Memory And Attachment Case Studies

Front 1

Patient HM

Back 1

Inability to transfer STM to LTM = distinction (MSM)

Front 2

Harlow

Back 2

Monkeys isolated still chose wire for comfort (LT)

Front 3

Fox

Back 3

Raised and fed by nurses, still attached to parents

Front 4

Schaffer and Emerson

Back 4

Attached to most responsive (LT)

Front 5

Ainsworth (1967)

Back 5

Uganda, UK/US used mothers are secure base. Sensitive mother = secure attachment (cultural)

Front 6

Tronick et al.

Back 6

African infants all displayed monotropy (cultural)

Front 7

Takahashi

Back 7

No avoidant, high resistant. Japanese infants rarelt seperate from their mothers (cultural)

Front 8

Grossman and Grossman

Back 8

German infants tended to be avoidant, German culture interpersonal distance (cultural)

Front 9

Hazan and Shaver

Back 9

Secure: trusting Avoidant: fears closeness Resistant: Preoccupied by love (SS)

Front 10

Cooper et al.

Back 10

Circle of Security project 32% to 40% (SS)

Front 11

Ainsworth et al.

Back 11

Inter-rater reliability .94 agreement (SS)

Front 12

Main and Weston

Back 12

SS dependent on parent, only measures relationship between PC and child (SS)

Front 13

Ainsworth et al.

Back 13

20% infants 'cried desperately' (SS)

Front 14

Prior and Glaser

Back 14

S: achievement, independent A: aggressive R: anxious, withdrawn

Front 15

Sensitivitity hypothesis (Ainsworth)

Back 15

S: accepting, cooperative A: rejecting, paid no attention R: unresponsive to crying, preoccupied (SS)

Front 16

Hodges and Tizard

Back 16

During critical period, no attachment = difficulty with peers (Bowlby)

Front 17

Lorrenz

Back 17

Goslings imprinted on first living thing, attachment = adaptive

Front 18

Grossman and Grossman

Back 18

Key role for fathers (Bowlby)

Front 19

Rutter

Back 19

All equally important, one single working model (Bowlby)

Front 20

Kagan

Back 20

Temperant hypothesis, innate personality easy/difficult to bond (not innate desire) (Bowlby)

Front 21

Bowlby

Back 21

MISCA

Front 22

Ainsworth (1978)

Back 22

The Strange Situation

Front 23

Pickle

Back 23

Video salon, wallet gun chicken, threat = irrelevant, usualness of item important (weapon focus/anxiety)

Front 24

Johnson and Scott

Back 24

Con1: pen con2: knife, heated discussion 50 photos 1: 49% 2: 33% (weapon focus/anxiety)

Front 25

Christiansen and Hubinette

Back 25

58 irl witnesses, some threatened, threatened = higher accuracy, bc emotional arousal (anxiety)

Front 26

Parker and Carranza

Back 26

Primary/college, mock crime, identify offender from line up, primary more likely to select and make mistake

Front 27

Yarmey

Back 27

Young woman stopped 651 15 secs, 2 mins later recall characteristics, 18-29 30-44 45-65 best in younger adults

Front 28

Anastasi and Rhodes

Back 28

18-25, 35-45, 55-78 24 photos varying ages, rate attractive, short filler, identify original 24, more likely to recognise own age group (age/own age bias)

Front 29

Loftus and Palmer 1

Back 29

45 students, different films, how fast when hit/smashed/bumped/collided/contacted, smashed = 40.8mph contacted = 31.8mph

Front 30

Loftus and Palmer 2

Back 30

3 groups, smashed/hit/no question, 1 week, crit: any broken glass? Smashed = higher est and more likely to assume

Front 31

Hitch and Baddeley

Back 31

Dual task, 1) CE 2) AL OR CE/AL OR NO TASK took longer in 1 when using AL/CE in 2. using same component causes difficulty (WMM)

Front 32

Baddeley et al. 1975a

Back 32

Word length effect. Phonological loop is 2 secs

Front 33

Baddeley et al. 1975b

Back 33

Visual tracking task and either 1) angles on F or 2) verbal task 1 = more difficult (WMM)

Front 34

KF

Back 34

Verbal bad, visual good, forgetting auditory greater than visual, damage limited to loop not sketchpad?

Front 35

Logie

Back 35

STM relies on LTM (MSM)

Front 36

Glanzer and Cunitz

Back 36

20 words, any order, remembered beginning/end, end = STM beginning = LTM (evidence for displacement and seperate stores) (MSM)

Front 37

Craik and Tulving

Back 37

Meaning/structure, immediately after (in STM) semantic = better, MSM said auditory/visual in STM (MSM)

Front 38

Rothbaum et al.

