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;
56 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Lecture 11: Long Term Memory Phenomena |
Source Memory Prospective Memory Autobiographical Memory |
|
|
Source Memory |
Old/new judgment with details from where the information originated. Degree of recollection but can be based on inference. |
|
|
Types of Source Memory |
Internal: information from ourselves External: information from other people/thing/agent Internal vs. external (reality monitoring): did I dream this or is my friend mad at me Internal vs. internal: did I imagine calling my friend or did I really call her External vs. external: did I see that or did I hear that? |
|
|
Source Monitoring Framework (SMF) |
Developed by Marcia Johnson & Colleagues: outlines how we make source judgments. Judgment based on 2 processes: 1. Qualitative Characteristics (QC) of information (sensory, perceptual, affect, semantic detail, cognitive operations) get bound together. 2. Evaluate the information: decision processes evaluate activated QC to make judgment. Heuristic (fast, non-deliberate, based on avg differences in QCs) vs. systematic (slower, more strategic, extended reasoning). Done in the frontal lobes - damage = source amnesia (recollection = controls, source < controls) |
|
|
Prospective Memory (PM) |
Memory for future events/tasks |
|
|
PM: Lab-based Tasks |
Event-based PM tasks - prospective memory is activated during an event Ongoing task: read & recall words PM Task: press F1 when you see an animal word (or other cue that is infrequent) Time-based PM task: Ongoing task: read & recall words PM Task: press F1 at 5 min, 10 min, & 15 min |
|
|
Autobiographical Memory |
Challenged: verifying the accuracy of what the person is recalling |
|
|
History (AM): Galton, 1883 |
Cueing Technique (Galton, 1883): give people a cue (i.e., river) & ask the person to tell a story about the cue |
|
|
History (AM): Brewers, 1988 |
Diaries (Brewer, 1988): wrote down 2 events every day in note cards, used it to test her memory at certain intervals; remembered negative events better than positive events - issues (she is selected the events she wrote down[select more salient events], some events may have come up more than others [not randomly selected, events that occurred more would be more salient]) |
|
|
History (AM): Brewers, 1988 |
Beeper (Brewer, 1988): subjects had tape recorders & beepers; beeper would go off at random intervals & subjects would record 4 pieces of info (what he/she was doing, rate the frequency of the activity, rate the significance of the activity, his/her emotional status); memory then tested (immediately, 23 days, & 43 days) subjects given a piece of info as a cue; found that 190 participants recalled, 118 produced wrong events/details, 109 people remembered the correct info, 4 remembered the correct event with wrong info |
|
|
History (AM): Winkielman, Schwartz, & Bell, 1998 |
Winkielman, Schwartz, & Bell (1998): people asked to recall 4 or 12 events from their childhood; then asked "regarding childhood "memory, are there large parts of childhood after the age of 5 which you can't remember? - participants that were asked to remember 12 events were more likely to say yes to the above question (people who recalled 12 events recalled more but because they had a harder time recalling the events they were likely to rate their memory as being poor) Metamemory: memory for own memory; people's appraisal for their own memory |
|
|
Dating Autobiographical Memory |
Use significant external events Use personal events that are significant |
|
|
Earliest Memory |
Infantile amnesia: no memory before age 3; memory before 3 is fabricated Structures in the brain that are associated with memory are not fully formed until 3-5. |
|
|
Accuracy of Autobiographical Memory |
Remember general events but not details. Watergate Conspiracy: John Dean came out with a lot of details about conversation with Nixon; Nixon had recorded everything; compared it to Dean's testimony; found that Dean's testimony had correctly told the gist of the conversation but the details weren't correct |
|
|
Flashbulb Memories |
Brown & Kuklik (1977): exceptionally vivid memories for significant events (like a snapshot) - evidence for this is contradictory Recording: time 1- when you experience it time 2- recall events When there is a delay between the event & time 1: there is time for memory to be changed & organized, after a few days memory is stabilized bc it is emotionally salient & remains stable over time; this causes events recalled at time 2 to be accurate when compared to time 1. When there is no delay between event & time 1: memory at time 2 is not accurate when compared to time 1 |
|
|
High Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM) |
People who can remember every day of their life. Dr. McGaugh: tests people on public events & weather, etc. Temporal lobe & caudate nucleus (associated with OCD) is larger than (7-8 standard deviations) controls. All of them display some form of obsessive behaviors. *When people experience something emotional (positive & negative) body releases adrenaline which creates more salient memories (stronger). |
