visually

Echoic=information encoded acoustically

* Capacity: Very large

* Duration: echoic = 2 seconds

Iconic= 500 milliseconds

Short Term Memory: From sensory through attention.

*information encoded acoustically

*Capacity: 5-9 items. (Can be increased through chuncking/adding meaning to information)

*Duration: 20 seconds (Can be increased through rehearsal)

Long term memory: from STM through ellaborative rehearsal

*information encoded semantically (by the meaning)

*Capacity: unlimited

*Duration: permanent

Front 2

Case Studies: MSM

Back 2

Encoding in STM:

Baddeley (1966): Groups given words to learn.

Group 1= words that sound similar i.e. cat, bat, mat

Group 2= words that sound different i.e. pit, cow, mug

Participants were then given the list they learnt in the incorrect order and had to place the words in the correct order.

Result: Group 1 recalled 10% as they were acoustically confused due to all info being encoded by how they sound. Group 2 recalled 80%.

Conclusion: suggests STM info is encoded acoustically

Capacity in STM:

Miller (1956): asked participants to recall digits

Result: on average participants recalled 7 digits (+ or - two either way)

Conclusion: this shows capacity in STM is 5-9

Duration of STM:

Peterson and Peterson (1959): participants given triagrams to remember. Asked to count backwards from a 3 digit number to prevent rehearsal.

Time periods between recalling varied.

Result: after 3 seconds participants recalled 80% of triagrams correctly whereas after 18 seconds only 10% recalled correctly

Conclusion: shows that STM lasts less than 20 seconds without rehearsal

Encoding in LTM:

Baddeley (1966): Group 3= list of words with similar meanings i.e. big, large, huge

Group 4= list of words with dissimilar meanings i.e. hot, safe, cute

Given their original words in a wrong order and asked to put them in a correct order

Result: Group 3 performed worst (55% correct)

Conclusion: demonstrates semantic confusion suggests semantically encoded

Capacity of LTM:

Anokhin (1973): estimated neutral connections in brain suggests LTM capacity is unlimited.

Duration of LTM:

Bahrick et al. (1975): 400 participants between 17-74 asked to identify former class mates to test memory.

Result: those who left school in past 15 years recalled 90% of faces of classmates. Those who left in last 48 years recalled 70%.

Conclusion: shows duration of LTM potentially lasts a lifetime especially if material is processed and consists of images and feelings

Front 3

Evaluation of MSM

Back 3

Strenghts:

Supporting evidence of research: *Glanzer and cunitz (1966) showed participants more likely to recall words from start and end of a list.

*this means LTM and STM are recalled seperately

Supporting evidence from case studies of patients:

*Case of H.M removal of parts of temporal lobe meant he was unable to use LTM but STM worked fine

*shows LTM and STM are separate and work in a sequence

Weaknesses:

Not just one store for STM:

*KF damaged frontal lobe in motorbike accident

*only visual STM worked not verbal.

*means MSM oversimplified and there are more than one type of STM

Lacks ecological validity/mundane realism:

*tasks are artificial i.e. memorizing numbers

*artificial setting i.e. lab

*means we can't generalise results to real life

Front 4

WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)

Back 4

Central Executive:

*processes all incoming information from any sense

*pays attention to tasks. Invloved in monitoring and coordinating

*makes decisions and allocates to other components

* very limited capacity

Phonological loop:

Deals with auditory information. Divided into sub stores:

Phonological store: deals with verbal information. Spoken info directly and written must be converted into articulatory (spoken) first.

*Capacity=1-2 seconds

Articulating control process: associated with speech production.

*rehearses information through silent repition

*converts written info into speech and sends to phonological store

Visuo-Spatial Sketch Pad:

*limited capacity of 3-4 objects

*Visual Cache: visual info

*Inner Scribe: perception on relationships between objects

Episodic Buffer:

*Made in 2000

*general store

*deals with any other relevant memory other stores can't deal with

*sends info to LTM

*limited capacity of 4 chunks

Front 5

Evaluation of WMM

Back 5

Strengths:

Supporting evidence from research:

*Baddeley (1975): participants were asked to track point a lights around the room at the same time as doing either a visual task (i.e. imagining walking around the letter H) or a verbal task.

Result: Participants found it more difficult completing visual imagery task at the same time as tracking light as they both use same components

Conclusion: shows there are seperate visual and verbal stores

Supporting evidence from case studies of patients with brain damage:

*KF couldn't use verbal STM but visual STM and LTM worked fine.

*This means that separate visual and acoustic stores exist in STM

WEAKNESSES:

Too simplified:

*No real evidence to prove CE is real

*don't adequately explain how LTM works

* doesn't explain other memories i.e. musical

*this means the WMM is unsatisfactory

Front 6

Interference (Forgetting)

Back 6

Definition: One memory disrupts the ability to recall another memory.

