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;
96 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Who found the capacity of STM, and what is it?
|
Miller: 7+-2
|
|
|
Who tested capacity of STM?
|
Jacobs: lines of digits or letters that expanded each time Letters: 7.3 Numbers: 9.3 |
|
|
What is displacement?
|
When old information is lost when capacity is full and replaced by new information
|
|
|
What is the capacity of LTM?
|
Unlimited
|
|
|
What is the duration of STM?
|
No more than 30 seconds
|
|
|
Who tested duration of STM and what did they do?
|
Peterson and Peterson: showed participants triagrams and asked to recall after a distractor task for 3-18 seconds 3 seconds: 80% recall 18 seconds: 10% recall |
|
|
What is the duration of LTM?
|
Indefinite
|
|
|
Who tested duration of LTM and what did they do?
|
Bahrick: asked participants ranging from 17-74 to identify classmates from yearbooks Within 15 years of recall: 90% recall After 48 years of graduation: 70% recall This number decreased when cues weren't used |
|
|
What does Bahrick's study suggests about cues?
|
Recall is easier with retrieval cues, information is always available just not always accessible
|
|
|
What is the coding of STM?
|
Mainly acoustically
|
|
|
Who tested the coding of STM and what did they do?
|
Conrad: gave participants lists of either acoustically similar or dissimilar letters and asked for recall Recall was worse for acoustically similar The more alike the letters were, the harder it was for STM to remember them |
|
|
What is the coding of LTM?
|
Mainly semantically
|
|
|
Who tested the coding of LTM and what did they do?
|
Baddeley: gave participants 1 of 4 lists (acoustically (dis)similar or semantically (dis)similar and asked for recall after 20 minute distractor task Recall was worse for semantically similar words |
|
|
Evaluate research into STM and LTM
|
Cowan: STM may be as low as 4 items Capacity can be increased by chunking Individual differences Testing was artificial Results may be due to displacement |
|
|
Explain the point "Individual Differences" for research into STM and LTM
|
Jacobs: found 8 year olds have average capacity of 6.6 items 19 year olds have average capacity of 8.6 items Intelligence or relevance of information may have an impact |
|
|
Explain the point "Results may be due to displacement" for research into STM and LTM
|
Peterson & Peterson: triagrams could have been displaced by distractor taskReitman: replicated study but replaced distractor task with beeps, found recall lasted up to 96 seconds
|
|
|
Who devised the Multi-Store model of memory?
|
Atkinson and Shiffrin
|
|
|
What is the sensory memory?
|
Takes in information from senses 95% of information is dumped Pays attention to important information |
|
|
What is the rehearsal loop?
|
Important information is rehearsed and passed into the LTM |
|
|
Evaluate the MSM
|
Plenty of research support for seperate STM and LTM Support from case studies Opposition from case studies Maintenance rehearsal isn't the only method (episodic memories) Research into maintenance rehearsal |
|
|
Explain the point "Plenty of research support for seperate STM and LTM" for MSM
|
Beardsley & Squire: found different parts of brain were activated when using STM and LTM
|
|
|
Explain the point "Support from case studies" for MSM
|
HM: hippocampus removed, STM and existing LTM were intact, but couldn't create new LTM
|
|
|
Explain the point "Opposition from case studies" for MSM
|
KF: STM was damaged after an accident but could still create new LTM MSM can't explain how memories pass to LTM without passing through STM first |
|
|
Explain the point "Research into maintenance rehearsal" for MSM
|
Craik & Lockhart: gave one group shallow processing task and other deep processing task, recall was better in deep processing task |
|
|
Who devised the Working Memory Model?
|
Baddeley & Hitch
|
|
|
What is the Central Executive? |
Very limited capacity Prioritises tasks Can do one or two simple things on its own |
|
|
What is the Episodic Buffer?
|
Very limited capacity "General store" holds information for a short amount of time Retrieves information from LTM and passes to CE |
|
|
What is the Phonological loop?
|
Very limited capacity Slave component Deals with information you have heard |
|
|
What is the auditory loop?
|
Rehearses what you heard in the phonological loop
|
|
|
What is the Visio-Spatial sketchpad?
|
Very limited capacity Slave component Carries out visual tasks and spatial tasks |
|
|
Evaluate the WMM
|
Support from case studies Can explain dual task performance CE is too vague Brain damaged patient evidence may be unreliable |
|
|
Explain the point "Support from case studies" for WMM
|
KF: STM damaged but only for auditory information, and could still retrieve information from the LTM
|
|
|
Explain the point "Can explain dual task performance" for WMM
|
Baddeley & Hitch: gave one group on simple and one difficult task, and another group two difficult tasks Second group took longer as CE had to help out, whereas in the first group, the CE could pass the simple task onto a slave component |
|
|
Explain the point "CE is too vague" for WMM
|
EVR: had tumour removed, had good reasoning skills but poor decision making skills
|
|
|
What are the two explicit memories?