|
|
Lecture 12: Retrieval |
Retrieval as a Process Schemas Cues |
|
|
Retrieval |
Memory is not veridical (truthful) but it rarely fails randomly (there is a pattern). We store pieces of info and when we need to remember we pull those pieces out and "reconstruct" the pieces. |
|
|
Reconstructive Nature of Memory: Schemas |
Bartlett (1932): The War of the Ghosts - asked participants to learn a Native American tale word for word; tested their recall - there were themes Bransford & Johnson (1932): participants asked to study line drawings; each had a label; they were then asked to draw the line drawing by showing them the label; people rebuild memories using cues (label). |
|
|
Reconstructive Nature of Memory: Cues |
Bransford & Johnson (1932): participants asked to study line drawings; each had a label; they were then asked to draw the line drawing by showing them the label (e.g., stimulus figure was 2 circle drawings with a straight line connecting them; if asked to draw eyeglasses the two circles would be connected by a curved line; if asked to draw barbells the space between the two lines is longer & 2 lines connecting them); people rebuild memories using cues (label), people only store the gist of it (2 circles & a line). |
|
|
Reconstructive Nature of Memory: Cues & Context |
Context - Godden & Baddeley (1975): study of LTM; people learned a list of words & recalled list later (used white boards); learned list on land & on water - people who learned on land recalled better on land & people who learned underwater recalled better underwater; memory is better when the study & test locations match; cues can be the context; (sounds like transfer appropriate processing - TAP, match between encoding & memory task). |
|
|
Reconstructive Nature of Memory: Cues & Source Monitoring |
Leynes et al. (2003): seen vs. heard words; recall is better when the study format matches the testing format Dodson & Shimamura (2000): female/male voice |
|
|
Reconstructive Nature of Memory: Cues & State-dependent Learning |
Goodwin, Powell, Bremer, Hoine & Stern (1969): encode words sober vs. intoxicated & then tested; sober-sober=best, intoxicated-sober=worst, intoxicated-intoxicated=3rd best; sober-intoxicated=2nd best |
|
|
Reconstructive Nature of Memory: Cues & Internal State |
Bower (1981): manipulated mood (happy, sad, control); same pattern - matching mood = better memory |
|
|
Suggesting for Better Retrieval |
Give yourself cues Match study & testing context/cues |
|
|
Lecture 13: Forgetting |
Retrieval Failure Strategies Reasons Why Retrieval Fails |
|
|
Background |
Forgetting Curve - Ebbinghaus (1885): used himself as a subject; created a list of meaningless consonants-vow 3 letter strings; studied it until he could recall the info 100%; committed it to memory & then studied retention; time 0 = 100% - generated the forgetting curve; within a couple of days = 30% Forgetting rates exist for everything; dramatic drop off after 1-2 days, but then it level offs; can boost plateau by repeated studying & tests (building expertise - use it or loose it) |
|
|
Reason for Forgetting |
Behavior if focused on here & now - may be advantageous to forget what we have learned in order to gain new info (minimize interference) Most of the time forgetting is beneficial, but we focus on the bad things about forgetting that frustrates us. |
|
|
Hyperamnesia |
Erdelyi & Kleinbard (1978): subjects studied a list of 60 line drawings; tested 20 times over the following week at varying intervals over time; first time - could only remember a few items; next time could remember more; continues for some time (gaining info over time) but then levels off Must use correct strategies to remember (e.g., retrace steps when trying to find lost keys) |
|
|
Strategies for Memory Searcher |
Williams & Hollan (1981): asked people to recall every person they went to High School with; people completed task by looking at their friend groups and branching out to their friend's friends, who were in each of their classes, etc. (good strategy); over time number of names increased but the number of names they fabricated also increased (important to use strategies that will guard against distorted memories) |
|
|
Reasons why Retrieval Fails |
Never encoded: never consolidated into LTM; if it was never consolidated that you can't retrieve it, info was never attended to Retrieval cues fail: if you don't remember right away doesn't mean that you completely forgot, use strategies Decay: lose info over time, may be that things fad over time, memories aren't kept fresh or retrieved many times fade Interference: retroactive & proactive |
|
|
Interference |
Retroactive: later learning interferes with retrieval of previously learned material Proactive: earlier leaning interferes with retrieval of later learned material.
