Memory

Memory

1. Multi-store Model

   • Serial Positioning effect
     • Murdock
       • Aim: Provide evidence to support the MSM
       • Method
         • Ppts had to learn list of words
         • Words presented one at a time for two seconds
         • Ppts had to recall words in any order
       • Result: Words at the end recalled first (recency effect)
         • Words at Beginning recalled quite well (primary effect)
           • Word in middle recalled poorly
       • Conclusion: Provides evidence for separate STM and LTM stores
       • Evalutation
         • Quantative data
         • Low ecological validity
   • Beardsley
     • Results: fMRI scans showed different patterns of activity for STM and LTM tasks
     • Conclusion: Hippocampus= LTM, Prefrontal lobe= STM, Supports multi store explanation of memory
   • Short term memory
     • Duration up to 30 seconds
     • Capacity: George Miller claimed we can hold 7+/- 2
       • This can be increased by chunking
     • Encoding: Acoustic and Visual
   • Long term memory
     • Duration: few days to lifetime
     • Capacity: Potentially unlimited
     • Encoding: Acoustic, Visual, and Semantic
   • Strenghts
     • Simple discription
     • Scientific approach in research
   • Weakness
     • Studies lack ecological validity
     • Not every we learn needs to be rehearsed
   • Application
     • Revision for exams- rehearsal allows information transfer from STM to LTM
       • Techniques that increase elaboration helps info go to LTM

2. Levels of Processing

   • Craik and Tulving
     • Aim: To see if level at which information is processed has an effect on a person's memory
     • Method
       • Ppts told study was testing speed of reaction and perception
       • Word presented very quickly, question asked about word
         • Structural level of word
           • "Does it have capital letters?"
         • Phonetic level of word
           • "Does it rhyme with ....?"
         • Semantic level of word
           • "Does it fit into this sentence?"
       • Ppts given long list of words, asked which they saw earlier
     • Results: More words recalled if Ppt had to think about meaning of word, rather than appearance
     • Conclusion: The deeper material is process the more likely it is remembered
     • Evaluation
       • Lack internal validity- if depth of processing or length of time
       • Repeated measures
   • Developed by Craik and Lockhart
     • Agreed STM and LTM were in separate stores
       • Suggest the process of information determines whether we rember it or not
   • Strenght
     • Atkinson and Shiffrin used scientific approach
   • Weakness
     • Lack of ecological Validity
     • Doesn't explain why deeper processing helps, or if it is the extra time.
   • Application
     • Improving Study skills- Don't read repeatedly, write in own words. Uses semantic encoding and deeper processing

3. Chunking

   • Bower and Springston
     • Aim: Test effects of Chunking
     • Method
       • Two groups of Ppts
       • Control group presented with groups of letters such as FB, IPH, DCI, A
       • Exeperimental group had letters grouped differently: FBI, PHD, CIA
       • Results: Experimental group recalled more words
       • Conclusion: Chunking increase capacity of STM, especially when relying on knowledge in the LTM
     • Evaluation
       • Low ecological validity
       • Quantitative data

4. Reconstructive Memory

   • Wynn and Logie
     • Aim: To see if recall of familiar stories change after serial reproduction
     • Method
       • Asked Uni students to recall details of first week at Uni
       • This was done several times throughout the year
     • Result: Accuracy of description remained the same, no matter how many time recalled
     • Conclusion: Memories of familiar events will not change over time
     • Evalutaion
       • Biased sample
       • High Ecological Validity
   • 1932, Developed by Bartlett
     • Very old, theory, lots of support
       • Existing knowledge called schemas are used to understand new information and impose meaning
         • Schema: Pocket of related information about something
   • Strenghts
     • Emphasises influence of, people's previous knowledge
     • Real life task
   • Weakness
     • Difficult to measure accuracy of recalled events
   • Implication
     • Help understand why people recalling the same event may have different versions
       • Previous experience can alter facts when trying to make sense of event

5. Amnesia

   • HM
     • Hippocampus removed from both sides of brain, Anterograde amnesia, could remember things before surgery but not after
     • Conclusion: Hippocampus is crucial for memory
   • Retrograde amnesia: Individual can't recall events before amnesia developed
   • Anterograde amnesia: Loss of ability to remember event after amnesia occurred

6. Eye witness Testimony

   • Facial Recognition
     • Bruce and Young
       • Aim: see if familliaty affects accuracy of indentifying faces
       • Method
         • Psychology lecturers were caught on security camera
         • Ppts asked to identify faces seen on security camera tape
         • Series of high quality photographs used
       • Result: the lecturers students made more correct identifications than even experienced police officers
       • Conclusion: Previous familiarity helps when identifying faces
       • Evaluation
         • Participant variables (use of psy students)
         • Low ecological validity (still faces)
   • Leading Questions
     • Loftus and Palmer
       • Aim: See if asking leading questions affects accuracy of recall
       • Method
         • Ppts shown film of car accidnet
         • Some asked "how fast was the car going when it hit the other car?"
       • Some asked "How fast was the car going when it smashed the other car?"
       • Result: those told smashed gave higher speed estimate
       • Conclusion: Leading questions affect accuracy of recall
         • word smashed made people believe car was faster
       • Evaluation
         • Quantative data
         • Low ecological validity (not real car crash
   • EWT: Where individual has seen a crime/ event and gives a statment of what they have seen during the legal process

7. Context

   • Godden and Barddley
     • Aim: See if people who learn and are tested in the same environment recall more
     • Method
       • Deep sea divers memorised a list of words
       • One group did this on the beach, the other under water
       • Each group split in half, half of beach people went under water, half of water people went on beach
     • Results: Ppts who stayed in the same environment recalled 40% more words than the others
     • Conclusion: Recall of information improved when in the same context where it was learnt
     • Evaluation
       • Field Experiment= Extraneous variables
       • Natural environment
   • Context: General setting of environment in which activities happen
   • Changing context of when information is learnt and recalled can lead to forgetting
   • Try to reinstate exam context when revising

8. Interference

   • Underwood and Postman
     • Aim: Test retroactive theory in experimental set up
     • Method
       • Ppts learn a list of paired words
       • Ppts learn a second list where word pairs had the same first word as first list
       • Control group was not given second list
       • Both groups old to recall first list
     • Results: Control group recollections were more accurate
     • Conclusion: learning second list of items hinders ability to recall first list
     • Evaluation
       • Low ecological validity
       • Use of control group to compare data
   • Retroactive interference: new info interferes with ability to recall old info
   • Proactive interference: Old info affect ability to recall new info
   • Application
     • Better study habits- Avoid studying two similar subjects in a short space of time