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;
86 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Encoding |
Changing information so that it can be stored |
|
|
Storage |
Holding information in the memory system |
|
|
Retrieval |
Recovering information from storage |
|
|
Multistore |
The idea that information passes through a series of memory stores |
|
|
Sensory store |
Holds information received from the senses for a very short period of time |
|
|
Short term store |
Holds approximately seven chunks of information for a limited amount of time |
|
|
Long term store |
Holds a vast amount of information for a very long period of time |
|
|
Sensory store - duration |
Less than 1 second |
|
|
Sensory store - capacity |
Very limited |
|
|
Short term store - duration |
Less than one minute |
|
|
Short term store - capacity |
Approximately 7 chunks of information |
|
|
Long term store - duration |
Up to a lifetime |
|
|
Long term store - capacity |
Unlimited |
|
|
Multi-store model of memory |
Sensory - short term - long term |
|
|
Recency effect |
Information received later is recalled better than earlier information |
|
|
Primacy effect |
The first information recieved is recalled better than the subsequent information |
|
|
Primacy effect |
The first information recieved is recalled better than the subsequent information |
|
|
Multi-store model of memory studies |
Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968 Peterson and Peterson 1959 Murdock 1962 |
|
|
Reconstructive memory |
Altering our recollection of things so that they make more sense to us |
|
|
Reconstructive memory - studies |
Bartlett 1932 Wynn and Logie 1998 |
|
|
Levels of processing |
The depth at which information is thought about when trying to learn it |
|
|
Structural processing |
Thinking about the physical appearance of words to be learnt |
|
|
Phonetic processing |
Thinking about the sound of the words to be learnt |
|
|
Semantic processing |
Thinking about the meaning of the words to be learnt |
|
|
Semantic processing |
Thinking about the meaning of the words to be learnt |
|
|
Levels of Processing studies |
Craik and Lockhart 1972 |
|
|
Interference |
Things that we have learnt that make it difficult to recall other information that we have learnt |
|
|
Retroactive interference |
When information we have recently learnt hinders out ability to recall information we have learnt previously |
|
|
Proactive interference |
When information we have already learnt hinders our ability to recall new information |
|
|
Interference studies |
Underwood and Postman 1960 |
|
|
Context |
The general setting or environment in which activities happen |
|
|
Anterograde amnesia |
Being unable to learn new information after suffering brain damage |
|
|
Retrograde amnesia |
Loss of memory for events that happened before brain damage occurred |
|
|
Hippocampus |
A brain structure that is crucial for memory |
|
|
Context studies |
Godden and Baddeley 1975 |
|
|
Context studies |
Godden and Baddeley 1975 |
|
|
Brain damage and forgetting studies |
Milner et Al 1957 Russell and Nathan 1946 |
|
|
Eyewitness testimonies |
Eyewitnesses may be asked to give evidence in a court, but evidence is needed to support occurrences, due to eyewitnesses accuracy rate |
|
|
Reliability |
In the context of eyewitness testimony, the extent to which it can be regarded as accurate |
|
|
Leading question |
A question that hints that a particular type of answer is required |
|
|
Cognitive interview |
A method of questioning witnesses that involves recreating the context of an event |
|
|
Eyewitness testimonies - leading questions studies |
Loftus and Palmer 1974 |
|
|
Eyewitness testimonies- unfamiliar faces studies |
Bruce and Young 1998 |
|
|
Eyewitness testimonies - context studies |
Geiselman et al 1985 Cohen 1981 |
|
|
Stereotype |
An oversimplified generalised set of ideas that we have about others |
|
|
Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968: Memory- Multistore model |
Atkinson and Shiffrin thought that information passes through a series of memory stores. When learning a list of words it starts as a visual image in the sensory store, then rehearsing the words will send them to the short term store and lastly if successful the words will move to the long term store. |
|
|
Peterson and Peterson 1959- aim: Multistore model of memory |
Aim: to see if rehearsal was necessary to hold information in the short term store |
|
|
Peterson and Peterson 1959 - method: Multistore model of memory |
Method: participants were given sets of 3 letters to remember (such as GYK, MTW) but were immediately asked to count backwards in 3's outloud for different lengths of time. This was done to prevent rehearsal. Participants were then asked to recall the letters in the correct order. |
|
|
Peterson and Peterson 1959- results: Multistore model of memory |
Results: the results of the study showed that participants had forgotten virtually all of the information after 18 seconds |
|
|
Peterson and Peterson 1959- conclusion: Multistore model of memory |
Conclusion: it was concluded that we cannot hold information in the short term store unless we can rehearse it |
|
|
Murdock 1962 - aim: Multistore model of memory |
Aim: to provide evidence to support the multistore explanation of memory |
|
|
Murdock 1962 - method: Multistore model of memory |
Participants had to learn a list of words presented one at a time for 2 seconds per word, and then recall the words in any order |
|
|
Murdock 1962 - results: Multistore model of memory |
Results: The words at the end of the list were recalled first (known as the recency effect). Words from the beginning of the list were also recalled quite well (known as the primacy effect) but the middle words were not recalled very well at all. |
|
|
Murdock 1962 - conclusion: Multistore model of memory |
Conclusion: Murdock concluded that this provides evidence for separate short term and long term stores Murdock claimed that the recency effect is evidence that the last few words were still in the short term store. The primacy effect is evidence that the first few words flowed into the long term store. |
|
|
Evaluation of studies of the multi store model of memory |
