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;
55 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Define coding, capacity and duration. |
Coding: Format which info is stored in memory stores Capacity: How much info can be held in memory store Duration: How long info can be held in the memory |
|
|
What are the 3 types of memory? |
SENSORY: Unprocessed info/DURATION=fraction of a second SHORT TERM: Acoustic coding/5-9 item capacity (Miller's no.)/18-30 sec duration LONG TERM: Semantic coding/unlimited capacity/lifetime duration |
|
|
What was Baddeley's research on coding and what did he find? |
STUDY: Gave 4 groups words to remember (sound similar/different or similar/different meaning) FINDING: Immediate recall=sound similar, worse recall (STM coded acoustically) 20 minute recall=mean similar, worse recall (LTM coded semantically) |
|
|
What were Jacobs and Miller's research on capacity? |
Joseph Jacobs: Given digits and asked to recall them. Digit mean=9.3/letter mean=7.3 (Digit span) George Miller: Miller's No=7+or-2. Chunking=easily recall 5 words/letters |
|
|
What did Peterson and Peterson's research on the duration of the STM show? |
STUDY: 24 undergraduates: 3 letters to remember. Distraction : count backwards from 3 digit number for allotted retention time. FINDING: Retention up, accuracy down=STM duration short |
|
|
What is Bahrick's research on the duration of LTM? |
STUDY: 392 participants (17-74)=tested recall (Recognition/recall). 48 years= recognition accuracy 90% to 70%, Recall=60% to 30% FINDING: LTM can last a lifetime |
|
|
What is the evaluation point of the research on coding? |
W: The stimuli (words) were artificial and had no meaning. Meaningful information may be encoded semantically in the STM (Baddeley). Findings=limited application. |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the research on capacity? |
W: Jacob's study lacked control (confounding variables)=less validity. However other studies confirm results. W: Miller overestimated STM capacity (7 items). Cowan (2001)=STM capacity=4 chunks of info. |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the research on duration? |
W: Peterson and Peterson study stimuli artificial=didn't reflect everyday life=no external validity S: Bahrick studied real memories=external validity (confounding variables) W: Explanation for forgetting=spontaneous decay. Unclear whether Peterson and Peterson were truly measuring capacity. |
|
|
What is Atkinson and Shiffrin's Multi-Store Model (MSM)? |
Representation of how memory works with three stores (SM, STM, LTM) which describes how info is transferred/remembered/forgotten |
|
|
What is the sensory register (SM)? |
The memory stores for each of our 5 sense. High capacity. Short duration (1/2 second). Info from SM to STM = Attention |
|
|
What is the short-term memory (STM)? |
Short term memory store/acoustic coding/5 item capacity/18-30 sec duration. Maintenance rehearsal: Repeat info=STM to LTM |
|
|
What is the long-term memory (LTM)? |
Potentially permanent memory store. Semantic coding/infinite capacity/lifetime duration. Recall info from LTM=transfer back to STM |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the MSM? |
S: Baddeley's findings support model (STM/LTM) W: Craik/Watkins: Elaborative rehearsal (link info to existing knowledge) STM to LTM (not maintenance W: studies that support MSM use artificial stimuli=no external validity W: LTM not unitary, separate stores (semantic, episodic, procedural) |
|
|
What is the episodic memory? |
Our ability to recall events. Time-stamped, remembers several elements within the event, conscious recalling |
|
|
What is the semantic memory? |
Our memory store for broad knowledge and concepts. Mix of an encyclopedia and dictionary. No time-stamp, less personal, deliberate recall, constantly adding to it |
|
|
What is the procedural memory? |
Memory store for actions and skills, unconscious recall (e.g. driving a car) |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the types of long-term memory? |
S: Clinical evidence (Clive Wearing/HM)=severe amnesia=damaged episodic, unaffected semantic/procedural S: Brain scan during memory tasks. Procedural=cerebellum/basal ganglia S: Real life application=Belleville et al: improve episodic memory (mild cognitive impairment) W: Brain injury patients lack control=not perfect evidence W: episodic and semantic are one store called the declarative memory (conscious recall) |
|
|
What is Baddeley and Hitch's working memory model (WMM)? |
STM explanation of how it's organised and its functions. It's concerned with the part of the mind that is constantly manipulating information. Has four main components : Central Executive (CE), Phonological Loop (PL), Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (VSS) and Episodic Buffer. |
