Psychology -Memory

OVERVIEW:


Atkinson & Shiffrin's [linear] The Multi-Store Memory Model: sensory register (visual & acoustic), short-term memory and long-term memory. Features of each store: coding, capacity (5-7+-2 chunks of info) and duration (lifetime for long-term if applied episodically and up to 18 seconds for short-term)


Types of Long-Term memory: episodic (personal "episodes" in life), semantic (knowledge of the world/facts) and procedural (actions/motor skills)


Baddeley & Hitch's Working Memory Model: central executive, phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, episodic buffer. Features of the model: coding (acoustic and visual) and capacity.


Forgetting (Interference & Retrieval Failure) and Eye-Witness Testimony:


Explanations for forgetting: proactive and retroactive interference and retrieval failure due to the absence of cues.


Factors affecting the accuracy of EWT: misleading information including leading questions and post-event discussion and the factor of anxiety.


Improving the accuracy of EWT: including the use of the cognitive interview.

Atkinson and Shiffrin's Multi-Store Memory Model (MSM) is linear. Stimulus from the environment goes to the sensory register iconic (visual) and echoic (acoustic) is then transferred to short-term memory where attention and maintenance rehearsal is applied. Prolonged rehearsal goes to the long-term and memory can stay in the long-term for a lifetime when it is applied semantically. To retrieve a memory from long-term to short-term is through retrieval cues.

STUDY: Glanzer & Cunitz showed that when participants were presented with a list of words, they tend to remember the first few words and the last few words in the list and are more likely to forget the words in the middle of the list.
This, therefore, supports separate stores for STM and LTM due to primacy effect and recency effect.
Words at the start of the list were put into long-term (primacy effect) because participants had time to rehearse and apply a lot of attention and words at the end were put into short-term (recency effect)
Case studies like patient KF who suffered from brain damage support that STM and LTM are separate stores. KF had his LTM unaffected whereas his STM was affected as he could not retain or recall information.

(+)EVALUATION: Supporting evidence from Baddeley found that we tend to mix up words that sound similar when using STM and mix up words that have similar meaning when using LTM. This shows that coding in STM is acoustic and coding in LTM is semantic, further evidence to show that STM and LTM are independent from one another.

(-)EVALUATION: In the MSM there is only one type of STM but evidence from people who suffer from a clinical condition called amnesia is evidence to refute this. Patient KF was studied and found that his STM for digits when read aloud was very poor but his recall when reading the digits himself was better. This shows there can be another STM store for non-verbal sounds like noises. The STM of MSM is a limitation because research shows that there must be at least one STM to process visual information and another to process auditory information which the MSM doesn't consider.

(-)EVALUATION: According to MSM the amount of rehearsal will retain the information from STM to LTM. However, what matters is the type of rehearsal. Maintenance rehearsal and elaborative rehearsal. Maintenance is where it maintains information in the STM but doesn't transfer information.
Elaborative is where you link information to existing knowledge.
This demonstrates the limitation of MSM as it isn't explained in the model.

Baddeley & Hitch's Working Memory Model (WMM). Stimulus from the environment is sorted in the central executive where information is coded either acoustically or visually; it an attentional process. There is the phonological loop (PL) where it has two sub-units called the articulatory control system (words you say to allow maintenance rehearsal) and the phonological store (words you hear). There is also the visuo-spatial sketchpad which stores information visually. The episodic buffer is a temporary store for information and added to the model when it was too vague of an explanation by Baddeley.

(+)STUDY: Baddeley and Hitch conducted an experiment in which participants were asked to perform two tasks at the same time (dual task technique). A digit span task which required them to repeat a list of numbers, and a verbal reasoning task where they answered true or false questions.
Findings showed that as the number of digit span increased, participants took a little longer to answer the verbal task.
This shows the verbal reasoning task made use of the central executive and the digit span task made use of the phonological loop and therefore, supporting the WMM.

(+)EVALUATION: Baddeley's dual task performance support the separate existence of the VSS and the PL. Baddeley showed that participants had more difficulty doing two visual tasks (tracking a light and describing the letter F) than doing both a visual and verbal task at the same time. This is because doing two tasks that require using the same unit system increased difficulty in comparison to doing tasks that require different unit systems at the same time. This shows that the VSS and the PL are independent of one another, supporting the WMM.

(-)EVALUATION: A limitation of the WMM is the purpose of the central executive. It's viewed as unsatisfactory and doesn't explain anything so it need to be explained more clearly. It also needs to be specified in greater detail rather than described as an attentional process.
This shows the WMM isn't fully explained and therefore not a complete explanation for memory.

Forgetting: Interference & Retrieval Failure

TYPES OF INTERFERENCE:


Proactive Interference: new information affects old information. For example, the teacher has difficulty remembering the names from last year due to the new names.


Retroactive Interference: old information affects new information. For example, a teacher calling an old student's name as they have trouble remembering the new names.

STUDY: McGeoch & McDonald found the similarity makes interference worse.Their procedure involved participants learning a list of 10 words until they could remember it with 100% accuracy. They then learned a new list. There were 6 groups.
Findings showed that when participants recalled the original list, their performance depended on the nature of the second list. The most similar (synonyms) in one group produced the worst recall, This shows that interference is strongest when the memories are similar and supports retroactive interference (old information affecting new information)

(+)EVALUATION: Evidence from lab studies support the explanation of interference in forgetting. Most of the lab studies carried out show both types of interference are very likely ways we forget information from LTM. This is a strength because of lab experiments because it controls the effects of extraneous and confounding variables which gives interference a valid explanation for some forgetting.

