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;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Children who were exposed to misleading suggestions will not report the suggestions in a later interview if the later interview is based on open-ended questions only. This statement is _______. |
false |
|
|
Leichtman and Ceci (1995) showed videotapes of children describing Sam Stone’s visit to professionals who work with children in the forensic system. One child was accurate, one child was inaccurate in response to closed questions only, and one child was inaccurate in response to open and closed questions. Professionals were asked if Sam Stone had ripped a book or soiled a teddy bear. What conclusion did Leichtman and Ceci draw from this study? |
Professionals are not better than chance at discriminating children’s true and false reports. |
|
|
Goodman et al. (1997) found that children who had more prior knowledge about an invasive medical exam recalled ___about the procedure than children who had ____prior knowledge of it. |
more, less |
|
|
Bruck and Melnyk (2004) reviewed 78 correlations between memory strength and suggestibility. What did they find? |
Very few correlations were in the predicted direction |
|
|
According to Fuzzy-trace Theory, what kinds of memory traces are formed with an event is encountered? |
Gist and verbatim traces |
|
|
According to Fuzzy-trace Theory, which memory trace contains the meaning of the event? |
Gist |
|
|
According to Fuzzy-trace Theory, if a child watched a magic show, which memory trace will contain the specific magic words spoken by the magician? |
Verbatim |
|
|
According to Fuzzy-trace Theory, which trace decays more quickly? |
Verbatim |
|
|
What is source monitoring? |
The ability to identify the origin of a memory |
|
|
Following a careful review of the evidence, what did Goodman, Quas, and Ogle (2009) conclude about the effect of chronic maltreatment on memory for trauma? |
The relationship between maltreatment and memory for trauma is influenced by coping style |
|
|
If memory for traumatic events is qualitatively different from memory for non-traumatic events, the vast literature on memory for non-traumatic events ______ generalize. |
Will not |
|
|
What does it mean to say that memories for traumatic events are quantitatively different from memories for non-traumatic events? |
One recalls more or less about a traumatic event than a non-traumatic event |
|
|
What did Price and Connolly (2007) conclude about differences between memory for arousing and non-arousing events? |
No differences in free/cued recall but aroused children were less suggestible |
|
|
What problem was identified in the Price and Connolly (2007) study? |
There was no random assignment |
|
|
What did Peters (1991) conclude about differences between memory four arousing and non-arousing events? |
Aroused children remembered less and were more suggestible |
|
|
According to Howe et al (2006) and Porter et al. (2005) do maltreated and non-maltreated children remember past events similarly? |
Yes, they remember neutral stimuli similarly |
|
|
According to Eisen et al. (2002, 2007) two factors must be present in children before memory for a stressful event will suffer. The first factor is stress. What is the second factor? |
Dissociative symptoms |
|
|
According to Goodman, Quas, and Ogle (2009) what two things lead to memory failures in memory for trauma? |
Trauma and avoidant personality style |
|
|
In Brainerd, Reyna, and Forrest children and adults were given 16 lists of thematically related words followed by a memory test for the contents of the lists. What did they find? |
Across ages there was an increase in the number of words recalled and an increase in the number of intrusions reported |
|
|
Describe two studies on children’s false reports of entire events. What can be concluded from these studies? (14 points) |
In one study children were interviewed 2 or 3 times (1) about four events that were said to have happened when the children were 4-years old. Two events were true and two were false. (1) The false events involved getting lost in the mall (plausible) and receiving an enema (implausible). (1) For each event, the interviewer began with a description of what the child’s mother said about the event followed by an invitation for the child to recall more. (1) Between interviews children were asked to think hard about the event and try to remember more details. (1) Almost half of the children reported at least one false memory (1) and there were far more false memories about the plausible event than the implausible event (1). In another study that used the same paradigm, children false memories for a hot air balloon ride and having tea with the Prince of Whales were studied. (1) Many children reported false memories for the events and there were no differences between the hot air balloon ride (more plausible) and having tea with the Prince of Whales (less plausible). (1) In the second study photographs were created that placed the children in a scene depicting the false event (1), making the event more plausible (1). In the first study, no attempt was made to increase the plausibility of the implausible event. (1) Two conclusions can be drawn from these studies. First, it is relatively easy to plant false memories of entire events. (1) Second, although it may be easier to plant a false memory of a plausible event than an implausible event, perceived plausibility can be manipulated. (1) |