-Participants in the studies only had to learn nonsense syllables or lists of words. These are not the type of memory tasks that people have to do in the real world - lacks ecological validity -Everything we learn has to be rehearsed, many everyday events are easily remembered, it can also be said that saying things over and over doesn't always make them easier to recall. It is in fact more important to understand the meaning of the words in order to recall easily. -The studies do explain, why it is difficult for us to remember registration numbers or telephone numbers, therfore we can't dismiss the studies as incorrect. |
|
|
Practical applications of the multistore model of memory |
- Knowing that the capacity of the short term store is approximately 7 chunks of information, it us understandable why car registration numbers never exceed the number 7, also the same thing can be said about postcode numbers. |
|
|
Bartlett 1932 aim: Reconstructive memory |
Aim: to see if people, when given something unfamiliar to remember would alter information |
|
|
Bartlett 1932 method: Reconstructive memory |
Method: participants were asked to read a story called "the war of the ghosts" which was a native American legend. Later they were asked to retell the story as accurately as possible. The retelling was repeated several times during the weeks that followed |
|
|
Bartlett 1932 results: Reconstructive memory |
Results: Bartlett discovered that his participants found it difficult to remember bits of the story concerned with spirits and changed other bits of the story so that it made more sense to them. Each time they retold the story they changed it some more |
|
|
Bartlett 1932 conclusion:Reconstructive memory |
Conclusion:Bartlett concluded that our memory is influenced by our own beliefs |
|
|
Wynn and Logie 1998 aim: Reconstructive memory |
Aim: to see if the recall of familiar stories changed in the same way that Bartlett found with unfamiliar stories |
|
|
Wynn and Logie 1998 method: Reconstructive memory |
Method: they asked university students to recall details of their first week at university. They were asked to do this many times throughout the year |
|
|
Wynn and Logie 1998 results : Reconstructive memory |
Results: the results showed that the accuracy of their descriptions remained the same no matter how many times they were asked to recall the information. This is unlike Bartletts participants who changed their stories with every telling. |
|
|
Wynn and Logie 1998 conclusion: Reconstructive memory |
Conclusion: Wynn and Logie concluded that memories for familiar events will not change over time |
|
|
Evaluation of reconstructive memory studies |
- The reconstructive explanation is important because it emphasises the influence of people's previous knowledge and background on the way they remember things. Perhaps this is why different cultures have difficulty with agreeing with each other. -A criticism would be that it would be very difficult to measure the accuracy of the stories told with a reliable method. Bartletts story is confusing and not similar to our everyday experiences. Wynn and Logies participants may not have changed their stories during the year but how do we know they were accurate to begin with? - These studies are more relevant to the way we use our memories in real life, we often tell people what others have said to us. When telling someone a story about your day, do you emphasise some parts and play down others? This is what reconstructive memory is. |
|
|
Practical applications of reconstructive memory |
- This helps us to understand why two people who are recalling the same event might have completely different versions of the story. It does not necessarily mean that one of them is lying. They each might genuinely believe that their version of the story is accurate. -The reconstructive explanation also teaches us that we must be very careful giving or listening to eyewitness accounts of events such as accidents or crimes. Witnesses might think they are being accurate but in trying to make sense of what they saw, alter the facts |
|
|
Craik and Lockhart 1972 aim: Levels of processing |
Aim: to see if the type of question asked about words will have an effect on the number of words recalled |
|
|
Craik and Lockhart 1972 method: levels of processing |
Method: participants were presented with a list of words, one at a time, and asked questions about each word, to which they had to answer yes or no. Some questions required structural processing of the words; others required phonetic processing and the remainder required semantic processing. They were then given a longer list of words and asked to identify the words they had answered questions about |
|
|
Craik and Lockhart 1972 results:levels of processing |
Results: participants identified 70% of the words that required semantic processing, 35% of the words that required phonetic processing and 15% that required structural processing. |
|
|
Craik and Lockhart 1972 conclusion:levels of processing |
Conclusion: the more deeply information is processed the more likely it is to be remembered |
|
|
Evaluation of levels of processing studies |
-Craik and Lockharts study has been criticised because it does not explain why deeper levels of processing helps memory. Some people said that deeper processing takes more time and is what helps us recall more information. Deeper processing also takes more effort and perhaps it is the extra effort that helps us. -Lacks ecological validly because real life memory tasks are not usually about learning the lists of words |
|
|
Practical applications of levels of processing studies |
-application would be to improve study skills, instead of reading something over and over try reading it once then writing it down in own words - requires semantic processing |
|
|
Interference |
New things that we learn can cause problems when we try to recall information that we learnt before. This is known as retroactive interference. |
|
|
Underwood and Postman 1960 study of interference |
Aim: to see if new learning interferes with previous learning Method: participants were divided into 2 groups *Group A were asked to learn a list of word pairs (cat-tree, candle-table). They were then asked to learn a second list of word pairs (cat-glass, candle-whale) *Group B were asked to learn the first list of word pairs only Both groups were asked to recall the first list of words Results: group B's recall of the first list was more accurate than that of Group A Conclusion: new learning will cause people to recall previously learned information less accurately |
