Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Memory, Factors affecting Eyewitness testimony - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Sensory memory (SM)
        
        Attention
        
        Short term memory (STM)
        
        Elaborative rehearsal
        
        Long term memory (LTM)
        
        Retrival
        
        2 more items...
        
        Maintenance rehearsal
        
        Information retrival
        
        Echoic Store (audio)
        
        Coded acoustically
        
        Iconic Store (visual)
        
        Coded visually
      - e.g: Sound of a lawnmower
    - - If elaborative rehearsal occurs, the information will transfer into the LTM. LTM codes semantically, has an unlimited capacity and duration lasts a lifetime
- - - - Visio-Spatial Sketchpad
        
        Inner eye
        
        Sets up mental images. Good for planning spatial tasks. e.g: planning room decorations
        
        Limited capacity (3-4 objects)
        
        Visual data is temporarily stored in the visual cache
        
        Arrangement of objects in visual field is stored in the inner scribe
      - Phonological Loop
        
        Phonological Store
        
        Inner ear
        
        Deals with perception of sounds we hear. Especially speech
        
        Articulatory Loop
        
        Inner voice
        
        Allows words that are heard/read to be stored through rehearsal (by silently repeating them)
        
        Deals with auditory information (codes acoustically)
        
        Rehearses information to prevent decay
    - - Delegates tasks to slave systems
        
        CE takes over when tasks are very demanding
  - - - Baddeley showed participants had more difficulty doing two visual tasks e.g: tracking a light and describing the letter F than doing a visual & verbal task.
        
        Increased difficulty because both visual tasks are competing for the same slave system. When doing a visual & verbal task, there is no competition, suggesting that the VSS just processes visual information
    - - Baddely showed that ptts were able to recall short words better than long words. Evidence for limited capacity of articulatory process - 2 seconds
        
        longer words can't fit on the loop so cannot be rehearsed and decay. Supports complex nature of STM and the existence of a separate auditory store
        
        Removing WLE
        
        Ptts are given a articulatory suppression task e.g saying "the, the, the" whilst reading the words
        
        Repetitive tasks tie up the articulatory loop and means you can't rehearse the shorter words more quickly than the longer ones. Word length effect disappears
    - - Suggests that his phonological loop was damaged but other memory areas were in tact
        
        Supports existence of separate visual and acoustic store, unlike the MSM which says STM is a unitary store
      - Forgetting was particularly worse with verbal sound (letters) but not meaningful sounds (phone rings)
    - - Some psychologists believe it may consist of separate components, meaning WMM has not yet been fully explained
- - - - Often starts out as episodic memories as we acquire the knowledge through personal experience
        
        During transition to semantic store, memory loses an association to particular events
        
        These memories aren't 'time-stamped' meaning we don't always remember when we learnt them
        
        Memories in this store can be consciously inspected and retrieved with effort. Said to be declarative
  - - - Can be recalled without conscious awareness or effort as they are non-declarative
        
        Can become automatic and we don't really need to think about doing them e.g: riding a bike
  - - - includes 'time-stamped' memories of events, people, objects and place involved i.e: context & emotions of the event
        
        Memories in this store can be consciously inspected and retrieved with effort. Said to be declarative
  - - - Ptts asked to perform different memory tasks whilst being scanned
        
        Episodic & semantic memories were both recalled in the pre-frontal cortex.
        
        Left prefrontal cortex recalls semantic memories
        
        Right prefrontal cortex recalls episodic memories
        
        Shows that there are physically different types of LTM stores in the brain
    - - His episodic memories were severely impaired from amnesia.
        
        However, his procedural memories were in tact as he could still play piano to a professional standard
        
        Supports Tulvings view that there are different memory types and stores in the LTM, as one can be damaged and not the other
    - - Very difficult to generalise the findings on different LTM memory stores to the target population
        
        Lack of external validity limits the value of insight such clinical research gives us into memory
    - - Suggests episodic and semantic memories are stored together in the same LTM store
        
        LTM might be in 2 stores: Declarative (memories that can be recalled consciously), Non-Declarative e.g: procedural (memories that can be not consciously recalled)
- - - - In both types, forgetting was worse if memories are similar
        
        Researchers gave ptts 10 words to remember. They were then given another list of words to remember (1/6 different types).
        
        Memory of the original list differed greatly depending on the 2nd list given. e.g: If synonyms were on the 2nd list (instead of numbers), this produced the worst recall
        
        This shows that interferences is strongest if the materials are similar
    - - e.g: Trying to remember the model of your old car but remembering the model of the new car
      - Muller (1990) showed that by giving participants an intervening task before recalling a list of nonsense syllables they had previously learnt, memory of the syllables was much worse compared to the group that were not given the intervening task.
        