Back 38

Western = autonomy Japanese = dependence (SS)

Front 39

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg

Back 39

Meta-analysis, 32 studies, 8 countries, secure most common, variation within 1.5x greater than between, innate/biological

Front 40

Keyword method

Back 40

Associates 2 pieces of info, visual image to trigger recall? Associations

Front 41

Loci

Back 41

New info associated with place/journey

Front 42

Acronyms

Back 42

Initial letters of other words, association/chunking

Front 43

EPPE Study

Back 43

3000 UK children, 3-11, longer in daycare = more aggression (teacher rated) earlier = increased aggression, increased sociability low quality care = aggression

Front 44

Field

Back 44

Amount of time in daycare positively correlated to no. of school friends

Front 45

Creps and Vernon-Feagons

Back 45

Starting DC before 6 months = more sociable

Front 46

Glidden

Back 46

Verbal mnemonics good for learning difficulties children

Front 47

O'Hara

Back 47

Visual good for older adults

Front 48

Craik and Tulving

Back 48

Deep processing remembered better than not elaborated (techniques)

Front 49

NICHD study

Back 49

1300 US children, from infancy to 15, age 5 in DC = more assertive, disobedient, aggressive, full time DC 3x more likely to show behaviour problems, over 30 hours a week = school behaviour problems HOWEVER 83% attending 10 to 30 hours p/w did not show higher aggression levels

Front 50

Czech twins

Back 50

7 years locked up by step mother, couldn't talk, 2 loving sisters, age 14 = near normal intellectual/soc functioning, 20 = above average intelligence, good relations. HOWEVER attached with each other? (Privation)

Front 51

Genie

Back 51

Room until 13 and a half, thought retarded, couldn't stand erect or speak, socially inept, however, due to age discovered or privation? Retarded from birth?

Front 52

Rutter et al.

Back 52

165 Romanian orphans, longitudinal 4, 6, 11, 15 years old, adopted at 6 months = 'normal' emotional development (compared to UK - control group 52 UK adopted children) over 6 months = disinhibited attachment and peer problems

Front 53

Baddeley (1966)

Back 53

List of words acoustically/semantically different, STM = semantic best LTM = acoustic best (ENCODING)

Front 54

Hodges and Tizard

Back 54

Longitudinal, 65 institutionalised children when under 4 months, assessed 4, 8, 16, homes had strict policy against CG forming attachments, adopted/restored, 70% could not care deeply about anyone, both had peer problems, unlikeable bullies, sought attention indiscriminately (sign of disinhibited attachment) adopted = positive relations with parents resorted = less likely to attach

Front 55

Bahrick et al.

Back 55

400 pps, PR 15 years = 90% 48 years = 70%, FR 15 years = 60% 48 years = 30% (DURATION LTM)

Front 56

Miller

Back 56

Magic of no 7 plus or minus 2, 7 dots on screen better remembered than 15, chunking helps (can recall 5 words as well as 5 letters) (CAPACITY)

Front 57

Köhnken et al.

Back 57

53 studies meta-analysis, 34% more accurate with CI than standard

Front 58

Milne and Bull

Back 58

Each individual component tested, recall lower than 4 simultaneously

Front 59

Kebbell and Wagstaff

Back 59

CI takes too long, police use own to limit

Front 60

Memon et al.

Back 60

Police not always effectively trained in CI

Front 61

Peterson and Peterson

Back 61

Consonant syllable followed by 3 digit no, retention interval, recall syllable and countdown, 3secs = 90% 18secs = 2% (DURATION STM)

Front 62

Yerkes-Dodson Law

Back 62

Physiological arousal improves memory to certain extent (EWT anxiety)

Front 63

Soho Family Centre London

Back 63

Understands importance of secondary attachment figures, each carer responsible for 3 children (NICHD FOUND 1:3) (ROBERTSON'S FOUND GOOD SUBSTITUTE CARE CAN COUNTERACT)

Front 64

Secure attachment type

Back 64

Harmonious/cooperative interaction, unlikely to cry if CG leaves room, seeks prox, easily comforted, occasionally reluctant to leave CGs side, secure base

Front 65

Avoidant

Back 65

Little response to separation/reunion, no seeking prox, doesn't cling or resist being put down

Front 66

Turner and Lloyd

Back 66

Romanian orphans: 1/3 recovered well, privation alone does not always negative negative outcomes, poor subsequent care?

Front 67

Tizard

Back 67

Not enough evidence to show long term effects of privation, did not contact a large enough group of children later in life, may just be that institutionalised children need more time than normal to mature

Front 68

Resistant

Back 68

Ambivalent, immediate and intense distress on separation, conflicting desires