Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 1, MEMORY, Gender Bias, Central executive, ENVIRONMENTAL…

- - - - Episodic: Personal, timestamped events in our lives. Requires conscious recall.
      - Semantic: Known to the world (facts). Encyclopaedia, dictionary. Requires conscious recall.
      - Procedural: Muscle memory. Does not require conscious recall.
      - Clive Wearing: World class musician who developed Amnesia onset by previous viral infection, causing him to lose the vast majority of his memory pre-infection.
        
        He recognises his second wife Deborah and greets her as if they haven't met for years.
        
        Knows he has children from his first marriage but does not remember their names
        
        - He can still play the piano.
        
        Strength: Support from case studies.
        E: Episodic memories in HM and CW were both severely impaired. Although, their semantic and procedural memory seemed fairly intact, and could still understand meanings of words, as well as walk, talk and play piano, sing, and read music in CW's case.
        T: Supports Tulving's multiple LTM store model.
        
        Weakness: Unknown patient history
        E: They could not have conducted benchmark tests to understand what the patient's memory was like beforehand and therefore how much their memory abilities have deteriorated. If their digit span was around 3 items, is it worse or potentially the same? The most they can do is talk to family and friends to gauge their previous memory abilties.
        T: This is a major setback of clinical studies as research conclusions about memory may not be valid.
  - - - Weakness: flashbulb memories.
        E: Brown and Kulik found 'flashbulb memories' which are highly detailed and vivid snapshots of moments emotionally arousing news was heard.
        T: MSM does not support this 'flashbulb memories' to be immediately committed to LTM without rehearsal or for different types of rehearsal as Craik and Watkins suggested.
- - - - Weakness: Artificial stimuli.
        E: Low mundane realism as a result of limited personal meaning. Should stimuli in real life be more meaningful, we may code semantically even for STM tasks.
        T: Limited application to real life.
      - Weakness: Volunteer sampling
        E: Contrived by people interested in the study, or people who enjoy/are good at memory games.
        T: Validity of the study is threatened due to demand characteristics.
    - - Strength: Clear distinction between LTM and STM as individual memory stores.
        E: Supports the multi memory model which emphasises both stores as individual.
        T: Provides empirical evidence that two function differently/separately, supporting other cognitive psychological theories that suggests the stores are separate.
    - - STM: Peterson and Peterson (nonsense trigram+count back from abc (rehearsal prevention) for x amount of seconds before recalling) =
        % recall after # seconds:
        3 = 80%
        6 = 50%
        18 = <10%
        
        Weakness: Artificial stimuli.
        E: Recalling consonant syllables do not reflect every day memory tasks, as these are more meaningful.
        T: Lack of external validity.
        
        Strength: However, this may also be useful in real life
        E: This provides insight into student studying routines as it emphasises the importance of having no distractions in order to consolidate information.
        T: There are some real life applications of the study.
        
        Strength: Highly controlled lab settings.
        E: Because it was done under controlled conditions, it decreases the chance of extraneous variables interfering with the study itself.
        T: This increases internal validity
      - LTM: Bahrick et al (American high school student: name free recall, photo identification and photo + name matching) =
        number of years post-graduation:
        15 = with ease
        48 years: less but still considerably much considering they left 48 years ago
        
        Strength: External validity
        E: This is because the researchers investigated meaningful memories (faces, names...) when other memory studies are based on artificial stimuli.
        T: Therefore suggesting that the findings do actually estimate the duration of LTM compared to other studies.
- - - - Difficulty remembering the new password you set over the old one.
        Forward (PRO) Old --> new
    - - Not remembering to use someone's old pronouns over their new ones...
        Backward (RETRO) New --> Old
    - - Weakness: interference is an unusual occurence.
        E: The conditions needed for interference are rare to occur naturally, unlike contrived lab studies, where researchers can stimulate ideal situations with higher degrees of control. By making sure the stimulus material is similar, they prompt interference. This may happen on occasion but not everyday.
        T: Shows that forgetting may be better explained by retrieval failure, which takes credibility and relevance from interference theory.
        