The more similar or the more information there is, the more likely someone is to forget.

Types of interference:

Pro active interference- NEW material/information is forgotten. E.g calling a current partner by your ex's name.

Retro active interference- OLD material/information is forgotten. E.g teacher learns the name of her new class but forgets previous ones.

McGeoch & McDonald (1931):

Aim: To investigate whether retro-active interference depended on similarity of material.

Procedure: Pt's learnt two lists of words. The first a control list which all pt's learnt. The 2nd list varied into 6 groups: synonyms, antonyms, unrelated words, nonsense syllables, digits, or no list at all.

Results: Most words were recalled by the group which didn't learn a second list and the least by those who had to learn synonyms.

Conclusion: Inference disrupts recall more when two memories are semantically compared to when they are not.

Front 7

Interference Evaluation

Back 7

Strengths:

It has supporting evidence:

*McGeoch & McDonald (1931): Concluded that list of words were better recalled when the were not required to learn similar information.

Conclusion: Retro-active inference can be accepted as a valid explanation of forgetting

The supporting evidence is scientific: McGeoch & McDonald's has high internal validity.

*Standardised procedures such as control group

CAN establish cause and effect as confounding/extraneous variables controlled

Conclusion: Inference can be accepted as a valid explanation for forgetting

Interference is supported by real life evidence: Baddeley & Hitch asked rugby players to recall names of teams they had played against so far in the season. Players who had played more games were less likely to recall names of teams they played earlier in the season.

*Retro-active intereference is demonstrated as OLD information of teams were replaced by more recent teams- NEW information.

Conclusion: Interference is a valid explanation for real life.

Weaknesses:

Supporting evidence lacks mundane realism: Tasks and setting is artificial

Conclusion: Results can't be generalised so interference may not be a valid explanation of real life forgetting

Front 8

Retrieval Failure (Forgetting)

Back 8

We forget when we don't have "cues" to remind us of information.

Encoding specificity principles:

*memory most effecting when information presented upon encoding is present at time of retrieval e.g cues

* Cues often have meaningful links to information e.g teacher forgets a students name. The student cues the teacher by giving them the first letter of their name and then the teacher remembers.

Tulving & Pearlstone (1966):

Aim: Investigate the effect of meaningful cues on recalling information.

Procedure: Pt's learnt list of words under category headings e.g sports, foods...

All Pt's were tested on the recall of these words in two groups. One group were given the headings, one wasnt.

Results: 60% of words recalled with headings and only 40% without

Conclusion: More forgetting occurs in absence of meaningful cues.

Context-dependent forgetting:

*external cues e.g environment where information was learnt can be remind us

Baddeley (1975):

Aim: Investigate effect of environment on retrieval

Procedure: Pts were deep sea divers. Had to learn words either on the beach or underwater. They were then tested on the words on the beach or underwater.

Results: 40% more words were recalled when they were in the same environment they learnt the words then those in a different environment.

Conclusion: Environment provides people with retrieval cues so without these cues causes forgetting.

State-depending forgetting:

*Internal cues such as mental/emotional state at time of learning can remind us of information

Goodwin et al (1969):

Aim: investigate effect of mental state upon recalling information

Procedure: Male pt's asked to learn list of words either drunk or sober. Then tested on recall of words, half in sober condition half in drunk condition.

Results: Pts forgot most words when forced to recall in different mental state to which they had learnt it.

Conclusion: Mental state provides retrieval cues so forgetting can be explained in absence of these cues.

Front 9

Retrieval Failure Evaluation

Back 9

Strengths:

It has supporting evidence:

Tulving & Pearlstone found more words recalled when participants were given cues in the form of category headings. Whereas more were forgotten without these cues.

Conclusion: Retrieval evidence is a valid explanation for forgetting.

Supporting evidence is scientific:

Lab experiments such as Tulving & Pearlstone's have high internal validity.

*Standardised procedures such as control group CAN establish cause and effect as confounding/extraneous variables controlled

Conclusion: Retrieval failure can be a valid explanation of forgetting.

Some real-life evidence to support it:

Aggleton & Waskett (1999): Pt's who visted Yorvik centre 6-7 years earlier had to recall memories of the museum. Half were presented with its distinct smells, half without. The group without the smells forgot the most.

Conclusion: Retrieval failure can be a valid explanation for real life cases of forgetting

Weaknesses:

Supporting evidence lacks mundane realism:

Tasks and setting is artificial

Conclusion: Results can't be generalised so retrieval failure may not be a valid explanation of real life forgetting

Front 10

Misleading information

Back 10

Misleading information is incorrect info given to eye witnesses which can distort memory.

Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Aim: Investigate if post-event information in the form of leading questions would result in inaccurate EWT.

Procedure: 45 students shown film of car accident. Put in 1 of 5 conditions where the words bumped, collided, hit, contacted or smashed in the question about speed.