|
|
Practical applications of how interference can affect memory |
1. Could help develop better study habits - having more than one subject to revise in an evening, try to avoid studying 2 subjects that are similar, or at least take a break in between revision of 2 similar subjects
2. Skills learned for one sport might interfere with developing skills for another sport, such as tennis and badminton |
|
|
Godden and Baddeley 1975 - study of context |
Aim: to see if people who learn and are tested in the same environment will recall more information than those who learn and are tested in different environments Method: participants were deep-sea divers. They were divided into 4 groups. All four groups were given the same list of words to learn: *Group 1 had to learn underwater and recall underwater *Group 2 had to learn underwater and recall on the shore *Group 3 had to recall on the shore and recall on the shore *Group 4 had to learn on the shore and recall underwater Results: groups 1 and 3 recalled 40% more words than groups 2 and 4 Conclusion: recall of information will be better if it happens in the same context that learning takes place |
|
|
Milner et Al 1957 - brain damage and suffering |
A patient suffering from epilepsy underwent an operation in which two-thirds of his hippocampus was removed. Since the operation he was unable to learn new information. This shows that the hippocampus is crucial for recording new memories Other people have suffered brain damage that has left them unable to recall anything that happened before the damage occurred. This is know as retrograde amnesia |
|
|
Russell and Nathan 1946 |
A 22 year old patient had fallen from his motorcycle, banged his head and suffered a severe concussion. Although X-rays showed no fracture of the skull, he couldn't recall any events that had happened 2 years prior to the accident |
|
|
Loftus and Palmer 1974 - leading questions |
Aim: to see if asking leading questions affect the accuracy of recall Method: participants were shown films of car accidents. Some were asked "how fast was the car going when it hit the other car?" others were asked "how fast was the car going when it smashed the other car?" Results: those who heard the word smashed, gave a higher speed estimate that those who heard hit. Conclusion: leading questions will reduce the accuracy of recall. The word smashed led participants to believe the car was going faster |
|
|
Bruce and Young 1998 - unfamiliar faces |
Aim: to see if familiarity affects the accuracy of identifying faces Method: psychology lecturers were caught on security cameras at the entrance of a building. Participants were asked to identify the faces seen on the security camera tape from a series of high quality photographs Results: the lecturers students made more correct identifications than other students and experienced police officers Conclusion: previous familiarity helps when identifying faces |
|
|
Geiselman et Al 1985 |
Aim: to see if reinstating the context of an event will affect the accuracy of witnesses accounts Method: participants were shown a police training film of a violent crime. Two days later they were interviewed about what they had seen. For half of the participants, the context of the event was recreated during the interview. For the other half of the participants, standard police interview techniques were used. Results: the participants who had the context recreated recalled more accurate facts about the violent crime than the other participants Conclusion: recreating context during interviews will increase the accuracy of recall. This method is known as the cognitive interview |
|
|
Evaluation of Geiselman et al 1985 |
*watching a film or video of an event is not the same as a real life experience - this is because when you are watching a film you are prepared for what's about to happen and you're in a safe environment. If you witness a real life accident you aren't usually expecting something to happen enhances your shock. Also the situation may pose some danger for you. This could all have an egger on what you're able to recall. Other factors that could cause eyewitness testimony to be unreliable- the length of time between the incident and questioning may be important as memory fades over time - Our emotional state at the time of the incident may also affect our ability to recall accurately. - Stereotypes that we hold may also influence our recall |
|
|
Cohen 1981 - stereotypes in eyewitness testimonies |
Aim: to see if stereotypes can affect memory Method: participants were shown a video of a man and a woman eating in a restaurant. Half of the participants were told that the woman was a waitress. The other participants were told she was a librarian. Later, all the participants were asked to describe the womans behaviour and personality. Results: the two groups of participants gave entirely different descriptions, which matched the stereotypes of a waitress or librarian Conclusion: stereotypes will reduce the accuracy of accounts of people |
|
|
Practical applications of Loftus and Palmer 1974 |
We know from the Loftus and Palmer study that leading questions change memory. Therefore, when talking to witnesses, police and lawyers should avoid asking leading questions and adopt a neutral style of questioning. |
|
|
Practical applications of Bruce and Young 1998 |
From the Bruce and Young study, we know that memory for faces can be unreliable in certain situations. Therefore, we should realise that identity parades alone might have limited use when trying to find a suspected criminal, especially when witnesses are asked to identify a stranger. There needs to be other evidence as well. |
|
|
Practical applications of Geiselman 1985 |
The Geiselman study shows us the importance of context when trying to accurately recall an incident. Therefore taking witnesses back to the scene if the incident may help their recall. It would also help if the interviewer and person being interviewed tried to recreate the context in which the incident occurred (this could include the surroundings, weather conditions and how the witness was feeling) before the witness tries to recall the events themselves. |
