Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Memory Evaluations, Coding, Capacity, Duration, :star:, :question:, :star:…
Memory Evaluations
Coding, Capacity, and Duration
Separate Memory Stores :check:
Baddeley's study identified clear differences between two different memory stores
- Later research showed some exceptions to his findings
- The idea STM uses mostly acoustic coding and LTM, semantic has lasted
An important step into understanding memory, leading to MSM
Artificial Stimuli :red_cross:
Baddeley's study used quite artificial stimuli instead of meaningful
- The word lists had no personal meaning to ppts, so findings may not tell us about coding in everyday life
- When processing meaningful info, STM may use semantic
Suggests findings have limited application
Not so many Chunks :red_cross:
Miller may have overestimated STM capacity
- Cowan reviewed other research and concluded the capacity of STM is 4±1 chunks
Suggests the lower of Miller's estimate (5) is more appropriate than 7
A Valid Study :check:
Jacob's study has been replicated
- The study is old, they usually lack control (CV)
- Jacob's findings have been confirmed in better controlled studies
Suggests Jacob's study is a valid test of digit span
Meaningless Stimuli in STM study :red_cross:
Peterson and Peterson's study had artificial stimuli
- We sometimes are required to remember useless material
- Recalling consonant syllables doesn't reflect real life memory tasks
Study lacked external validity
High External Validity :check:
Bahrick's study has high external validity
- Researchers investigated meaningful memories (names and faces)
- LTM studies with meaningless pictures had lower recall
Bahrick's findings reflect a more 'real' estimate of duration of LTM
Multi-Store Model
Research Support :check:
Support from studies showing STM and LTM are different
- Baddeley found words with similar sound are mixed up in STM, similar meanings are mixed up in LTM
- Support comes from studies on capacity and duration
Studies show STM and LTM are independent stores
Counterpoint :red_cross:
Many studies supporting MSM used useless things
- We form memories based of useful info
- Digits, Letters (Jacobs), words (Baddeley) and consonant syllables (P&P) were used in studies
MSM may not be a valid model of how everyday memory works
More than one STM Store :red_cross:
Evidence of more than one STM store
- Shallice and Warrington studied KF, a client with amnesia
- KF's STM for digits was poor when read aloud. Recall was better reading digits to himself. Shows there may be a ST store for non-verbal sounds
Evidence suggests MSM is wrong claiming only one STM store
Elaborative Rehearsal :red_cross:
Prolonged rehearsal isn't needed for LTM transfer
- MSM says amount of rehearsal is most important for LTM transfer - prolonged rehearsal
- Craik and Watkins found elaborative rehearsal (linking info to existing knowledge) can transfer to LT storage so prolonged rehearsal isn't necessary
Suggests MSM doesn't fully explain how LT storage is achieved
-
Working Memory Model
Clinical Evidence :check:
Support from the KF study
- After injury, he had bad STM auditory ability but fine visual ability
- His recall was better when reading rather than hearing - KF's phonological loop was harmed but VSS was intact
Supports the existence of separate visual and acoustic stores
Counterpoint :red_cross:
Unclear whether other cognitive impairments which may have affected memory task performance
- The trauma from the motorcycle accident may have also affected his natural cognitive performance
Challenges evidence from clinical studies where injuries affected the same systems
Dual-Task Performance :check:
Dual-task performances support existence of VSS
- Baddeley's ppts did visual and verbal tasks at the same time, performance on each was similar carried out separately, but declined when both tasks were the same type
- Both visual tasks compete for the same system, but verbal/visual don't
Shows there must be a separate systems for verbal and visual
Nature of Central Executive :red_cross:
Lack of clarity over nature of CE
- Baddeley recognised this when he said 'The CE is the most important but least understood component'.
- The CE needs to be more specified that for 'attention', some believe there may be subcomponents
The CE is an unsatisfactory component and challenges WMM integrity
Interference
Real-World Interference :check:
Evidence of interference in more everyday situations
- Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall teams played in the season. They all played over 1 season but some players missed match due to injury
- Players playing the most games (most interference) had worse recall
Shows interference can operate in some real-world situations, increasing validity
Counterpoint :red_cross:
Conditions for interference are quite rare so is unusual
- Lab studies have high control over conditions
- Two memories must be similar for interference which may not happen often
Suggests most forgetting may be explained by other theories like retrieval failure from lack of cues
Interference and Cues :red_cross:
Inference is temporary and can be overcome with cues
- Tulving and Psotka gave ppts categorical lists of words, one list at a time. Recall averaged 70% on first list but declined with additional lists
- At the end, ppts were given a cue recalled test. Recall rose again to 70%
Shows inference causes temporary loss of accessibility to LTM info (not predicted)
Support from Drug Studies :check:
Evidence of retrograde facilitation
- Psychologists gave ppts lists of words and later asked them to recall the list, assuming intervening experiences act as interference.
