Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

MEMORY (2) mem (Factors Affecting Eye Witness Testimony (EWT) wit…

- - - - Aims & Pro
        
        Interviewed 13 witnesses to a shooting in a gun shop 4/5 months after event
        
        Witnesses asked about stress levels using 7-point scale
        
        Compared with earlier police interviews
      - Findings
        
        Accuracy high after 5 months
        
        High stress triggers fight or flight - more accurate - 88% for high stress compared to 75% less stressed
    - - Inverted U relationship between arousal & performance
        e.g.. Yerkes & Dodson (1908)
      - Anxiety & EWT accuracy mirror the Yerkes-Dodson Law e.g.. optimal point then decline
    - - Aims & Pro
        
        Participants sitting in waiting room about to do what they thought was lab study
        
        Hear argument & man walks in holding a bloody paper knife or greasy pen
      - Findings
        
        High-anxiety (physiological arousal) condition led to lower correct identifications - picked out man from 50 photos - 49% who saw pen identified him - 33% for knife
        
        Tunnel theory of memory - attention narrows to focus on weapon
    - - Ethical issues as creating anxiety is risky
        e.g., psychological harm
      - Limitation - Johnson & Scott's may test surprise rather than anxiety.
        Eg. Pickel (1998) - used scissors, chicken & handgun in hair salon and EWT poorer in unusual conditions such as chicken & handgun
  - - - Evaluation
        
        Limitation - artificial tasks
        
        Strength - real-life applications
      - Why P-ED affects EWT
        
        May lead to memory conformity - as may want social approval or believe other witness right
      - Aims & Pro
        
        In pairs: each watched version of same
        crime video from different points of view
        
        Pair discussed what they saw,
        then individual recall test
      - Findings
        
        71% made recall errors
        
        0% errors in control group
    - - Why LQ affects EWT
        
        Response-bias explanation:
        Wording may not affect memory but influences how they answer
        
        Substitution explanation:
        Wording affects actual memory
        
        Leading questions suggest certain answer
        e.g.. "Was knife in accused's left hand?"
      - Aims & Pro
        
        Participants watched film of car accidents & estimated speed
        
        Leading question included verbs about speed
        e.g.. hit/contacted/bumped/smashed
      - Findings
        
        "Smashed" produced the highest estimate, "contacted" the lowest
        
        Response bias caused by leading question
      - Evaluation
        
        Limitation - used artificial tasks
        e.g.. film of accident rather than real one so absence of stress
        
        Strength - real-life applications eg. police need to be careful how phrase questions, legal system
        
        Limitation of field studies - lack control (post-event discussion)
    - - Anastasia & Rhodes (2006) found older people less accurate in EWT
      - All age groups more accurate when identifying people of own age - own age bias
    - - Zaragosa & McClusky (1989) - lab studies of EWT participants may want to help researcher so may guess when don't now answer
- - - - Evaluation
        
        Limitation - Baddeley argued contexts have to be
        very different in real life to produce the effect
        
        Context effect may only occur when test memory in certain way e.g.. recall test different to recognition test
        
        Strength - research supports importance of cues
        e.g.. deep-sea divers
      - Aims & Pro
        
        Learning on land or underwater
        
        4 groups of deep-sea divers with 4 conditions:
        Learn & recall on land, learn on land/recall underwater, learn underwater/recall on land, learn & recall underwater
      - Findings
        
        Recall 40% lower in non-matching conditions
        
        Retrieval failure due to lack of cues
    - - Some cues have meaning linked to the memory
        e.g., cue "STM" may lead to recall of info about STM
      - Some cues have
        no meaningful link
        
        CONTEXT DEPENDENT FORGETTING - external/environmental cue e.g.. weather, place
        
        State-dependent forgetting - internal cue e.g.. state of mind at time of learning
      - Encoding specificity principle (ESP) - recall best when overlap of cues & info in memory trace (Tulving)
      - When info initially placed in memory, associated cues are stored at same time - absence of cues at time of recall means may not be able to access memories
  - - - Limitation - use of artificial materials e.g.. lists of words so interference more likely in lab
      - Strength - real-life studies support hypothesis that interference is a better explanation than passage of time for forgetting
      - Strength - lab studies consistently show interference in memory
      - Eg. Baddeley & Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to remember names of teams they had played that season, week by week - found recall more about number of matches played than passage of time (players would sometimes miss a match so would remember last one they played very accurately however long ago)
    - - Proactive interference: Old interferes with new
        e.g.. learning new phone no.
      - Retroactive interference: New interferes with old eg. Can’t remember English because learning French
      - Interference = 2 pieces of info conflicting with each other
      - Interference is worse when memories are similar
    - - Findings
        
        Performance depended on nature of 2nd list
        
        Interference is strongest where memories are similar eg. synonyms produced worst recall, 3 digits the best
      - Aims & Pro
        
        6 conditions - similarity of new list compared to old varied e.g.. synonyms, antonyms, unrelated, nonsense syllables, 3 digit numbers & control condition (no new list just rested)
        
        Given list of 10 words to learn 100% & then given new list to learn