|
|
What is the Central Executive (CE)? |
Attentional process that monitors incoming data, allocates tasks to the slave systems. Limited storage capacity. |
|
|
What is the phonological loop (PL)? |
Deals with auditory info, preserves order info enters, two subunits: Phonological store: stores words you hear (inner ear) Articulatory process: Maintenance rehearsal (repeat words/sounds when info is needed) CAPACITY: 2 secs worth of what you can say |
|
|
What is the visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS)? |
Stores visual/spatial info, capacity=3-4 objects. LOGIE: Visual cache=stores visual data, Inner Scribe=record object arrangement on a visual field. |
|
|
What is the episodic buffer? |
Added by Baddeley in 2000, temporary store, integrates visual, spatial and verbal info from other systems and maintains time sequencing. Records events, capacity=4 chunks. Links working memory to LTM/wider cognitive processes (perception) |
|
|
What are the pro evaluation points of the WMM? |
- Baddeley: 2 visual tasks more difficult than visual and verbal task (separate systems) - Braver: Brain scan with CE tasks. Harder=more prefrontal cortex activity - Word length effect fits articulatory process capacity |
|
|
What are the con evaluation points of the WMM? |
- Brain-damaged patients not reliable=unique cases=findings can't be generalised - Only explains STM, not the whole memory - Least is known about the CE. Vague=difficult to falsify=less validity |
|
|
What is the interference theory for forgetting? |
2 pieces of info conflict, causing forgetting/distortion of memory. Shows forgetting in LTM (makes the memory inaccessible when the info is available) |
|
|
What are the two types of interference? |
PROACTIVE: Old memories interfere with new memories RETROACTIVE: New memories interfere with old memories |
|
|
What was John McGeoch and William McDonald's study on the effect of similarity on interference? |
PROCEDURE: Tested retroactive interference. 6 groups learned list of words to 100% accuracy, then learned 2nd list (ranged in similarity to 1st list) FINDING: Similar lists=worst recall, different lists=best recall. Interference more likely when memories are similar |
|
|
What are the evaluation points for interference theory? |
S: Interference consistently demonstrated in labs, controlled=confidence/reliability W: Artificial material=no external validity S: Baddeley/Hitch rugby study=retroactive interference=ecological validity W: Studies=time between learning/recall short to max interference=may not reflect real learning |
|
|
What is the retrieval failure theory for forgetting? |
When we don't have the necessary cues (trigger that allows memory access [external/internal]) to access memories |
|
|
What is the encoding specificity principle (ESP)? |
Endel Tulving states that a cue has to be present at learning and retrieval in order to be useful. Cue at learning different/absent to cue at retrieval=forgetting |
|
|
What is context-dependent forgetting? |
Godden/Baddeley: diver study, learn/recall lists on land/underwater (four conditions) Non-matching environment=recall accuracy down by 40% compared to matching FINDING: If external cue is the same at learning and retrieval, recall is better and vice versa |
|
|
What is state-dependent forgetting? |
Carter/Cassaday: participants given anti-histamines, 4 conditions FINDING: Mismatching states at learning and recall= more forgetting |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of retrieval failure theory? |
S: supporting research=validity (esp. in real situations) W: Baddeley: context effect not strong, context difference must be drastic for effect to be seen=limits real life applications W: Godden/Baddeley: Recognition test had no difference=cues only affect memory when you test it in a certain way W: The ESP cannot be tested, so there's no way to distinguish what cue was encoded at the time of learning |
|
|
What are eyewitness testimonies (EWT)? |
A person's ability to recall details of crimes/accidents observed. The accuracy can be affected by factors. |
|
|
What is misleading information? |
Incorrect information that is given to eyewitnesses, usually after the event. |
|
|
What was Loftus and Palmer's study of leading questions? |
45 students, lab experiment, shown accident film, given questionnaire (critical question about car speed), IV=word for speed, DV=speed estimate. FINDING: 'Contacted'=31.8mph,'smashed'=40.5mph (average speeds given) |
|
|
Why do leading questions affect EWT? |