- Words learned under diazepam worsened recall (week later) but heightened performance when list was learnt before taking drug. Suggested drug prevents new info reaching processing brain parts so can't interfere retroactively
Shows that forgetting can be due to interference, reducing interference reduces forgetting
Retrieval Faliure
Real-World Application :check:
Retrieval cues can help to overcome forgetting in everyday situations
- Baddeley suggests cues are worth paying attention to, despite strength.
- When we have trouble remembering things, we can return to the original environment (forgetting what you go into a room for situation)
Shows how research can remind us of strategies to improve recall
Research Support :check:
Range of research that supports retrieval failure explanation
- Godden/Baddeley and Carter/Cassaday show effect of lack of cues
- Memory researchers argue retrieval failure may be the main reason for forgetting in LTM
Evidence shows retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations and lab conditions
Counterpoint :red_cross:
Baddeley argues context effects aren't very strong
- Contexts have to be very different for an effect to be seen. Its hard to find an environment as different as land and water
- But learning something in one room and recalling in another may have less forgetting due to similarity
Retrieval failure to lack of cues may not explain everyday forgetting
Recall VS Recognition :red_cross:
Context effects may depend on type of memory tested
- Godden and Baddeley replicated underwater study with recognition test instead of recall - whether they recognised the word instead of recall
- When tested, there was no context-dependent effect on recognition. Performance was the same
Suggests retrieval failure is limited explanation for forgetting because it replies to recalling rather than recognition
Misleading Information
Real - World Application :check:
It has important practical uses in the criminal justice system
- Loftus believes misleading questions have a distorting effect on memory and questions need to be phrased carefully when interviewing
- Psychologists are sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in trials to explain the limits of EWT
Shows that psychologists can help improve the legal system and protect innocent people from unreliable EWT
Counterpoint :red_cross:
Practical applications may be affected by research issues
- Loftus and Palmer's study was done in a lab, less stressful
- Psychologists argue EWT has real world consequences, but ppt responses do not - less motivated to be accurate
Researchers may be too pessimistic about effects of MI, EWT may be more dependable that suggested
Evidence against Substitution :red_cross:
EWT is more accurate for some events than others
- Ppts were shown a clip and asked misleading questions, recall was more accurate for central event details
- Ppts attention was likely focused on main features so memories were quite resistant to misleading info
Suggests original memories for central details were undistorted, not predicted
Evidence challenging Memory Conformity :red_cross:
Evidence that post-discussion actually alters EWT
- Skagerberg and Wright showed ppts film clips, one version had a mugger with dark brown hair, the other had light brown
- Ppts discussed in pairs, and when interviewed mostly reported blend of what they discussed (Hair being 'medium-brown')
Suggests memory itself is distorted through memory contamination not conformity
Anxiety
Unusualness not Anxiety :red_cross:
Weapon focus may have been due to surprise not fear
- Pickel did an experiment with scissors, a handgun, wallet, or raw chicken as hand-held items in a hair salon vid
- EW accuracy was much poorer in high unusualness conditions (handgun, chicken)
Suggests weapon focus is due to unusualness not anxiety so tells us nothing about effects of anxiety on EWT
Support for Negative Effects :check:
Valentine and Mesout study supports weapon focus effect on recall
- They used a heart rate to create a high anxiety and low anxiety group
- Anxiety clearly disrupted ppts abilities to recall details about the London Dungeons actors
Suggests high anxiety levels do have a negative effect on immediate EW recall of stressful events
Support for Positive Effects :check:
Evidence showing anxiety can have positive recall effects
- Christianson and Hübinette interviewed 58 bank robbery witnesses in Sweden. Some were directly involved, some were bystanders
- Recall was over 75% more accurate in all witnesses. Direct victims (assumed most anxious) were most accurate
Findings from real crimes confirm anxiety can enhance EW accuracy
Counterpoint :red_cross:
The ppts were interviewed months after with no control of variables
- The effects of anxiety may have been overwhelmed by other factors and hard to assess at the time of the interview
Possible that a lack of confounding variables may be the cause of the findings
Cognitive Interview
Support for the effectiveness of CI :check:
Evidence it works
- Köhnken combined 55 studies comparing CI and ECI with a standard interview
- CI had a 41% increase of accurate info, only 4 studies showed no difference
Shows CI is an effective technique to help witnesses recall info stored in memory
Counterpoint :red_cross:
Köhnken also found an increase in inaccurate information
- It was a big issue in ECI, which produced most incorrect details
- CI may sacrifice quality for quantity
Means police officers should treat EW evidence from (E)CI with caution
Some Elements may be more useful :red_cross:
Not all elements are equally useful
- Milne and Bull found each technique alone got more information than a standard interview.
- Report everything and Reinstate the Context produced better recall than any other combination, confirming ideas that some were more useful than others
Casts doubt on the credibility of the overall cognitive interview
The CI is Time-Consuming :red_cross:
Police may hesitate to use CI as it takes more time and training
- More time is needed to establish a relationship and allow witness to relax
- CI also needs special training which forces may not have the resources for
Suggests the complete CI is not a realistic police method to use and may be better to focus on key elements
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-