Memory

Memory

1. Eye Witness Testimony (EWT)

   • Accuracy of
     • Anxiety
       • Has -ve effect
         • JOHNSON & SCOTT
           • Weapon Focus
             • Weapon draws attention (due to anxiety) from other features, reduces accuracy of identification
               • Pps sat in waiting room, would overhear argument in next room, then see a man run through, either with a pen covered in grease (low anxiety) or knife covered in blood (high anxiety)
                 • From set of photos, 49% could identify pen carrier, while 33% could identify knife carrier
             • When a study tracking eye movements of witnesses, found attention on weapon rather than person
       • Has +ve
         • High anxiety makes enduring and accurate memories
           • EVOLUTIONARY REASON
             • Need these memories of high stress so you can recall how to respond in future (eg. what to do when encountered by a lion)
           • CHRISTIANSON
             • 58 real witnesses to bank robberies in Sweden, a mix of victims (bank teller, high anxiety) and bystanders (customer, low anxiety)
               • Not only was recall high (better than 75%) but those who were the most anxious had best recall of all
               • Interviews happened between 4-15 months after robbery
       • YERKES-DODSON EFFECT
         • When arousal/anxiety is low or high, has -ve effect on recall, but is beneficial when in the middle
     • Misleading Info
       • LOFTUS & PALMER
         • Leading Questions
           • Experiment 1
             • Shown film of a car crash, afterwards given a questionnaire about what they saw
               • Critical Question: "About how fast were the cars going when they ______ each other?"
                 • Findings
                   • • Shows how a leading question can bias pps response
                 • This is a leading question
           • Experiment 2
             • Looked to see if info could be altered before it was stored
               • Three groups of new pps shown film of accident (last 1 min) and were again asked about speed (there was a control group, hit condition and smashed condition)
                 • Returned 1 week later and asked the critical question....
                   • "Did you see any broken glass?"
                     • There wasn't any
                     • Fingings
                       • • Leading question about speed altered memory
       • Post-event discussion
         • GABBERT
           • Post-event Discussion
             • Paired pps together, each shown a separate video with unique information
               • 50% of pps allowed to discuss with partner before recalling what they had seen
                 • 71% of pps who were allowed to discuss recalled unique information from the other pps' video
         • Repeated interviewing - comments/beliefs from interviewer become incorporated into witness recollection (more likely for kids)
   • Improving EWT
     • Issue with standard interview
       • Revolves around the interviewer
       • Ask specific questions which force a certain response
         • These types of questions discourage witness to adding info, and encourages short, abbreviated answers, which may lead to witheld info
       • May ask leading questions
       • Repeated interviewing contaminate memory
     • GEISELMAN
       • Developed COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
         • Based on proven principles concerning effective memory recall
         • STEP 1: Mental Reinstatement of Original Context Interviewer encourages recreation of physical and psychological environment (create contextual and emotional cues)
           • STEP 2: Report Everything Interviewer encourages reporting of everything without editing of information, nothing should be left out, everything is relevant, memories interconnected so will act as cues for other bits of info, additionally, small information from multiple witnesses builds a bigger picture
             • STEP 3: Change Order Ask to reorder of recollection of events (may do it backwards) This is to prevent schemas (mental frameworks) influencing recollection
               • STEP 4: Change Perspective Asked to view events from perspective of other witnesses present at that time, once again to disrupt schemas

2. Short/Long Term

   • LTM
     • Types of
       • Procedural
         • Memory of how to do things (eg. riding a bike) automatic due to practice, thinking about it will prevent you from acting it out
       • Declarative
         • Episodic
           • Memory of episode/event that is personal (eg. recent activity, teacher you liked) can contain emotional tone
         • Semantic
           • Shared memories, like facts and other bits of knowledge (2+2 is 4-1= 3 (quick maths)) start out as episodic (acquire knowledge from experiences) but eventually loses association to an event
             • Not always the case, some facts may be so impactful/sensational that people remember where they learned of the fact ("where were you when you heard ...?")

3. Models of Memory

   • Multi-Store Model
   • Working Memory Model

4. Explanations for Forgetting

   • Retrieval Failure
     • Based on a lack of cues
       • TULVING & THOMSON
         • Encoding Specificity Principle
           • Memory most effective if the information that was present at encoding is also available at retrieval, cue doesn't have to be exactly right, but the closer to the original item the better
             • Cues don't have to be physical, can be words, environmental context or emotional state
         • List of words, in free recall 40%, but with cues up to 60%
       • ABERNETHY
         • Context dependent forgetting
           • Students tested before course started (control), then were tested weekly, 4 conditions, same room & usual instructor, same room & different instructor, different room & same instruct and diff room & diff instruct
             • Those in double same did better than others, familiar things acted as cues
             • GODDEN & BADDELEY
               • Scuba divers, would learn word list either underwater or on land
                 • Tested on either land or in water (4 conditions)
                   • Showed that highest recall occurred when initial context matched recall environment
       • GOODWIN
         • Mental state at time of learning also a cue
           • Male pps learn list of words when either drunk or sober, then will be one of the two at recall (4 conditions)
             • Those drunk were 3x over drink drive limit
             • 24 hours later, recall
               • Found that when mental state was the same for learning and recall (drunk at both or sober at both) recall was higher
   • Interference
     • Retroactive
       • A new memory interferes with an old memory
         • Get used to the continent driving, return to UK, and this new memory interferes with attempts to remember how to drive in UK
     • Proactive
       • Past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something
         • Try to learn how to drive on the continent, but learning of how to drive in UK interferes with attempts
   • Memory Decay
     • Memory had been erased from the LTM

Imágenes y archivos del mapa