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;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Constructive Process |
Current input + top-down knowledge Memory is an example History = reduces cognitive complexity. |
|
|
Semantic Priming |
Words provide top-down information for interpreting a situation.
Descriptive titles prime the way a story will be understood and encoded. |
|
|
Descriptive Titles |
Recall for events in a story doubled when a descriptive title was provided. |
|
|
Schema (Def. + 4 functions) |
General knowledge structure used for understanding complex situations.
1. Organizational structure to events 2. Relationships between facts 3. Provide top-down knowledge 4. Builds expectations |
|
|
Slots |
Placeholders for expected (typical) items Filled with values from a situation Default assumption if no slot value provided
Restaurant dining slots: food types, dish ordered, price Your individual defaults: Italian, chicken parmigiana, cheap Current values: Italian, ravioli, cheap |
|
|
Default Assumption |
Value provided for a slot if no value provided for a given situation (info is incomplete or isn't encoded)
Eg, service was "ok" |
|
|
Value |
Fills a slot for a given situation.
Restaurant dining slots: food types, dish ordered, price Your individual defaults: Italian, chicken parmigiana, cheap Current values: Italian, ravioli, cheap
|
|
|
What about schemas can lead to mistakes? |
Default values
If info is incomplete, you assume them Even if you don't see books, you assume that they were present in the office anyway. |
|
|
Script |
Type of schema (often embedded inside) Structured, have a specific order of events
Causal links - changing an event (outcome) changes the script. If order is incorrect, you may not pay for food.
|
|
|
Schemas and scripts seem most compatible with which model of memory? |
PDP Model Experience => dependencies btwn events Context is encoded with each event ACT (propositional) model is problematic b/c oftentimes context must be filled in post-hoc. |
|
|
Problems with schemas / scripts (3) |
1. Vague/hard to characterize Seem to be declarative, but deal in procedural. Post-hoc confabulation? 2. How are dependencies established? The details are always in flux, changing w/ context. (Solution: PDP). Episodic information builds up and generalizes to semantic understanding. Propositional models < contextual models. 3. If defaults violated, breakdown imminent?? |
|
|
Source Monitoring |
Process of determining the origin of memories and beliefs |
|
|
Stereotype |
Schema for a person Useful but prone to error (fill-in with defaults) Lower computational complexity (know what to expect) |
|
|
Gender Stereotypes and Source Monitoring Error |
People are more accurate in recall of statement origin when the statement origin matched a stereotype. |
|
|
Reconstructive Memory |
Using default values to determine what is likely (given schemas) when you can't remember in precise detail.
Schemas may act as a set of cues in recall |
|
|
Source Monitoring Error |
When a remembered item is attributed to the wrong source. |
|
|
Misinformation Effect |
Recall of episodic memory is less accurate because of post-event misleading information.
|
|
|
Possible Explanations for Misinformation Effect (3) |
1. Overwriting New info erases/replaces original memory 2. Source confusion New info competes w/ original memory during retrieval; choose which? 3. Misinformation acceptance You assume misleading info is correct (equally valid) ; you don't notice a difference btwn two memories. Go with most recent. |
|
|
Misniformation Acceptance |
Accept most recent information You assume misleading information is correct or equally valid.
Don't notice difference btwn two episodic memories or recall a sign at all. Why would you be misled when trying to get to the truth (what happened at the intersection)? |
|
|
Evidence for Source Confusion Hypothesis |
Subjects reported items from a false narrative. Unaware of where the information about the man stealing the computer came from.
(video and false narrative are in competition). |
|
|
Evidence against overwriting
|
Misleading information does not replace original memory |
|
|
Which theory best explains the misinformation effect? |
Source confusion and misinformation acceptance theories both utilize schemas/scripts and seem plausible
Overwriting unlikely (access to original memory is possible when correct cues are utilized) |
|
|
Post-Identification Feedback Effect |
Subjects display high confidence when feedback is confirming; low confidence if given disconfirming feedback. |
|
|
Attention and Encoding Interference |
Memory for detail is significantly worse if a strong exogenous cue (gunshot) causes an emotional reaction. |
|
|
Familiarity Effect |
Type of source-monitoring error A recent or familiar person is recalled in place of an actual suspect |
|
|
Problems with Eyewitness Testimony (4) |
1. Affected by misinformation 2. Confidence is subject to feedback 3. Emotion interferes with attention/encoding 4. Source monitoring errors = familiarity effects |
|
|
Flashbulb Memory |
Vivid, highly-detailed recall for events that are emotionally-charged. Remembered with high confidence. |
|
|
Biological Explanation for Flashbulb Memory |
Surprising and consequential events recalled well because evolutionarily advantageous:
events remembered well could be avoided by survivors. Better accuracy = better chances |
|
|
Repeated recall |
Subjects asked to recall events around Challenger multiple times. Later reports compared to original, baseline details. |
|
|
Flashbulb vs. Ordinary Memory |
Accuracy declines for both over time Confidence remains high for flashbulb, declines for ordinary memory |
|
|
Recovered Memories |
Memories an adult uncovers of a traumatic childhood event May be accurate or false Controversial |
|
|
False Memories |
Memories for events that never happened |
|
|
Why the delay in uncovering recovered memories? |
1. Information difficult for a child to process. (Lack schemas to make sense). Repression.
2. Child may be actively told that events never happened (misinformation effect). |
|
|
If some recovered memories are similar to flashbulb memories, we would expect their accuracy and confidence to _________ over time. |
Diverge: Accuracy decline Confidence remain high |
|
|
Post-Event Misinformation Paradigm |
Adults shown doctored photos of activities they "did" as children.
Repeated presentations --> 50% of subjects would recall details (false memories) not seen in the fake photos. |
|
|
Misinformation and Suggestion (Feedback) (Confessions)
|
Subjects shown a fake video of them cheating all admitted to cheating. If told the video existed but not shown, 73% admitted. |