|
Episodic and Semantic
|
|
|
What is an explicit memory?
|
Something you know
|
|
|
What is the implicit memory?
|
Procedural
|
|
|
What is an implicit memory? |
Something you know how to do
|
|
|
What is an episodic memory? |
Personal memory of events
|
|
|
What is a semantic memory?
|
Facts and knowledge
|
|
|
What is a procedural memory?
|
Skills
|
|
|
Evaluate different LTM types
|
Support from neurological evidence Difference between Implicit and Explicit LTM's Fourth kind of LTM |
|
|
Explain the point "Difference between implicit and explicit LTM's" for different types of LTM
|
HM: could learn new procedures but couldn't create new explicit memories
|
|
|
What is interference?
|
When memories become mixed up and interfere with recall of other memories, affected when memories are similar to one another
|
|
|
What is retro-active interference?
|
When new information affects recall of old information Getting a replacement teacher and not knowing the name of the old teacher when she returns |
|
|
What is pro-active interference?
|
When old information affects learning of new information? When a teacher gets marred and only remembering her maiden name |
|
|
What did Muller & Pilzecker do?
|
Gave participants a list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 minutes, some asked to recall after an interval and some asked to recall after a distractor task Performance was worse in group with distractor task as the new information affected the old information |
|
|
Is Muller & Pilzecker an example of RI or PI?
|
Retro-active Interference
|
|
|
What did Underwood do?
|
Gave participants (1-10) lists of words and 24 hours to learn Participants given 1 list: 70% recall 10 lists: 20% recall Found participants learned earlier words better than later words |
|
|
Is Underwood an example of RI or PI?
|
Pro-active interference |
|
|
What did McGeoch & Mcdonald do?
|
Gave participants a list of 10 adjectives followed by a 10 minute interval while they learnt a 2nd list, they were then asked to recall 1st list If second list was: Synonym: 12% recall Nonsense syllable: 26% recall Numbers: 37% recall |
|
|
What does McGeoch & Mcdonald's study show?
|
This shows the impact of similarity of test materials
|
|
|
What did Baddeley & Hitch do?
|
RWE: asked rugby players to recall opposition team, some players played all games and others only played a few Proportionately, they found players that played all games remembered less than other players |
|
|
Evaluate Interference as a theory of forgetting
|
Research is artificial Only explains some examples of forgetting Individual differences ExaRWA: Advertising |
|
|
Explain the point "Individual Differences" for Inteference |
Kane & Eagle: found pro-active interference is less likely to occur in individuals with a better memory
|
|
|
Explain the point "RWA: Advertising" for Inteference
|
Danaher: found that when participants are exposed to two similar advertisements, they find recall and recognition difficult
|
|
|
What is Retrieval Failure?
|
Occurs due to the absence of cues, the idea that memory is available but not accessible
|
|
|
What are the three parts to Retrieval Failure?
|
Encoding Specificity Principle Context-Dependent Forgetting State-Dependent Forgetting |
|
|
What did Tulving & Thomson do?
|
Suggest that memory is most effective when cue is similar to the memory
|
|
|
What did Tulving & Pearlstone do?
|
Gave participants 48 words organised into 12 categories, asked for free recall or recall after given categories Free-recall: 40% recall Cued-recall: 60% recall |
|
|
What did Abernethy do?
|
Taught students a course and tested them in one of 4 conditions: Same room + same instructor Same room + different instructor Different room + same instructor Different room + different instructor Those tested in the same context performed best |
|
|
What did Godden & Baddeley do?
|
Gave scuba divers a set of words to learn Tested in 4 conditions (same as Abernethy) Found same results as Abernethy |
|
|
Who conducted research into state-dependent forgetting?
|
Gave participants words to remember when they were either drunk or sober Asked to recall after 24 hours, either drunk or sober (4 conditions) Information learned and recalled sober was most effective Information learned and recalled drunk was more effective than being sober and drunk in one condition |
|
|
Evaluate Retrieval Failure
|
Lot of research RWE: Schools Retrieval cues don't always work Retrieval failure can explain interference and get rid of it using cues |
|
|
Explain "Retrieval failure can explain interference and get rid of it using cues" for retrieval failure
|
Tulving & Pstoka: gave different groups of participants, 1-6 lists of 24 words with 4 words in 6 categories Free recall: better with groups that had to remember less lists Cued recall: proportionately 70% of words were remembered |
|
|
What is an Eye Witness Testimony?
|
When a person observes an event and is required to report what they saw to police or a court
|
|
|
What % of the time was the verdict guilty when EWT was the only evidence?
|
80%
|
|
|
What did Wells find?