        This is because the intervening task interfered with what had been previously learnt
    - - Underwood (1957) showed that as more lists of words were given to participants (10 vs 1), the worse their recall.
        
        participants who were given 10 lists were 20% accurate. Those with 1 list were 70% accurate
        
        This is explained by proactive interference because each new list makes it harder to learn the next list
      - e.g: Remembering the model of your old car so it's hard to remember the new car
  - - - Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP):
        
        If the cues are present during learning (encoding) are also available during retrieval then we will remember
        
        If cues available during encoding and retrieval are different then forgetting will occur
        
        When we learn information, we also remember:
        
        Environmental context: Where we were at the time
        
        Emotional state: How we felt at the time of learning
        
        Being reminded of a particular place or mood can act as a trigger/cue to help access memory
      - Context-dependent forgetting:
        
        Godden & Baddeley asked scuba divers to remember a set of words either on land or underwater
        
        4 experimental conditions:
        
        Water --> Land
        
        Water --> Water
        
        Land --> Water
        
        Findings:
        
        Recall was 40% lower when the learning context did not match retrieval context
        
        1 more item...
        
        Land --> Land
      - State-dependent forgetting:
        
        Goodwin asked male participants to remember words either when they were drunk or sober
        
        Recall words 24 hours later when they were either drunk or sober
        
        Findings:
        
        Information learnt while being drunk was less available when sober
        
        Shows that different mental state cues results in retrieval failure
  - - - Cause and effect relationship can be established between IV and DV (memory ability), increasing internal validity
        
        Weakness: Lacks ecological validity as setting and memory tasks are artificial. Difficult to generalise findings about interference as an explanation for forgetting beyond the study setting
    - - Accurate recall from players of which teams they played in the season depended on number of games they played in between, not how long ago
    - - Some people are less affected by proactive interference than others
        
        Kane (2000) showed that people that had a greater working memory span were less susceptible to proactive interference.
        
        Further tests showed that having a greater working memory span meant having greater resources to consciously control processing and counteract effects of proactive interference.
  - - - Abernethy found that students who took their exam in the same room as they had learnt in performed best
        
        Smith suggested that by imagining the room where you learnt the material was sometimes just as effective as being in the same room
        
        Cognitive Interviews use context reinstatement where eyewitnesses are told to place themselves back at the scene of the crime.
        
        Found to have significantly improved recall and shows importance of context-dependant cues on memory retrieval
    - - Rooms are normally quite similar to one another so it's unrealistic for people to have drastically different contexts (like onshore vs underwater)
        
        Therefore contextual cues don't explain much forgetting
    - - Baddeley repeated the underwater experiment but this time with a recognition word test instead of a recall word test
        
        No context-dependent effect was found. Performance was the same regardless of where ptts studied the words
        
        Therefore presence/absence of cues only affects memory when it's tested in a certain way
    - - Interference explanation found that in free recall, the more lists a participant is given, the worse their performance (retroactive interference)
        
        However, if ptts are given cued recall (animal - wasp), effects of interference disappeared
        
        70% of words could be recalled regardless of how many lists were given
        
        Shows that information is available but cannot be retrieved
        
        Shows retrieval failure is a more important explanation of forgetting than interference
- - - - Jacob's digit span test: Found average span for digits was 9.3 for items, 7.3 for letters
        
        Magic number: 7 +/- 2
        
        Miller concluded that span of immediate memory is 7 items
        
        Chunking can help to improve memory by grouping things into units
        
        AO3
        
        Weakness: STM limited
        
        1 more item...
        
        Weakness: Individual differences
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Peterson & Peterson: Trigrams
        
        Recall combinations of 3 letters. Interval between each trigram increases
        
        Rehearsal is prevented by making ptts count backwards
        
        Findings
        
        3 seconds --> 80% recall
        
        18% --> less than 10% recall
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Acoustically
        
        Baddeley gave 4 groups different words to remember:
        
        Acoustically similar
        
        Words sound the same
        
        e.g: cat, cab, can
        
        Acoustically dissimilar
        
        Words sound different
        
        e.g: pit, few, cow
        
        Findings
        
        1 more item...
        
        Semantically similar
        
        Words with same meaning
        
        e.g: big, large, huge
        
        Semantically dissimilar
        
        Words with different meaning
        
        e.g: bad, taste, huge
      - Visually
      - Semantically
- - - - 4 Techniques
        
        Report everything
        
        Reinstate the context
        
        Reverse order
        
        Changed persepctive
        
        Put ptts in the shoes of someone else at the scene. Describe what happened from their point of view
        
        1 more item...
        
        Report what happened in reverse to vary the route through memory in order to increase recall
        
        Helps prevent pre-existing expectations influencing memory
        
        1 more item...
        
        Asks ptts to place themselves back at the scene. To recall what they were doing, feelings at the time, weather, who they were with etc.
        
