Revision

Revision

1. Coding, capacity and duration of memory

   • Research on coding
     • Baddely
       • Acoustic in short term memory, semantic in long term memory.
     • EVALUATION
       • Artificial stimuli
         • Word lists had no personal significance.
   • Research on capacity
     • Digit span
       • Jacobs (digit span): 9.3 digit, 7.3 letters.
     • Span of memory and chunking
       • Miller: 7 +/- span, putting items together extends STM capacity.
     • EVALUATION
       • Lacking validity
         • Could be extraneous variables such as distractons.
       • Not so many chunks
         • Cowan: estimated STM as about four chunks.
   • Research on duration
     • STM
       • Peterson and Peterson: up to 18 seconds without rehearsal.
     • LTM
       • Bahrick et al. (yearbooks): recognition of faces 90% after 15 years, recall 60%. Recognition dropped to 70% after 48 years.
     • EVALUATION
       • Meaningless stimuli
         • Used consonant syllables.
       • Higher external validity
         • Meaningful real-life memories, showed greater recall than LTM studies with meaningless material (Shepard).
       • Evaluation extra
         • Peterson and Peterson may be displacement not decay.

2. The multi-store model of memory

   • Sensory register
     • Iconic and echoic stores with very brief duration, high capacity.
     • Transfer by attention.
   • Short-term memory (STM)
     • Limited capacity and duration store. Mainly acoustic coding.
     • Transfer to LTM by reheasal.
   • Long-term memory (LTM)
     • Unlimited capacity and duration, permanent store. Mainly semantic.
     • Created through maintenance rehearsal.
   • EVALUATION
     • Supporting research evidence
       • Studies into coding, capacity and duration demonstrate differences between STM and LTM.
     • There is more than one type of STM
       • Studies of amnesia (e.g. KF) show different STMs for visual and auditory material.
     • There is more than one type of rehersal
       • Elaborative rehearsal necessary for transfer to LTM, not maintenance rehearsal.
     • Evaluation extra
       • Artificial materials.
       • There is more than one type of LTM

3. Types of long term memory

   • Episodic memory
     • Memory for event in our lives ('diary').
   • Semantic memory
     • Memory for knowledge of the world, like an encyclopedia and dictionary. Includes language.
   • Procedural memory
     • Memory for automatic and often skilled behaviours.
   • EVALUATION
     • Clinical evidence
       • Clive Wearing and HM had damaged episodic memories but semantic and procedural memories fine.
     • Neuroimaging evidence
       • Episodic and procedural memories recalled from different parts of the prefrontal cortex.
     • Real-life applications
       • Training programme for adults with mild cognitive impairments.
     • Evaluation extra
       • Problems with clinical evidence.

4. The working memory model

   • Central executive (CE)
     • Co-ordinates slave systems and allocates resources, very limited storage.
   • Phonological loop (PL)
     • Auditory information - phonological store and articulatory process (maintenance rehearsal).
   • Visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS)
     • Visual information - visual cache (store) and inner scribe (spatial arrangement).
   • Episodic buffer (EB)
     • Integrates processing of slave systems and records the order of events. Linked to LTM.
   • EVALUATION
     • Clinical evidence
       • KF had poor auditory memory but good visual memory. Damaged PL but VSS fine.
     • Dual-task performance
       • Difficult to do two visual tasks at the same time, but one visual and one verbal is OK (Baddeley et al).
     • Lack of clarity over the CE
       • Not yet fully explained, probably has different components.
     • Evaluation extra
       • Studies of the word-length effect support the PL.
       • Brain scanning studies support the WMM

5. Explanations for forgetting: interference

   • Types of interference
     • Proactive - old memories disrupt new ones.
     • Retroactive - new memories disrupt old ones.
   • Effects of similarity
     • McGeoch and McDonald: similar words created more interference.
   • EVALUATION
     • Evidence from lab studies
       • Well-controlled studies show interference effects.
     • Artificial materials
       • Lists of words are not like everyday memory, may overemphasise interference as an explanation.
     • Real-life studies
       • Baddeley and Hitch (rugby players) supported interference.
     • Evaluation extra
       • Time between learning.
       • Interference effect may be overcome using cues.

6. Explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure

   • Encoding specificity principle
     • Tulving: cues most effective if present at coding and at retrieval.
     • May be a meaningful link.
   • Context-dependent forgetting
     • Godden and Baddeley (deep sea divers): recall better when external context matched.
   • State-dependent forgetting
     • Carter and Cassaday (anti-histamine): recall better when internal states matched.
   • EVALUATION
     • Supporting evidence
       • Wide range of support. Eysenck claims retrieval failure is most important reason for LTM forgetting.
     • Questioning context effects
       • No forgetting unless contexts are very different, e.g. on land versus underwater (Baddeley).
     • Recall versus recognition
       • Absence of the cues affects recall but not recognition.
     • Evaluation extra
       • Problems with the encoding specificity principle.
       • Real-life applications.

7. Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading information

   • Leading questions
     • Loftus and Palmer (car speed): estimates affected by leading question (smashed versus contacted).
   • Why do leading questions affect EWT?
     • Response bias - no change to memory.
     • Substitution explanation supported by Loftus and Palmer and report of presence of glass.
   • Past-event discussion (PED)
     • Discussions with others contaminates eyewitnesses' memories.
     • Gabbert et al. demonstrated effect, calling it memory conformity - information and normative social influence involved.
   • EVALUATION
     • Useful real-life applications
       • Could help prevent miscarriages of justice and change police interviewing.
     • Tasks are artificial
       • Watching film clips ignores the stress and anxiety associated with a real accident or crime.
     • Individual differences
       • Older people may be less accurate because of own-age bias.
     • Evaluation extra
       • Demand characteristics.
       • Consequences of EWT.

8. Improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: cognitive interview

   • Report everything
     • Include even unimportant details.
   • Reinstate the context
     • Picture the scene and recall how you felt.
     • Context-dependent forgetting.
   • Reverse the order
     • Recall from the end and work backwards.
     • Disrupts expectations.
   • Change perspective
     • Put yourself in the shoes of someone else present.
     • Disrupts scema.
   • The enhanced cognitive interview (ECI)
     • Adds social dynamics, e.g. establishing eye contact.
   • EVALUATION
     • CI is time consuming
       • Takes longer and needs special training
     • Some elements may be more valuable than others
       • Report everything and reinstate the context used together produced best recall
     • Support for the effectiveness of ECI
       • ECI consistently produces more accurate recall than standard interview.
     • Evaluation extra
       • Variations of the CI are used.
       • CI creates an increase in inaccurate information.

9. Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: anxiety

   • Anxiety has a negative effect on recall
     • Johnson and Scott (weapon focus): high-anxiety knife condition led to less good recall.
     • Tunnel theory of memory.
   • Anxiety has a positive effect on recall
     • Yuille and Cutshall (shooting): high anxiety associated with better recall when witnessing a real crime.
   • Explaining the condradictory findings
     • Yerkes-Dodson law suggests both low and high anxiety lead to poor recall (Deffenbacher).
   • EVALUATION
     • Weapon focus effect may not be relevant
       • Pickel (raw chicken) showed that it may be surprise and therefore tells us nothing about effects of anxiety.
     • Field studies sometimes lack control
       • Researchers cant's control what happens to witnesses between the crime and the interview.
     • There are ethical issues
       • Creating anxiety in lab studies may case psychological harm.
     • Evaluation extra
       • The inverted-U explanation is too simplistic.
       • Demand characteristics operate in lab studies of anxiety.