        Weakness: interference can be overcome with cues.
        E: Tulving and Psotka gave ppts lists of categorical words. Average recall was around 70% for the first list, but this number worsened with each new word list. Later
        they did a cued recall test with names of the categories. Recall rose again to 70%.
        T: Shows that interference causes temporary loss of accessibility to material, which may still be in the LTM. Cues can help overcome interferences which was not initially predicted by interference theory.
        
        Strength: evidence of retrograde facilitation.
        E: Coenen & van Luijtelaar: ppts had a list of words, they found that when a list of words were learned AFTER taking Drazepam (anxiety drug), recall a week later was poor compared to placebo group. When the word list was studied before taking Drazepam, the recall was better than placebo.
        T: The drug actually improved recall ability if learned beforehand.
        
        Validity issues: Most studies for interference theory are based in lab settings. Good because of high degrees of control which can show clear links between interference and forgetting, but are artificial and unrealistic procedure.
  - - - Cue = 'trigger' of information that grants access to available memories. Cues are linked by being encoded at the time of learning. Indirect cues may be internal or external.
    - - Context dependent forgetting: Environment in which encoding takes place. This can act as a cue to remembering in the same environment again.
      - State dependent forgetting: internal state of participants when encoding takes place: recall is easier in the same state.
    - - Strength: Research support: Godden and Baddeley, Carter and Cassaday. Substantial range of research support
        E: godden and baddeley: Professional divers learned lists of words either on land or underwater. They were then tested in either the same environment or a different one. Recall was highest (40%) when learning and recall and encoding conditions were identical. Supports context dependent forgetting as memory retrieval is improved when the external context matches the context during encoding
        T: Shows that retrieval failure does occur in real world situations as well as in highly controlled lab settings.
        
        Weakness; Baddeley argues that context effects are not strong.
        E: Difference in context must be strong before context effects are seen, eg. land, water. One room and another aren't that different. Unlikely to result in much forgetting.
        T: Therefore ret. failure due to lack of contextual cues may not explain much of everyday forgetting, reducing validity of theory.
        
        Weakness: Recall vs recognition. Context effects may exponentially depend on type of memory being tested.
        E: Godden and Baddeley's replication of their underwater study in which they did recognition instead of recall. ppts had to say whether or not they recognised a word read to them from a list instead of retrieving it themselves. This showed no context dependent effects in all 4 conditions.
        T: Ret. failure is a limited explanation. Only applies when a person has to recall, not recognise.
- - - - Misleading information: Incorrect information given to witness after event.
        
        Post event discussion: Discussion of event with other witnesses to the same crime. May influence the accuracy of individual accounts of the event.
        
        How does PED effect EWT?
        Memory conformity = Memory unchanged. Gabbert concluded that witnesses tend to go along with each other for social approval or doubt over the correctness of their own memory.
        
        Research: Gabbert et al. Procedure: Each ppt watched videos of the same crime but different povs in pairs, meaning everyone could see different elements that others didnt. Both participants eventually discussed before individually completing a test of recall.
        Findings: 71% of ppts mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in their video but picked them up from other witness accounts. Control group with no discussion had 0%.
        Conclusions: Evidence of memory conformity and how PED can effect EWT.
        
        Weakness: Evidence PED actually alters memory.
        E: Skagerberg & Wright showed ppts film clips. In one the muggers hair was dark brown and in one it was light brown. Post discussion in pairs, each having seen different versions. Did not conform to what the other cowitness said, but instead a blend between the two. So not dark or light, medium brown.
        T: Suggests that the memory itself is distorted through contamination by PED rather than memory conformity.
        
        How does PED effect EWT?
        Memory contamination = memory changed. Happens when co-witnesses discuss a crime and testimonies become distorted because due to combined misinformation from other witnesses.
        
        Leading questions: Suggestive of a certain answer due to phrasing.
        
        Why does this impact EWT?
        Response bias explanation: Memory unchanged. Wording has no real effect on memory, instead impacting how they answer. Eg. 'smashed' encouraged them to give a higher number estimate.
        Confabulation = Adding false details to a memory.
        
