Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
MEMORY - Coggle Diagram
MEMORY
:lanzer and Cunitz (1966): serial position effect- tendency to remember things from the start and end of a list (primary and recency effect)
explanations for forgetting- interference: forgetting because another memory blocks another causing one or both memories to be distorted or forgotten
-
-
McGeoch & McDonald (1931)- they found that the more similar the interference is to the info being remembered, the worse the recall is
strengths: evidence from lab studies-McGeoch and McDonald
negatives: artificial materials, forgetting could be due to spontaneous decay
Context-dependent forgetting (Godden and Baddeley 1975)- divers learned a list of words underwater or on land and then were asked to recall underwater or on land. 4 conditions: learn on land-recall on land, learn on land-recall underwater, learn underwater-recall on land, learn underwater-recall underwater. Accurate recall was 40% lower in non matching conditions
strengths: supporting evidence, high control- good IV
negatives: artificial materials-lacks EV
State-dependent forgetting (Carter & Cassaday 1998)- they gave anti-histamines to their pps which had a mild sedative effect making pps drowsy. 4 conditions learning words: learned on drug-recalled when on it, learned on it-recalled not on it, learned not on drug, recalled on it, learned not on it-recalled not on it. They found that in mismatch conditions, recall was worse.
(evaluation same as opposite study)
-
Tulving's Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP)- the greater the similarity between the encoding event and the retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling the original memory
cues- when we encode a memory, we also store info that occurred around it
Cue-dependent forgetting (context and state)- context= cues in the environment, state= internal cues
STM: limited capacity (5-9 items), coded acoustically, duration (18-30 secs)
LTM: unlimited capacity, coded semantically, duration is permanent
Baddeley (1966) influence of acoustic and semantic similarities on short and long term memory: 75 pps presented with 1 of 4 word lists repeated 4 times, A-acoustically similar words, B-acoustically dissimilar words, C-semantically similar words, D- semantically dissimilar words. They had to rearrange words in the correct order. Procure for LTM was the same but with a 20 min interval. They found STM pps- list A performed the worst, and LTM- list C performed the worst
strengths: lab study- shows cause and effect relationships
negatives: small difference in recall between semantically similar and dissimilar
Jacobs (1887) digit span: researcher gives 4 digits and pps asked to recall in correct order, if correct researcher starts to up the digit count until pps cannot recall correctly. Mean span for digits= 9.3 items and for letters= 7.3 items
strengths: research support- Miller (1956)
negatives: lacks temporal validity
Miller (1956) span of memory and chunking: He observed everyday practice and noted that things come in 7s, suggesting capacity of STM is about 7+- items. He also noted that we can also recall 5 words as well as 5 letters, we do this by chunking. strengths: research support- Jacobs (1887), negatives: he may have over estimated the capacity of the STM, Cawan showed that STM is only 4 chunks
Peterson and Peterson (1959) duration of STM- tested 24 undergrad students each took part in 8 trials. Each trial student was given a consonant syllable and a 3 digit no. to remember. Student was asked to count back from 3 digit no. until asked to stop. Study showed STM duration is short
negative: meaningless stimuli in study and was artificial to real life so lacked external validity
strength: however we do sometimes try remember meaningless things e.g. phone nos.
Bahrick et al. (1975) duration of LTM: he studied 392 pps and high school year books were obtained. recall was tested in various ways- 1. photo recognition, 2. free recall. pps who were tested within 15 years of graduation were about 90% accurate in photo recognition, after 48 years recall declined to 70%. still shows LTM lasts a long time
strengths: higher external validity- real life meaningful memories were studied
negatives: confounding variables were not controlled
Baddeley and Hitch (1974)- Working Memory Model- a representation of STM using sub units o-ordinated by a central decision making system
central executive- co-ordinates the sub units and allocates processing resources to those activities. coding-modality free. capacity- very limited
phonological loop- processes info in terms of sound and is split into 2 stores- articulatory control system (MR) & phonological store. coding-acoustic, capacity- 2 secs
visuo-spatial sketchpad- split into 2- visual cache (stores visual data) and inner scribe (records arrangement of objects). coding- visual, capacity- 3-4 objects
episodic buffer- brings together material from other sub systems, also provides a bridge between WM and LTM. coding-modality free, capacity-about 4 chunks
-
strengths: shallice and warrington (1970) case study on patient KF. had poor STM ability for verbal info but no visual, showing evidence for the separate stores
negatives: case study- lack generalisability, lack of clarity over central executive
Atkinson and Shiffrin's Multi- Store Model of Memory (1969)- a representation of how memory works in terms of 3 stores- SR, STM, LTM
maintenance rehearsal: occurs when we repeat materials to ourselves over and over again so info moves from out STM to our LTM
-
strengths: research support- Baddely, negatives: artificial materials, there is more than one type of LTM
-
sensory register: iconic- visual, echoic- auditory, duration- less than half a second, capacity- high (100 million cells in each eye storing data)
Sperling (1960) sensory register: letter and number grid, pps saw grid of digits for 50ms, they were asked to write down all 12 items. results- 5 items recalled on average which suggests sensory register cannot hold info for long, and it decays rapidly
-
Tulving (1985): suggests there are 3 different types of LTM: episodic- personal events, retrieved consciously and with effort. semantic-our knowledge of the world and is recalled deliberately. procedural- how to do things and is recalled without making a conscious or deliberate effort
strengths: clinical evidence of clive wearing, episodic was severely impaired, but semantic and procedural were intact
negatives: case study- lacks generalisability