Cognitive

Cognitive

1. Multi-Store Model of Memory

   • STM
     • Encodes acoustically
       • Baddeley- pps had difficulty remembering acoustically similar words in STM
     • Capacity of 7±2
       • Miller- people can cope with counting seven dots flashed onto screen, but not many more
       • Capacity can be increased by chunking
     • Duration of up to 30s
       • Peterson and Peterson- pps asked to remember consonant syllable followed by 3-digit number. Pps asked to count backwards from number- prevents rehearsal. Found 30s was about limit
   • LTM
     • Encodes Semantically
       • Baddeley- pps had difficulty remembering semantically similar words in LTM
     • Capacity- potentially unlimited
     • Duration- anything up to a lifetime
       • Barrack found that 48 years on, people were about 70% accurate at putting names to faces
   • Supporting evidence
     • Glanzer and Cunitz- read out list of words, pps asked to recall as many as poss. Recalled more from start and end- supports idea of separate STM (recency effect) and LTM (primacy effect)
   • Weaknesses
     • Glanzer and Cunitz lacks ecological validity
     • Evidence mostly from case studies

2. Working Memory Model

   • Components
     • Central Executive
       • Directs attention to particular tasks, and distributes information to the different stores
       • Has a limited capacity
     • Phonological Loop
       • Processes auditory information
       • Phonological Store- Auditory info can only be stored for 2s
       • Articulatory process- Auditory info silently rehearsed here so not forgotten
     • Visio-Spatial Sketchpad
       • Used to plan spatial tasks and visual info
       • Visual Cache- holds visual info
       • Inner Scribe- deals with spatial realations
   • Supporting Evidence
     • Baddeley- pps asked to remember list of words whilst doing verbal reasoning task. If STM unitary with 7±2 capacity as task 1 reached 7 apps couldn't do take 2, but they could
     • LH performed better on spacial than visual tasks (Farah et al)- suggests separate spacial ad visual
   • Weaknesses
     • Supporting evidence from brain damaged patients - no before and after comparisons. don't know if brain functioned normally before. Cant be sure if chnges because of damage. Brain injury is dramatic- could have caused changes
     • Central executive explanation too vague- too simplistic- wmm fails to explain everything

3. Eye Witness Testimony

   • Cognitive Interview
     • Report Everything, Reinstate the Context, Change the Perspective, Change the Order
     • Evidence- Fisher et al trained detectives from Miami Dade PD to use CI. Other detectives used traditional techniques. interviews rated by California team blind to conditions. CI detectives
   • Age
     • Ceci and Bruck -meta analysis. stereotype induction, authority figures, repeated questions
     • Parker and Carranza- compared college and primary students in ability to identify individual. Found children has higher rate of choosing but also more likely yo be wrong
     • Memon

Bilder und Dateien der Mindmap