        Helps control context dependent forgetting
        
        e.g: Think about that day, what were you doing, what was the weather like, what objects were there
        
        Recall everything, even if it seems irrelevant. Trivial items can act as trigger to memory
        
        e.g: Please do not hold back any information you have. I'm interested in anything you can remember
    - - Questions were short (yes/no)
        
        Order and sequencing often did not match the witnesses own image of the event
        
        Police questioners often interrupted the witness not allowing them to expand on their answers, often talking more than the witnesses
  - - - Kohnken (1999) did a meta-analysis of 53 studies
        
        Found 34% increase in correct information gathered using CI compared to standard interview
        
        Bull (2002) found that 'report everything' & 'reinstate context' were particularly effective when combined
        
        Shows some aspects of CI were more effective than others
        
        CI can now take up less time than the full version
    - - CI found to be more effective in interviewing older EWTs
        
        Because CI need ETWs to describe all details
        
        Older ptts are encouraged to mention details which may not be appropriate to mention in a standard interview
        
        Fisher (1996) gave ptts both CI & standard interview
        
        Older men (72 years +) remembered significantly more details of a simulated crime than younger men (22 years)
    - - EWT may increase quantity but not necessarily quality
        
        Kohnken (1999) found 81% increase in correct information
        
        BUT he also found 61% increase in false-positives when using CI compared to standard interview
    - - CI takes more time than is usually available
        
        Officers are also required to have specialised training to use CI
        
        Police departments may not have time & resources to train their officers
        
        CI might not be properly used & is not used by some police departments
- - - - When F or F response is triggered, alertness is increased, improving our memory
        
        Christianson & Hubinette (1993)
        
        58 real witnesses interviewed 4-15 months after bank robberies
        
        Witnesses were either victims (high anxiety) or bystanders (low anxiety)
        
        Memory was 75% accurate overall . But witnesses who were most anxious had the most accurate recall
  - - - Prevents us from paying attention to important cues, causing poor recall
        
        Weapon Focus Theory
        
        Anxiety caused by the sight of the weapon makes eye witnesses pay attention to weapon instead of the attacker
        
        Johnson & Scott (1976)
        
        Field experiment. Independent-measures design
        
        Ptts sat in a waiting room when they heard an argument in the next room
        
        1 more item...
  - - - 10 studies suggested higher arousal improved EWT
        
        11 studies suggested lower EWT accuracy
        
        Yerkes-Dodson Effect: Increased arousal imporves EWT accuracy until an optimal point/threshold. Too much arousal will reduce EWT accuracy
- - - - Loftus & Palmer (1974) investigated whether the phrasing of a question can affect participants' memory of an event
        
        Procedure
        
        45 American students were shown a video of a car crash and where asked 5 questions:
        
        "How fast were the cars travelling when they COLLIDED each other?"
        
        "How fast were the cars travelling when they HIT each other?"
        
        "How fast were the cars travelling when they SMASHED each other?"
        
        "How fast were the cars travelling when they CONTACTED each other?"
        
        "How fast were the cars travelling when they BUMPED each other?"
        
        Findings
        
        Ptts guessed higher speeds when they heard "smashed," (average guess: 40.5 mph) vs "contacted," (average guess: 31.8 mph)
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Gabbert (2003) investigated conformity & post event discussion's effects on EWT accuracy
        
        Procedure
        
        Pairs of ptts were shown a video of the same event but at 2 different angles
        
        Some pairs were allowed to discuss what they saw
        
        Control group not allowed to discuss
        
        Findings
        
        71% of pairs who discussed the event mistakenly recalled items picked up in their discussions
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Justice systems are now aware how unreliable EWT is
        
        Police are more careful not to use leading questions. Led to development of cognitive interview
        
        Advancements in DNA forensics show that mistaken EWT is the single largest factor to false convictions of innocent people
    - - There are differences in how different age groups respond to misleading information
        
        Rhodes (2006) found that people aged 18-25 & 35-45 were more accurate in EWT than older years (55-78)
        
        Own age bias: All eyewitnesses were better at recognising their own age group
        
        Most EWT studies use younger people as it's assumed that they will have better memory
        
        This is NOT TRUE. Especially if younger people are being asked to identify older people
    - - Tasks are considered too artificial
        
        Watching a film of a crash is very different to actually witnessing one
        
        There's often more stress & emotion involved in a real life crash
        
        Foster (1994) found that ptts who thought watched a real life robbery had more accurate recall as they believed their responses would influence the trial
        
        Loftus's findings are quite pessimistic so we should be careful when generalising the findings
        
        May not reflect EWT in real life
    - - Ptts could have picked up on clues from the researcher on how to behave
        
        Natural behaviour changes so it makes value of insight the lab experiments give us into the reliability of EWT questionable