Results: Smashed = 41mph

Collided=39mph

Bumped=38mph

Hit=34mph

Contacted=32mph

Conclusion: misleading questions after an event has occurred can distort EWT

Post event discussion is when witnesses talk to other witnesses about the event which leads to lower accuracy in recollection of memory.

Gabbert et al (2003):

Aim: Investigate effects of PED on accuracy of EWT

Procedure: pts were split into two conditions which viewed the same crime but at different perspectives (e.g the angle of one participant allowed them to see details such as book titles the other couldn't see). They were then paired up with a participant from the different condition and told they saw the same clip.

If in the control condition pts didn't discuss with their partner, if they were they did.

Results: When discussing pts recalled 71% of info they hadn't actually seen where as in the control no participant recalled false memories.

Conclusion: witnesses either comply or are internalized by their partners this is known by memory confomity.

Front 11

Misleading information evaluation

Back 11

Strengths:

Research has high reliability: uses lab experiments and standardised procedures. E.g pts watched same video in L&P.

All participants asked same Qs

Conclusion: Research is replicable. Reliably conclude misleading info distorts EWT.

Practical applications: used to earn justice system on relying on EWT. This developed cognitive interviews which eliminates leading questions.

Conclusion: Research be praised to improve justice system and reduce wrongful convictions.

Weaknesses:

Low ecological validity: video clips of crime are artificial not same as witnessing real life crime. Doesn't create same emotions e.g anxiety.

Conclude: misleading information distorts EWT can't be generalised to real life scenarios.

Contradictory findings from real life: Yuille and Cutshall (1986): participants were real life eye witnesses of a robbery. They were asked to recall crime with two leading questions asked. All eyewitnesses gave accurate accounts.

Conclusion: leading questions may have less influence on real life EWT.

Front 12

Anxiety on EWT

Back 12

Anxiety is a state of emotional or physical arousal to a stressful situation.

Christianson and Hubinette (1993):

Aim: Investigate if anxiety can have a positive effect on EWT recall in real life threatening situations.

Procedure: 110 real life eye witnesses of a robbery Sweden. Onlookers who had low Anxiety and bank clerks who had has high anxiety.

Result: recalled over 75% and high anxiety participants recalled most.

Conclusion: anxiety improves EWT.

Yuille and Cutshall (1986):

Aim: Investigate the effect of anxiety on EWT memories on real life events.

Procedure: participants were witnesses of Swedish robbery. After 4 months asked to recall event and rate their stress level on a scale of 1-7.

Results: higher stress levels were more accurate (88%) then those who weren't (75%).

Conclusion: Anxiety improves accuracy of EWT accounts.

Front 13

Anxiety Evaluations

Back 13

Strengths:

High ecological validity/mundane realism: natural experiments in on real life setting e.g witnesses recalled real events.

Conclusion: conclusion of studies can be generalised to real life EWT.

Weaknesses:

Lacks internal validity: natural experiments so variables not manipulated. E.g stress levels can't be calculated.

Conclusion: can't establish cause and effect.

Contradictory findings: Deffenbacher did 21 studies. Only 7 showed anxiety improves accuracy and 12 showed otherwise.

Conclusion: no simple rule establish effect of anxiety in EWT

Dont account for individual differences: some individuals benefit from anxiety some don't. Anxious quick participants tested and labelled neurotic or stable. Stable were more accurate.

Conclusion: anxiety on EWT likely affected by personality not just anxiety.

Front 14

Cognitive interviews

Back 14

Developed by Gieselman and Fisher (1992). Includes:

*reducing distractions

*actively listening

*open ended questions

*avoid interrupting and judgmental questions

Uses retrieval cues to help recall more accurately.

Components:

Report everything: say everything no matter how trivial

Context reinstatement: imagine back in event. Recall everything from that.

Change order: report incident in reverse chronological order.

Change perspective: recall event in shoes of someone else e.g co-witnesses.

Front 15

Cognitive interview evaluation

Back 15

Strenghts:

Supporting evidence:

Geiselman et al (1985): pts shown video of crime and recalled details. Either interviewed in standard interview or cognitive or under hypnosis.

Results: standard: 29% accurate recall

Cognitive: 41% accurate recall

Hypnosis: 39% accurate recall

Fisher et al (1990): trained detectives in Miami to used cognitive interview on real life witnesses.

Results: cognitive lead to significantly more detail recalled.

Conclusion: cognitive interview gets more accurate info from eye witnesses compared to other interviews.

Weaknesses:

Practical problems: police require extensive training and cognitive interviews take longer so it's time consuming. Not enough time to use all 4 techniques of CI.

Conclusion: not practical for

all police forces to use

Not all CI techniques favourable: UK survey police only use "report everything" and "context reinstatement". Others may mislead witnesses.

Conclusion: although more info is recalled in CI, may still be distorted.