Delay guards against interference. |
|
|
Lecture 14: Distortions of Memory |
False Memory Eye Witness Testimony Other Distortions |
|
|
False Memory: The Deese Paradigm |
Roediger & McDermott (1995): exp. 1 - recall then by modified recognition; exp. 2 - half did,'t have recall (recall contamination on recognition) & used R/K judgments when tested; used Deese's list - words highly related to the critical lure (doesn't appear on the list), people who study the list are likely to recall critical lure; exp. 1 results: studied items - 75% called it old & was sure it was old, unstudied items - unrelated was identified as new, weakly related as new, critical lure recognized as old & sure it was old; exp. 2 results - more R judgements to the critical lure |
|
|
Explanations for the Deese Paradigm |
Source Monitoring: at study time hear words that are related to the critical lure (may cause them to think of related words) so then at test recognize the critical lure but confused by the source (did they think of it or did they hear it) Fluency: easy processing of similar words, words conceptually prime the critical lure such that when they encounter the critical lure they mistake fluency for oldness |
|
|
False Memory: The Deese Paradigm |
Gallo, Roberts, & Seamon (1997): used the Deese/Roediger & McDermott (DRM) paradigm; had 3 groups - 1. informed about DRM effects, 2. told to guard against false alarms, 3. told to guard against critical lures; DRM effects were reduced but not eliminated = pervasive |
|
|
HSAM & DRM |
People with high superior autobiographical memory tested with DRM paradigm. Same false rates among HSAM people compared to controls (memory works the same way; they just have enhanced ability to retain autobiographical memories). Better than control at recalling words; but still affected by DRM effects. |
|
|
False Memory: Implanted |
Loftus (1993): 14 year old Chris & family; family came into lab & created a memory journal with many events & only one of them being false (being lost in a shopping mall); Chris was asked to read & reflect on the memory journals; after 2 weeks Chris was asked about being lost in the mall; the event never happened but Chris had a "memory of it" and included details about the person who approached him. |
|
|
False Memory: Children |
Steven Ceci: implanted false memory in children; "Sam Stone" clown like character that hung out in the classroom for a while; kids left the classroom & when they returned things were in diff places; when kids were asked about it they blamed Sam Stone (said that they saw him move things); another example is an implausible story (e.g., plane ride with an alligator). Braun, Ellis, & Loftus: get people to remember that they met Bugs Bunny at Disney (impossible bc Bugs Bunny is a Warner Brothers character); done by giving people a fake ad to evaluate |
|
|
Explanations |
Loftus: repeated imaginings (did that really happen or did I imagine it - reality monitoring) - leads to more false memories Implausible memories: suggestions; (when did I see that - study or real memory?) Source Monitoring: failure; couldn't distinguish the memory from something imagined with something that really happened. Interference: time 1-event; time 2-photo w/ misleading info; photo at time 2 interferes with recollection of events from time 1 (retroactive) |
|
|
False Memories: Hypnosis |
Sheehan & Tilden (1983): subjects watched a 24-slide sequence depicting a wallet stealing scenario, 1/2 were hypnotized then questioned about the events; people separated into low/high hypnotizability- accuracy was not increased by hypnosis, if anything made it worse, confidence was increased - one's confidence can't be taken as evidence. Recovery techniques: Orne, 1979; Roediger, 1966; Smith, 1983 - recall isn't better,doesn't increase recall; altered state of consciousness; susceptible to suggestions. from repeated imaginings
|
|
|
Eyewitness Testimony: Trusting Eyewitness Testimony |
Loftus (1974): subjects read an account of a robbery/murder that contained circumstantial evidence linking the suspect to the crime - 18% willing to convict w/o eyewitness, 72% willing to convict with eyewitness, & 68% willing to convict with eyewitness who has 20/400 eyesight. Kebbel & Milne (1998): 74% of police officers believe that eyewitness are rarely incorrect Lacy & Stark (2013): majority of general public believes that eyewitness testimony is enough to convict someone |
|
|
Questions Misleading Witness |
Loftus & Palmer (1974): subjects watched a video of a car accident ; asked "how fast was the car going when it ____into the car?"; changed the verb - contacted (31.8 mph avg); hit (34); bumped (38.1); collided (39.3); smashed (40.8); the more violent the verb, the faster the car; one week later asked if they had seen broken glass (schema consistent - faster=broken glass) group in the smashed condition were likely to say that there was broken glass even though there was none |