(+)EVALUATION: The artificial material of lists doesn't reflect people forgetting in a real-life setting thus it lacks in mundane realism. However, there's some evidence that interference occurs in real life.
Baddeley's study concerning rugby players for example. He had two conditions where condition A had players that played many matches with many people whereas condition B played fewer matches and with fewer people. Findings showed low interference in condition B due to less information (fewer people to remember as they played fewer matches) to be interfered with and forgotten in their LTM. This ultimately demonstrates interference being applied to real-life application.

(-)EVALUATION: The time periods between learning lists of words and recalling them are short in lab studies as a participant might learn two lists within 20 minutes. Research reduces the real experience of learning in a short period of time which doesn't reflect on how we learn and remember information realistically. This means it may not be generalised outside the lab so the role of interference may be exaggerated.

STUDY [CONTEXT-DEPENDENT FORGETTING]: Godden & Baddeley conducted a study involving sea divers where they had to remember instructions given. Learned a list of words either on land or underwater and asked to recall the list of words on land/underwater.
Findings showed accurate recall was 40% lower in the non-matching conditions (learn on land and recall underwater). The external cues available at learning were different from the ones when recalled which lead to retrieval failure.

INTERFERENCE- one memory blocking another so other memories become forgotten.

RETRIEVAL FAILURE- lack of cues to access a memory.

Working Memory Model (STM)

Multi-Memory Model (STM & LTM)

TYPES OF CUES:
Context-Dependent Forgetting (external cues) : location


State-Dependent Forgetting (internal cues) : emotion/individual

STUDY [STATE-DEPENDENT FORGETTING]: Carter & Cassaday gave ant-histamine drugs to participants where the effect of the drug leaves them feeling drowsy which contrasts the normal and alert state. Participants were to learn a list of words and asked to recall the information:
learn on drug - recall when on it
learn on drug - recall when not on it
learn not on drug - recall when not on it
learn not on drug - recall when on it
Findings showed that conditions that were mixed (learn on drug and recall when not on it) showed performance on memory was significantly worse that matched conditions. This shows when cues are absent (feeling drowsy learning and recalling when not) then there is more forgetting.

(-)EVALUATION: Godden & Baddeley replicated their underwater experiment using a recognition test instead of a recall test. There was no context-dependent effect as performance was the same in all four conditions where the environmental contexts for learning and recall matched or not. This limits retrieval failure as an explanation for forgotten because the presence or absence of cues only affects memory in a test recall rather than recognition.

STUDY: Johnson & Scott carried out a lab study with two conditions.
Condition 1: Someone carrying a pen with grease spilling after hearing an argument in the other room - low anxiety condition.
Condition 2: Someone carrying a paper knife that's covered in blood after hearing an argument from the other room as well as breaking glass. - high anxiety condition.
Findings showed 49% of participants in cond 1. who saw the man carrying a pen were able to identify him. Cond 2. 33% of participants who had seen the man carrying a weapon were able to identify him.
This shows anxiety having a negative recall because of weapon focus.

(-)EVALUATION: Pickel argued that poor EWT can be linked to surprise rather than anxiety. It is due to the unusualness rather than the anxiety or threat and therefore tells us nothing specifically about the effects of anyxiety on EWT.

Eyewitness Testimony: Anxiety

click to edit

Post-Event STUDY: Gabbert studied participants in pairs where they watched the same video of the same crime but in different perspectives (the angling of how the video was filmed). This means others saw different elements of the same incident.
Findings showed 71% of participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the video that didn't happen when the groups discussed together, This influence on their memory show EWT can influence their memory as witenesses often go along with each other either to be approved of, or believing the other is right. This is called memory conformity.

Leading Questions STUDY: Loftus & Palmer used leading questions when participants watched a clip of a car accident, "about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?" The word "hit" suggests the speed of the car which is misleading as it can change/influence participant's memory. Other groups were asked leading questions with different verbs; smashed, collided.
Findings showed that leading question biased the eyewitness recall of an event as the change of verbs has a significant effect on participant's memory of the video clip.

(-)EVALUATION: The tasks are artificial as they watched video clips rather than witnessing a real accident which is a very different experience. It lacks the stress of a real accident and so lacks external validity.

(+)EVALUATION: Very useful real-life application. Loftus believes that leading questions have such a distorting effect on witnesses' memory that police officers have to be very careful about how they phrase questions to eye witnesses. This improves the way the legal system works and appearing in court as expert witness.

Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading Information; Leading Questions and Post-Event Discussions

(-)EVALUATION: Researches usually interview real-life eyewitnesses sometime after the event. In that time, researches have no control over the effects of extraneous variables being held responsible for the accuracy of recall such as post-evident discussions. The effects of anxiety may be overwhelmed by other factors and so we may never get accurate findings if anxiety was the cause of recall forgetting.

(-)EVALUATION: Creating anxiety in participants is an ethical issue because it may subject people to psychological harm.

  1. Report Everything: interviewer encourages the reporting of every single detail of the event.


  2. Mental Reinstatement: mentally recreate the environment & contacts from the original event.


  3. Reverse the event: tries alternate ways through the timeline.


  4. Changing the perspective: asked to recall the event from multiple perspectives such as imagining how the accident would have appeared from other witnesses,

Eyewitness Testimony: Cognitive Interview

(+)EVALUATION: Flight-or-Fight responses in anxiety increases alertness and improves memory as we are more aware of cues in the situation.

(-)EVALUATION: CI creates an increase in inaccurate information because even though it aims to recall correct information, the recall of incorrect information may also be increased.

(+)EVALUATION: A meta-analysis enhances a consistency which provided more correct information than the standard interview used by police. Real-life application gives police greater chance of catching the criminals which will then protect society.

(-)EVALUATION: CI is time-consuming as more time is needed to rapport with the witnesses.