        Loftus and Palmer: Leading question
        
        Procedure: 45 students watched a film clip of a car accident. They asked one critical question during the interview to each group who had a different verb: "how fast was the car going when it hit/contacted/bumped/collided/smashed into the other car?"
        Results: Verb 'contacted' resulted in 31-38 mph. 'smashed' resulted in 40-45 mph.
        Conclusions: The leading question impacted the bias of eyewitness recall.
        
        Loftus and Palmer: Substitution explanation
        
        Procedure: 150 student ppts showed multi-vehicle car accident. 3 conditions: 'hit', 'smashed', last condition was not asked about vehicle speed. All ppts were asked a week later about broken glass (there was no broken glass in the film).
        Results: smashed: 16 - yes, 34 - no
        hit: 7 - yes, 43 - no
        not asked speed: 6 - yes, 44 - no.
        Conclusions: Effect is not just due to response-bias, because leading questions actually changed memories of witnesses. Important for police interviews and court testimonies.
        
        Why does this impact EWT?
        Substitution explanation: Memory changed. Wording does have an effect on eyewitness memory. Ppts who heard 'smashed' likely reported seeing broken glass (there was none).
        
        Weakness: Evidence against substitution.
        E: Sutherland and Hayne showed ppts a video clip, during the subsequent interview with a misleading question, their accounts were more detailed for salient details rather than peripheral ones. These memories of central details are more resistant to misleading questions.
        T: Implies that original memories of central details are resistant, outcome not predicted by substitution explanation.
        
        Strength: Real World Application.
        E: Loftus believes that leading questions have a severe effect on memory that police officers must be careful about phrasing questions during interviews. Psychologists are also asked as expert witnesses in court trials and explain EWT to juries.
        T: Shows positive impact of psychology on the legal system by protecting innocent people from miscarriage of justice.
        
        Weakness: This may be affected by problems in supporting research.
        E: Watching film clips in a lab is different to experiencing a real life event (less stressful). Foster et al highlighted that witnesses' account matter more than ppts (ppts may feel less motivated to give accurate accounts).
        T: EWT may be more dependable than many studies suggest
      - Anxiety: 2nd major factor impacting EWT (misleading being 1st).
        
        Anxiety is a state of physical and emotional arousal. Worried thoughts/feelings, tension, physical changes such as heart rate and sweating. All of the above are normal reactions to stressful situations but can affect detail accuracy of EWT.
        
        Negative effect on recall: Weapon focus. tunnel-vision focus on weapon reduces witness attention to other details.
        
        Johnson & Scott: Weapon focus.
        Procedure: Ppts were sat in a waiting room thinking theyre going to a lab study.
        Condition 1: low anxiety, heard a conversation in the next room before a man walks in with a pen and ink on his hands.
        Condition 2: high anxiety, heard a heated argument and sound of breaking glass. Man walks in with knife and bloodied hands.
        Findings: ppts were then asked to pick the man out of 50 pictures. 49% picked correctly from condition 1 (pen), 33% picked correctly from condition 2 (knife).
        Conclusion: Tunnel theory of memory argues that people have enhanced memory for central events (aka knife). Weapon focus as a result of anxiety may have this effect.
        
        Positive effect on recall: Fight/Flight response
        When fight or flight is triggered during a stressful situation, alertness is triggered and we are more aware of situational cues which improves witness account.
        
        Yuille & Cutshall: 0
        Procedure: Real shooting in Canada, shop owner shot a thief dead. 21 witnesses, 13 of which took part in this study. Interviewed 4-5 months after.
        Findings: Compared to police interviews, their accounts 5 months later were hardly different. All of the major details of their reports remained the same and only minor details, including estimates of age, height and weight changed.
        Conclusions: Refutes Loftus' idea that memory is worsened with anxiety and therefore do not represent real-life cases of extreme anxiety.
        
        Yerkes Dodson Law: Emotional arousal and performance (inverted U). Deffenbacher: Reviewed 21 studies of EWT then used the YD Law to explain contradictory findings.
        When we witness a crime, we are emotionally and physically aroused. Lower levels of anxiety produce lower levels of accuracy. This increases with anxiety, but only up to the optimal level, which if surpassed, recall suffers a decline.
- - - - CAPACITY: Unlimited
        CODING: Semantic
        DURATION: Several years, potentially permanent
        FORGETTING: retrieval failure