Response-bias explanation: Question wording influences witnesses answer (no effect on memory) Substitution explanation: 2nd experiment, heard 'smashed'=saw broken glass (there was none), verb altered memory of the clip |
|
|
What is post event discussion (PED)? |
co-witnesses discuss their accounts of the accident/crime, and the testimonies get contaminated, lowering their reliability |
|
|
What was Fiona Gabbert's study of PED? |
PROCEDURE: Two people watched a film at different views, then discussed what they saw, then their recall was tested individually FINDING: 71% mistakenly recalled aspects they picked up in discussion |
|
|
What was the reason for Fiona Gabbert's findings? |
Witnesses tend to go along with each other, either for social approval or because they believe the other person is right and they are wrong. This is memory conformity. |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of misleading information? |
S: Real life applications=police interview questions (misleading info=inaccurate EWT) W: film clips different to real accident (emotions influence memory)=no external validity W: Zaragosa/McCloskey=in lab studies, participants give answers researchers want ('you see glass?''yes')=unreliable W: Foster et al. Real world witness=important consequences=more serious recall (lab study=no consequences=eyewitness less serious=recall down) |
|
|
What is anxiety? |
A state of emotional and physical arousal which can affect accuracy and detail of EWT |
|
|
How can anxiety have a negative effect on recall? |
Physical arousal=less attention to important cues=worse recall |
|
|
How does Johnson and Scott's study demonstrate a negative effect on recall? |
Looked at effect of weapons on recall accuracy. Two conditions for participants in waiting room: 1) Argument, man carrying pen (low anxiety) 2) argument+glass break, man carrying bloody paper knife (high anxiety) FINDING: Pick man from 50 photos; Low anxiety=49%, High anxiety=33% accuracy |
|
|
What is the tunnel theory of memory? |
The witnesses attention is narrowed down to focus on the weapon as that is the source of their anxiety, and so they ignore other important cues |
|
|
How can anxiety have a positive effect on recall? |
Witness crime=stress=fight-or-flight=alertness up=awareness of important cues up (memory up) |
|
|
How does Yuille and Cutshall's study demonstrate a positive effect on recall? |
Studied Vancouver, Canada shooting/Owner shot thief dead/21 witnesses/13 participated. Interviews 4-5 months after shooting. Accuracy (amount of detail) compared to initial interview. Asked to rate stress (1-7) and mention any emotional problems post-event. FINDING: Little change in accuracy (little details) High stress=most accurate (88% to 75%) |
|
|
How did Yerkes and Dodson (1908) describe the relationship between performance and physical anxiety (arousal)? |
The relationship forms a inverted-U on a graph. |
|
|
How did Kenneth Deffenbacher (1983) apply the Yerkes-Dodson Law to EWT? |
Performance increases with anxiety up to an optimal point, as anxiety continues to increase, the performance then begins to drastically fall. |
|
|
What are the evaluation points for the effects of anxiety on EWT? |
W: Weapon effect measures surprise not anxiety (Pickel: Hairdresser video [scissors/handgun/chicken/wallet]) High unusualness=poor accuracy W: Field studies=extraneous variables (discussing event, news reports)=effect recall=interfere with anxiety effect W: Anxiety is hard to define/invert-U only links physical anxiety to performance W: Participants in lab studies know=they pay more attention=less reliable results. Also may give results researchers want. |
|
|
What is the cognitive interview? |
Ronald Fisher/Edward Geiselman: method of interviewing eyewitnesses to help them retrieve more accurate memories. |
|
|
What are the four techniques to the cognitive interview? |
Report everything: trivial details trigger important memories Reinstate context: context-dependent forgetting Reverse order: Prevents reporting expectations Change perspective: disrupt effect of schema |
|
|
What is the enhanced cognitive interview? |
Fisher et al: Additional elements (reduce EW anxiety, minimise distractions, witness speak slowly, open-ended questions) |
|
|
What are the evaluation points for the cognitive interview?
|
W: requires special training/'proper' CI not used S: Report+Context=great recall=improve EWT when full CI not used=more credibility [officers] S: Kohnken 50 study meta-analysis=ECI consistent correct info=practical benefits W: Different police forces use slightly different CI techniques=cannot generalise effectiveness W: Kohnken: 81% more correct/61% more incorrect info=less reliability |