|
Found 40 cases where person was jailed due to EWT was later released due to undeniable DNA evidence
|
|
|
Outline Loftus's experiment 1
|
Showed students footage of a car accident, asked them to guess how fast the cars were going with the question "How fast were they going when they..." followed by one adjective ranging from contacted to smashed
|
|
|
Evaluate Loftus's experiment 1
|
Average speed guessed: Smashed - 40.8mph Contacted - 31.8mph Therefore, leading questions effect EWT |
|
|
Outline Loftus's experiment 2
|
Returned a week later and asked participants whether there was broken glass in the video they saw Smashed - 16 said yes Hit - 7 said yes |
|
|
Evaluate Loftus's experiment 2 |
This suggests leading questions can change the actual memory of an event
|
|
|
What is the conformity effect?
|
When co-witnesses reach a collective view after discussing what happened
|
|
|
What did Gabbert find?
|
Participants were in pairs and each partner watched a different video, after discussing what they saw they were individually questioned 71% of witnesses recalled items that weren't in the video they watched |
|
|
What is repeat interviewing?
|
When the interviewers comments could influence their recall each time an eye-witness is interviewed
|
|
|
Evaluate Post-Event Discussion
|
Evidence from research - Braun Support for role of post-event discussion Lacks external validity Individual Differences |
|
|
Explain the point "Evidence from research - Braun" for Post-Event Discussion
|
Braun: gave participants doctored information about Disney (Bugs Bunny and Ariel) differences When asked to talk about their own differences, participants were more likely to say they remembered Bugs Bunny or Ariel |
|
|
Explain the point "Lacks external validity" for Post-Event Discussion
|
Videos don't take into account emotional impact and participants were prepared to see a crime, in real life this is not true
|
|
|
Explain the point "Support for the role of post-event discussion" for Post-Event Discussion
|
Paterson & Kemp: surveyed people who had given EWT in their lives, 86% admitted to discussing what they had seen with other eye-witnesses before giving their statement
|
|
|
Explain the point "Individual Differences" for Post-Event Discussion
|
Yarmey - age: old people less accurate but significantly less confident Parker & Carranza - age: younger people were more confident but less accurate |
|
|
Who conducted research into the negative effects of anxiety on EWT, and what did they do?
|
Johnson & Scott: participants sat in a waiting room and heard an argument, a man ran through carrying either a pen and covered in grease, or a knife covered in blood |
|
|
What did Johnson & Scott find?
|
When asked to identify the man: Low anxiety: 49% accuracy High anxiety: 33% accuracy |
|
|
Who conducted research into the positive effects of anxiety on EWT, and what did they do?
|
Christianson & Hubinette: interviewed witnesses of a bank robbery, either involved or a bystander
|
|
|
What did Christianson & Hubinette find?
|
Those in high anxiety situation had better recall
|
|
|
What did Deffenbacher do?
|
Meta-analysis: reviewed 21 analysis studies 10 argued high anxiety increased accuracy 11 argued high anxiety decreased accuracy Devised the Yerkes-Dodson Curve |
|
|
Evaluate Anxiety in EWT
|
Anxiety vs Surprise Extraneous Variables Lab study vs Natural study Alternative explanations |
|
|
Explain the point "Anxiety vs Surprise" for anxiety in EWT
|
Pickel: staged robbery in hair dressers with four conditions (high/low threat, high/low surprise) Identification was least accurate in high surprise conditions rather than high threat |
|
|
Explain the points "Lab study vs Natural study" and "Extraneous Variables" for anxiety in EWT
|
Lab study may not create leves of anxiety Participants were questioned either minutes after or months after |
|
|
Explain the points "Alternative Explanations" for anxiety in EWT
|
Fazey & Hardy - Catastrophe Theory: suggests once you reach a critical point of cognitive anxiety, you completely decline |
|
|
What are the four stages in CIT?
|
Context reinstatement Report everything Change order Change perspective |
|
|
Evaluate CIT
|
Effectiveness of CIT Quantity vs Quality RWE Individual Differences - Age |
|
|
Explain the point "Effectiveness of CIT" for CIT
|
Meta-analysis: 34% increase in amount of correct information when using CIT |
|
|
What did Milne & Bull find?
|
Two most effective components are mental reinstatement and report everything
|
|
|
Explain the point "Quantity vs Quality" for CIT
|
Konkhen: found 81% increase of correct information, but 61% increase of incorrect information
|
|
|
Explain the point "RWE" for CIT
|
Kebbell & Wagstaff: police rarely had time or money to carry out CIT or time to train police to use the techniques
|
|
|
Explain the point "Individual Differences" for CIT
|
Mello & Fisher: found CIT was more effective in old people (mental reinstatement) Geiselman: found CIT wasn't effective in young children a free-reign led them to lose focus |
