Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Memory, IMG_0429 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 45 pp (students)
        
        watched film clips of a car accident then were asked questions abt speed
        
        how fast were recaps going when they hit each other?
      - hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
      - Verb ‘contacted ‘ produced a mean speed of 31.8 mph, ‘smashed ‘ was 40.5 mph’
      - ✅ real life app- L&P’s work shows how drastically EWT can be changed through leading questions which shows how the justice system should be mindful when investigating cases so as to not wrongly prosecute
      - ❌ low mundane realism - video clips were used which lacks the emotion & atmosphere/ anxiety so it’s not generalisable to real life
      - Why?
        Response bias - the idea that the wording of the questions has no effect on memory, but how we answer
        Substitution explanation - wording if the question does effect EWT memory, it interferes and alters our memory
  - - - paired pp watched the same vid of a crime, but filmed so each pp could see events the other couldn’t
        
        both pp discussed what they had seen
        
        then took a recall test
      - 71% of pp who discussed after reported on things that were not in the video they watched, but rather their partner
        control group - there were no discussions and no subsequent errors
        ( MEMORY CONFORMITY)
      - Why?
        Memory contamination - when co-witnesses discuss a crime, they mix information from others with their own memories
        Memory conformity - witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or bcs they believe the others are right
      - ❌ artificial stimuli - low mundane realism ow mundane realism - video clips were used which lacks the emotion & atmosphere/ anxiety so it’s not generalisable to real life
  - - - Yuille & Cutshaw (1986)
        
        Anxiety triggers fight/flight, improves memory as we become more aware of cues
        
        actual crime where gun shop owner shot thief dead, 13 witnesses consented to study
        
        pp interviewed 4-5 months after study
        
        info recalled was compared to ploce info at time
        
        witnesses rated how stressed they felt at time of crime
        
        Witnesses v accurate in their recall, little change
        pps who reported highest levels of anxiety were most accurate
        
        ✅ Christianson & Hubinette- interviewed actual witnesses to bank robberies, both direct victims and bystandr
        ers, found 75% accurate recall across all pp
        
        ❌ C&H interviewed the witnesses long after the event. Many things happened between which researchers couldn’t control eg post event discussion so maybe the lack of control over confounding variables was responsible for (in)accurate recall
    - - Johnson & Scott (1976)
        
        pps sat in a waiting room believing they were going to take part in lab study
        
        low anxiety cond pp heard casual convo then saw a man walk in with grease over his hands with a pen
        high anxiety cond pp heard argument w/ breaking glass, then conf walked in with knife covered in blood ( created anxiety + weapons focus
        
        49% of pp in low cond 33% of high cond could correctly identify the man
        
        ✅ supporting evidence - Valentine & Mesout (2009) used heart rate monitors to divide visitors to the London gpdungeon labyrinth into low + high anxiety groups , high were less accurate in describing & identifying a person
        
        ❌ Pickel (1998) found that recall was poorest when criminal had an unspexpected object in their hand e.g raw chicken instead of dangerous in a hair salon
- - - - Linked by processing
      - A stimuli from the environment passes into the sensory register
      - The two main stores are iconic (coded visually) and echoic (coded acoustically) however, there is one for each sense
      - Material is held here very briefly (less than half a second) but it has a high capacity
      - STM has a short capacity (5-9 items) if coded acoustically, it only lasts around 30 seconds unless we rehearse it
      - Rehearsing moves the information into our long term memory
      - This is potentially permanent with an unlimited capacity, it is coded semantically When we recall information, it has to be brought back from the LTM —> STM. This is called retrieval
    - - They gave participants a list of words to remember
      - Group 1: acoustically similar (cat, hat, rat)
      - Group 2: acoustically dissimilar (cat, road, try)
      - Group 3: semantically similar (big, large, giant)
      - Group 4: semantically dissimilar (trace, big, bowl)
      - Participants were shown their respective list of words and asked to recall them immediately after. They did worst on acoustically similar words. When asked to recall the words 20 minutes after they had seen them, participants did worst on semantically similar words.This suggests that LTM = coded semantically whereas the STM = coded acoustically