Cognitive Approach

Cognitive Approach

1. Key Assumptions

   • Behaviour can be explained by adopting an information-processing approach
     • Info-processing model explains how we receive, interpret and respond to info. Describes the flow of information.
   • The human brain operates like a computer (the computer analogy)
     • Believes that there are similarities between how a computer processes info and how the human brain processes info

2. Levels of Processing (Craik and Lockhart 1972)

   • Types of Rehearsal
     • Type I
       • Information is rehearsed in order to preserve it for a short time - unlikely to result in a long term memory
     • Type II
       • Giving information meaning is more likely to result in a short term memory
   • The deeper the processing the more likely it is to be retained as a long term memory
   • Proposes that memory is not necessarily a conscious function but more a by-product of the way info is proposed.
   • Types of Processing
     • Structural Processing
       • Lowest level of processing
       • Based on what something looks like
     • Phonetic Processing
       • Based on what something sounds like
     • Semantic Processing
       • Deepest level of processing
       • Based on what something means
   • Strengths
     • Has supporting studies eg. Hyde and Jenkins + Craik and Tulving
     • Students can be taught to make notes which have meaning
   • Weaknesses
     • Contradictory evidence exists - Morris et al
     • Empirical support is la based, lacks ecological validity
     • Problems w/ defining deep processing

3. Multi Store Model of Memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968)

   • Proposes that memory consists of 3 stores with different capacities, durations and mode of storage
   • Sensory Memory
     • Lasts for a fraction of a second
     • Acts as a filter - unwanted info filtered out
     • Encodes info from outside world into brain waves
   • Short Term Memory
     • Info held for 18-30 seconds
     • Info encoded acoustically - by sound
     • Forgetting in STM is due to displacement or decay
     • 7 +- 2 items
     • Rehearsal creates LTM
   • Long Term Memory
     • Unlimited capacity
     • Unlimited duration
     • Info encoded semantically - by meaning
     • Forgetting in LTM due to interference or decay
   • Strengths
     • Supporting evidence eg. Glanzer and Cunitz
   • Weaknesses
     • Experiments tend to use artificial tasks
     • Too simplistic

4. Cue Dependent Theory of Forgetting (Tulving 1974)

   • Two events necessary for recall of info
     • A memory trace
       • Info is retained in a store as a result of the original perception of an event
     • A retrieval cue
       • The environment at the time of encoding matches the environment at the time of retrieval
         • Info is best recalled at the place it was learned
   • "The inability to recall something that could be recalled on an earlier occasion"
     • State Dependent Forgetting
       • We encode info with the emotional and physical state we were in at the time
       • Lang et al (2001) supports this
         • 54 students who feared snakes/spiders had fear induced whilst learning a list of words. Fear induced for recall - scared to recall the words.
   • Context Dependent Forgetting
     • The place that we learned info can help trigger the memory that was learned there
     • Godden and Baddeley (1975) supports this
   • Strengths
     • Accounts for many instances of forgetting
     • Lots of experimental support
     • Influenced other research which came to the same conclusions
   • Weaknesses
     • Supporting evidence uses artificial tasks - lacks validity
     • Most lab research can't tell whether what is being provided is a state or context cue

5. Displacement Theory of Forgetting

   • Applies to short term storage of info
   • Primary Effect
     • Info learned first is remembered well - has gone into the long term store through rehearsal
   • Recency Effect
     • Info learned last is well remembered - it's still in the rehearsal loop in the short term store and so is available for immediate recall
   • Waugh and Norman (1965) tested this
   • Glanzer at al (1967) - thought that displacement was a factor in forgetting but also thought that decay caused forgetting.
   • Strengths
     • Fits with the Multi Store Model
     • Tested by well controlled experiments - yield info about cause and effect
     • Experiments are reliable
   • Weaknesses
     • Difficult to operationalise and measure accurately
     • Tested using artificial tasks

6. Craik and Tulving (1975) - Levels of Processing Experiment

   • Aim
     • To test the LoP framework. Investigating whether processing words at different levels would affect recognition of the words
   • Sample
     • 24 participants
   • Procedure
     • P's shown 60 words and asked q's about the word. Then asked to recognise the words from a list of 180 words.
   • Results
     • 17% of words recognised in structural processing, 36% of words recognised in phonetic processing, 65% of words recognised in semantic processing
   • Conclusion
     • The deeper the processing the greater the recognition
   • Strengths
     • There was no intentional learning - Craik and Tulving didn't inform the P's of the true nature of experiment
   • Weaknesses
     • Tasks were artificial
     • Study ignored the role of imagery + emotion that are associated w/ log lasting memories

7. Godden and Baddeley (1975)

   • Aim
     • To investigate if a natural environment can act as a cue for recall
   • Sample
     • 13 male and 5 female deep sea divers
   • Procedure
     • Divers randomly allocated to one of four conditions, learned and recalled lists of 38 words. Words presented in sets of 3 w/ a 4 second gap between each set. Each list presented twice. After 4 minutes diver had to write down the words in any order in 2 minutes
       • Condition 1 - learn on dry land, recall on dry land. Condition 2 - learn underwater, recall underwater. Condition 3 - learn on dry land, recall underwater. Condition 4 - lean underwater, recall on dry land
   • Results
     • Learn on dry land
       • Recall on dry land - 13.5 words out of 36 (mean)
       • Recall underwater - 8.6 words out of 36 (mean)
     • Learn underwater
       • Recall on dry land - 8.5 out of 36 (mean)
       • Recall underwater - 11.4 out of 36 (mean)
   • Conclusion
     • Environment can act as a contextual cue for recall
   • Strengths
     • Conducted in a realistic environment
     • Has practical applications for education and police interviews
   • Weaknesses
     • Lack of control
     • Sample from same diving club

8. Eyewitness testimony

   • Unreliable
     • Loftus et al (1987) - found that the estimated duration of an event is distorted
     • Post event info - leading questions affect the events recalled
     • Stress - recall is poorer when under high stress
     • Lack of attention - if you haven't seen something then you are unreliable
   • Reliable
     • Lab based studies lack ecological validity
     • Real life examples show EWT can be reliable