|
|
Explain this chart and its relevance to children’s suggestibility. (5 points) |
This chart shows the relationship between knowledge and memory; as knowledge increases memory also increases (1) Younger children have less world knowledge than older children and adults. (1) This is expected to lead to poorer memory for an event (1) and most often is associated with heightened suggestibility (1)…but not always (1). |
|
|
Ornstein, Larus, and Cubb (1991) provided a very useful framework for thinking about children’s memory (or adults’ memory, for that matter) and why reports are more or less susceptible to suggestions. What are the themes? (4 points) |
Not everything gets into memory What gets into memory may vary in strength The status of what is in memory changes over time Not everything that is in memory can be retrieved. |
|
|
According to Fuzzy-trace Theory, what are the conditions under which a misleading suggestion can be rejected? (2 points) |
If verbatim memory is retrieved (1) or if gist memory is retrieved and the misleading suggestions are inconsistent with gist memory.(1) |
|
|
If verbatim memory is retrieved (1) or if gist memory is retrieved and the misleading suggestions are inconsistent with gist memory.(1) |
To the extent that rejection of suggestions depends on a child’s ability to retrieve verbatim memory, (1) there will be a decrease in suggestibility across ages. (1) To the extent that rejection of suggestions depends on retrieval of gist memory (1), there will be a decrease in suggestibility across ages if suggestions are inconsistent with gist memory (1) and an increase in suggestibility across ages if suggestions are consistent with gist memory. (1) |
|
|
The authors of two of the most comprehensive reviews of research on memory for traumatic events (Christianson, 1992; Deffenbacher et al., 2005) disagree on both the direction of differences and the explanation for differences in memory for traumatic- and non-traumatic events. Discuss the two perspectives. (8 points) |
Christianson (1992) concluded central details of traumatic events are remembered very well (1) but peripheral details of traumatic events are poorly remembered. (1) This effect may be the result of ‘tunnel memory’(1); physiological arousal narrows attentional resources to central details of stimuli at the expense of attention to peripheral details. (1) Deffenbacher et al. (2005) concluded that high levels of emotional arousal impair recall in many domains (1)The authors surmised that arousal can have a positive influence on memory,(1) but only until it reaches a certain peak point, after which the impact of stress on memory is disastrous (1). Deffenbacher et al. critiqued the conclusions drawn in Christianson’s (1992) review paper by arguing that Christianson’s review was based largely on studies that elicited only a moderate level of arousal.(1) |
|
|
According to Goodman, Quas, and Ogle (2009) there are reasons to predict that chronic maltreatment will lead to better memory for trauma and reasons to predict that chronic maltreatment will lead to deficits in memory for trauma. Explain these two possibilities. (10 points) |
To support that hypothesis that maltreatment may lead to better memory for trauma Goodman et al. (2009) proposed that chronically maltreated children learn to hyper-vigilent to danger, recognize it early, (1) and remain focused on it longer (1). Basic memory processes tell us that this will lead to better encoding (1) and better memory for negative stimuli. (1) Prior knowledge facilitates comprehension, encoding, and retention of stimuli (1). It is expected that chronically maltreated children have better knowledge structures for trauma (1) leading to superior memory for trauma. To support the hypothesis that chronic maltreatment may inhibit memory for traumatic events, some maltreated children may develop defense mechanisms that allow them to “zone out” when negative stimuli are presented (1). Thus, among chronically maltreated children, memory for traumatic events will be poorer than memory for non-traumatic events (1). Related to this, some maltreated children effortfully avoid thinking about, talking about, or otherwise being reminded of the trauma (1). This may lead to “lost memories” in some cases. (1) |