|
|
Questions Misleading Witness |
Headache Study (Loftus); when asked "do you occasionally have headaches" (0.7/week) but when asked "do you frequently have headaches" (2.2/week); the way people answered depended on how the question was asked. Question as the cue that shapes the answer. |
|
|
Suggestions & Misleading Questions: Children |
Peterson & Bell (1996): Interviewed children after an ER visit; asked open ended questions "tell me what happened" or specific questions "where did you hurt yourself"; open-ended questions led to best accuracy (91% of important details) & specific questions led to errors (45% more). Saywitz, Goodman, Nicholas, & Moan (1991): questioned girls age 5-7 about a medical exam (for some included genital exam); provided more info for specific Qs; greater accuracy for open-ended Qs & increased with age; made errors of omission & commission |
|
|
Suggestions & Misleading Questions: Children |
Related information Forced questions (was it this or that) decreased accuracy Children 3-4 are more susceptible to suggestions than those 5-6 (Ceci & Huffman) Professionals couldn't distinguish from inaccurate recollections (Ceci & Huffman) |
|
|
Witnesses & Accounts of a Crime |
Loftus (misinformation effect): subjects watched a video of a crime & then read an account of the crime with erroneous details; asked to recall original event - erroneous details make their way into people's recall, peripheral details; source monitoring - video vs. read, failure to distinguish; retroactive interference - learning at time 2 (reading the account) interferes with recall of events at time 1 (watching video). |
|
|
Innocence Project |
Exonerated by DNA: 333, eyewitness misidentification was a factor in 75% of these cases (false confessions can be memory related, when the circumstances are right people confess bc they believe they did the crime- Kassin) Ronald Cotton's Case |
|
|
When is Eyewitness Likely to be Accurate |
Use software that shows individual pictures of suspect and make person aware that the individual may not be in the line up. Unique features - tattoo, scars, etc. |
|
|
Other Distortions of Memory: Imagination Inflation |
Imagination Inflation (Garry et al., 1996): session 1-participants rated the likelihood that several childhood events occurred in their past; session 2- one week later participants asked to imagine that half of the events actually happened; session 3-fill out questionnaire a 2nd time; ratings for imagined items increased; reasons - source monitoring (imagined events were a 2nd source of info) & fluency (recent exposure to imagined events make it more fluent) |
|
|
Other Distortions of Memory: Imagination Inflation |
Landau et al. (2000): participants imagined lifting a heavy object; participants then asked how much weight can you lift - (control = 88lbs & imagine = 113 lbs) Landau, Leynes, & Libkuman (2001): imagine making a basketball shot; asked how many basketball can you make out of 10 - (control = 33% & imagine =57%); given a basketball & asked to make shots - (control = 33% & imagined=37%) Imagination inflates estimates but doesn't affect performance |
|
|
Other Distortions of Memory: Revelation Effect |
Watkins & Peynircioğlu (1990): study a list of words & complete recognition task, 1/2 of the probes (old & new) are revealed (anagrams; one letter at-a-time; rotated word; word fades in, etc.); caused more old responses to revealed items (old & new); causes depends on the task. Related task (changing the word)/unrelated task (math before old/new judgment). Verde & Rotello (2004): related revelation decreases fluency (more liberal criterion) & unrelated revelation increases fluency (shifts old/new distribution to the right on the strength dimension) |
|
|
Other Distortions of Memory: Revelation Effect |
|
|
|
Other Distortions of Memory: False Fame Effect |
Jacoby, Woloshyn, & Kelly (1989): subjects read a list of nonfamous names (told they were nonfamous people); saw a mixed list of famous/nonfamous people (some of the nonfamous names appeared in the first phase of the study); asked to identify famous names; many old nonfamous names were identified as famous Cause - fluency/familiarity interpreted as fame |
|
|
Lecture 15: Improving Memory |
Step 1: clear mental hurdles - have to believe in the possibility of change Step 2: increase motivation - goal set, improve concentration w/ CC & OC Step 3: Use effective encoding strategies Step 4: Practice / distribute |
|
|
Massed vs. Distributed Practice |
Keppel (1967): learned word list; massed practice (4 sec break between practice sessions); distributed practice (24 hr break between practice sessions); retention tested at intervals of 1 & 8 days; massed practice had high memory loss while distributed practice had low memory loss |
