Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

MEMORY AO1 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Peterson + Peterson
      - tested 24 students in 8 trials
      - given consonant syllable + 3 digit no.
      - count back from no. until told to stop
      - stop at various intervals (3,6,9,12,15 or 18 secs)
      - after 3 secs average recall = 80%
      - after 18 secs average recall = 3%
      - STM duration may be about 18 secs unless info repeated over + over
    - - Bahrick et al.
        
        studied 392 American students aged 17 to 74
        
        tested recall
        
        photo recognition from 50 photos from high school yearbook
        
        free recall recalling names from graduation class
        
        photo recognition
        
        within 15 yrs = 90% accurate
        
        after 48 yrs = 70% accurate
        
        free recall
        
        within 15 yrs = 60% accurate
        
        after 48 yrs = 30% accurate
        
        LTM duration may be up to a lifetime from some material
  - - - group 1: acoustically similar
      - group 2: acousitcally dissimilar
      - group 3: semantically similar
      - group 4: semantically dissimilar
    - - recall worse for acoustically similar words
      - info coded acoustically
      - confused by acoustic similarities
    - - recall worse for semantically similar words
      - info coded semantically
      - confused by semantic similarites
  - - - digit span
      - participants given random string of digits
      - each time recalled correctly researcher added another digit until recall became incorrect
      - mean for numbers = 9.3
      - mean for letters = 7.3
    - - noted things come in 7's
      - span about 7 + or - 2 items
    - - reviewed other research
      - capacity 4 + or - 1 chunk
- - - - passive store
      - stores what we hear
    - - retains what we hear + read via maintenance rehearsal
  - - - stores visual data
    - - records arrangement of objects in visual field
- - - - old learning interferes with new memory
    - - new learning interferes with old memory
    - - studied retroactive interference + effects of similarity
        
        6 groups of participants learnt 10 words until 100% accurate then learned new list
        
        group 1: synonyms
        
        group 2: antonyms
        
        group 3: unrelated words
        
        group 4: consonant syllable
        
        group 5: 3 digit no.
        
        group 6: no new list (control condition)
        
        synonyms produced worst recall of original list
        
        control condition had best recall
        
        shows interference strongest when memories similar
  - - - internal cues
      - psychological + physiological states
      - Carter + Cassady
        
        gave antihistamine drugs with mild sedative affect to participants
        
        1: learn on drug - recall not on drug
        
        2: learn on drug - recall not on drug
        
        3: learn not on drug - recall on drug
        
        4: learn not on drug - recall not on drug
        
        in conditions where internal state different at learning + recall, performance was significantly worse
        
        cues absent = more forgetting
    - - external cues
      - environmental variables
      - Godden + Baddeley
        
        studied deep sea divers who work underwater to see if training on land helped or hindered work underwater
        
        1: learn on land - recall on land
        
        2: learn on land - recall underwater
        
        4: learn underwater - recall underwater
        
        3: learn underwater - recall on land
        
        accurate recall 40% lower in non-matching conditions
        
        external cues at learning different from cues available at recall = retrieval failure
    - - Tulving reviewed research into retrieval failure + discovered pattern
        
        if the cues are different at the time of encoding and then the time of recall, you'll experience forgetting
- - - - a question which suggests a certain answer due to the way it's phrased
      - Loftus + Palmer
        
        investigation into effect of leading q's on accuracy of EWT
        
        45 participants watched film clips of car accidents and answered "How fast were cars going when they hit each other?"
        
        5 groups, each given different verb in critical q
        
        hit
        
        contacted
        
        bumped
        
        collided
        
        smashed
        
        verb 'contacted' = mean estimated speed of 31.8mph
        
        verb 'smashed' = mean estimated speed of 40.8mph
        
        leading q biased eyewitness recall as verb 'smashed' suggested faster speed than 'contacted'
        
        Response Bias
        
        wording of q influences answer (has no enduring effect/memory not altered)
        
        Follow Up Study
        
        150 participants reviewed video of car crash
        
        50 asked key q with verb 'smashed', 50 with 'hit' + 50 in control condition not asked speed
        
        1 week later asked if they saw any broken glass as key q (there wasn't any)
        
        16 yeses in 'smashed' condition, 7 yeses in 'hit' condition + 6 in control
        
        twice as likely in 'smashed' condition to say yes
        
        Substitution Explanation
        
        wording of leading q changes participants memory
    - - sharing accounts when there's more than one witness can effect on recall
      - Gabbert
        
        investigation into effect of post even discussion on accuracy of EWT
        
        60 stuents from Aberdeen Uni + 60 older adults from local area
        
        watched video of girl stealing money from wallet
        
        tested individually (control group) or in pairs (co-witness group)
        
        co-witness group told they all watched same video but only 1 had actually seen girl stealing
        
        co-witness group discussed crime
        
        all participants completed questionnaire on crime
        
        71% of witnesses in co-witness group recalled info they hadn't actually seen
        
        60% said girl guilty despite not seeing her commit crime
        
        shows issue of post event discussion + powerful effect on accuracy of EWT
        
        0 inaccuracies in control condition
        
        Memory Contamination
        
        witnesses combine (mis)info from other witnesses into their own memory
        
        Memory Conformity
        
        witnesses go along with each other for social approval or because they believe other witnesses are right (actual memory unchanged)
  - - - investigated -ve effect of anxiety
      - low anxiety condition
        
        while in waiting room, heard casual conversation in next room then man walked out with pen + oily hand
      - high anxiety condition
        
        overheard heated argument + sound of breaking glass then man walked out with blood covered knife
      - 49% who saw man in low anxiety condition were able to identify him
      - only 33% could identify man in high anxiety condition
      - Tunnel Theory
        
        anxiety narrows attention onto one aspect of scene (e.g. weapon) so won't be able to recall much else
    - - investigated +ve effect of anxiety
      - reinterviewed 13/21 witnesses to gun shop robbery where owner shot thief 6 times + thief died
      - interviewed 4-5 months after incident
      - interviews compared with original interview
      - accuracy determined by details reported in each account
      - witnesses rated how stressed they'd felt at time of incident + if they'd suffered any emotional problems
      - witnesses very accurate in accounts
      - those who reported higher stress had highest accuracy (88% for stressed, 75% for less stressed)
      - suggests anxiety doesn't have detrimental effect on accuracy of EWT in real world context + may even enhance accuracy
    - - Yerkes-Dodson Law
      - shoes relationship between emotional arousal + performance
    - - reviewed 21 studies of EWT + noted contradictory effects of anxiety
      - used Yerkes-Dodsonlaw to explain findings
      - there's an optimal anxiety level that results in max. accuracy + any more/less emotional arousal will cause accuracy to decline
  - - - criticised standard police interview
      - argued EWT could be improved by using better techniques when interviewing
      - recommended techniques used should be based on psychological insights into how memory works
    - - witness encouraged to include every detail
      - seemingly trivial details may be important + can trigger other important memories
    - - witness returns to crime scene in their mind + imagines environment + emotion at time
    - - recall events in different order from original sequence
      - prevents people reporting expectations of how event must have happened
      - harder to lie retelling in different order
    - - recall incident from other peoples perspective
      - disrupts effect of expectations + effect of schema on recall
    - - Fisher at al
        
        developed additional elements of CI to focus on social dynamics of interaction
        
        e.g. interviewer needs to know when to hold eye contact and when not to
        
        enhanced CI also includes ideas such as reducing eyewitness anxiety, minimising distractions, getting witness to speak slowly + asking open ended questions