Memory Summary PT.2
Explanations for forgetting
Interference
Description
Retroactive interference - new interferes with old
Muller and Pilzecker - recall was less good if there was an intervening task (describing paintings).
Proactive interference - old interferes with new.
Underwood - analysed many studies, the more lists learned the lower percentage of recall
McGeoch and McDonald - learn list of words + list of synonyms -- 12% recall, learn lists of words + list of digits -- 37% recall. Similarity matters.
Baddeley and Hitch - ruby players who played fewer games had better recall of teams played against (less interference).
Evaluation
Artificial research - words and nonsense syllables, and low motivation. Doesn't represent everyday memory.
Limited to some situations of forgetting, where two sets of stimuli are quite similar.
Ceraso - spontaneous recovery of recognition memory after interference suggest memories are available but not accessible.
Further Evaluation
Real-world application - competing advertisements reduce their effect because of interference, better to show three in one day (Danaher et al.).
Individual differences - people with greater working memory span less susceptible to proactive interference (Kane and Eagle).
Retrieval Failure
Description
Encoding specificity principle - material present at encoding is present at retrieval (Tulving and Thomson).
Tulving and Pearlstone - category + world learned. Free recall was 40% cued recall was 60%
Some cues are mot meaningfully linked at encoding but also act as cues
Context-dependent forgetting: Abernethy - recall best with same instructor in same room
State-dependent forgetting: Goodwin et al. - recall best when inital state (drunk or sober) matched state at recall
Evaluation
High validity - wealth of supporting research evidence both in lab and natural environments
Real-world application - to revising and the cognitive interview
Cues don't always work - not useful when learning meaningful material (Smith and Vela).
Further Evaluation
Encoding specificity is circular - it is not a causal relationship (Nairne) and cannot be tested (Baddeley).
Retrieval failure can explain interference effects and thus is more important explanation of forgetting.
Misleading Information
Description
Leading questions suggest the desired answer
Loftus and Palmer - critical question containing hit, smashed, collided, bumped or contacted, speed estimated highest with the verb smashed.
Post-event discussion may contaminate eyewitness memory of an event
Conformity effect- participant's recollection influenced by discussion with others (Gabbert et al.)
Repeat interviewing - especially problematic with child witness (Le Rooy et al.)
Evaluation
Braun et al. - misleading information (Bugs Bunny) altered participant recall.
Real-real EWT may be more accurate - lab studies not taken seriously
Foster et al. - film of supposed robbery, high accuracy
Yuille and Cutshall - witnesses to real crime fed misleading information but still accurate recall.
Real-world application - mistaken EWT largest factor in conviction of innocent people (Wells and Olson).
Further Evaluation
Individual differences - misinformation effect in older people, thus more susceptible to misleading information
Response bias - recalling events in original order led to recovery of recall so memory not altered (Bekerian and Bowers).
Anxiety
Description
Stress (physiological arousal) reduces performance on complicated cognitive tasks.
Johnson and Scott - weapon focus effect reduces accuracy of face identification
Loftus et al. - monitored eye movements during weapon exposure, focus was on a weapon
Evolutionary argument - it is adaptive to remember stress-inducing events.
Christianson and Hubinette - high-anxiety victims (bank tellers) remember most accurately
Deffenbacher et al.- Yerkes-Dodson effect explains high accuracy at moderate levels of anxiety and low accuracy when anxiety is high (or low).
Evaluation
Pickel - weapon focus effect due to surprise not anxiety.
Deffenbacher et al. - real-life studies show even less accuracy than lab studies, so lab findings actually underestimate effects of anxiety
Halford and Milne - kind of crime affects accuracy, e.g. victims of violent crime more accurate than those of non-violent crime
Further Evaluation
Bothwell et al. - neurotic participants become less accurate with increasing anxiety, opposite true for emotionally more stable participants.
Deffenbacher et al. catastrophe model better than inverted U.
The cognitive interview
Description
- mental reinstatement of original of original context - physical and psychological, cued recall
- report everything - even seemingly insignificant details, may cue recall
- change order - reduces effect of schemas
- change perspective - disrupts schemas, supported by Anderson and Pichert's study (burglar and house buyer perspective).
Evaluation
Kohnken et al. - review of 53 studies, 34% more information for CI, but lab studies with students.
Milne and Buli - effectiveness may be most due to 'report everything' and 'mental restatement' components.
Quality may suffer - 81% increase in correct recall but 61% false postives (Kohnken et al.).
Police dislike CI - time consuming, inadequate training.
Further Evaluation
Comparison difficult - police forces use different versions of CI.
Individual differences - older adults' memories helped more by the CI than younger adults (Mello and Fisher).