Untitled

Untitled

1. Imporoving the accuracy of EWT

   • The cognitive interview ensures that the witnesses will recall the crime as accurately as possible.
     • The CI is based on information being organised in schemas in LTM and relies on cue-dependant recall.
     • KEY FEATURES OF A CI
       • Context reinstatement-recreate an image of the situation. Environment and emotional state.
       • Report everything-report all details, as small things may act as cues.
       • Recall in reverse order-from end to beggining may provide a different route into an individual's memory.
       • Recall from a changed perspective-recreate the situation from different points of view, as it provides different routes into an individual's memory.
   • The differences between a CI and a standard interview: SI just asks witnesses to recall an event, a CI asks them to recall the context (environmental, emotional). CIs have been shown to be much more effectivein helping the witness recall accurate info. CI's take alot more time, money and they requre training for the interviewer.
   • EVALUATION: It's very effective(Geisleman et al). Research suggests CIs produce more accurate recall than standard PIs. Contradictory evidence suggests a SI is just as good(Memon et al), and so it's difficult to establish how successful the CI actually is. Weaknesses include its length and the vast amounts of info may not be practical or helpful. Also not all police forces use the same procedure and so real life research is difficult as some CI's are more effective than others.

2. Strategies for memory improvement

   • 1.ORGANISING INFORMATION
     • The more organised information is as it enters LTM the easier it is to remember.eg Acronyms, mindmaps, diagrams and tables
     • KEY STUDY:BOWER
       • HIs aim was to investigate the effect of organising information on recall.
       • he split his participants into two groups. 1 participants learned a set of words in a logical hierarchy, 2 there was no logical hierarchy.
       • the first group had more than three times better recall than the second.
       • In conclusion using hierarchical organisation can improve memory for some kinds of material.
     • EVALUATION: Lab experiments, high control, suggest it is an effective memory improvement strategy(Bower). Lab experiment is artificial, cannot be generalised, may not provide valid support.
   • 2.GIVING MEANING TO THE MATERIAL-semantic processing
     • We are more likely to be able to remember info that is processed at a semantic level. it creates stronger and longer lasting memories. eg mindmaps, role plays, story boards, posters and methods of loci.
     • KEY STUDY:CRAIK AND TULVING
       • The aim is to investigate if material that is sematically processed is remembered better that information that had not been semantically processed.
       • They showed participants words and they answered questions about each word, Some questions involved semantic processing.
       • They found the participants remembered the words if they had to process the information semantically.
       • Conclusion is that giving meaning to material improves memory.
     • EVALUATION: Research suggests it is effective. ( Craik and Tulving). High controll, study can be repeated. Lab experiment is artificial and does not test the true complexity of memory and results cannot be generalised to real life.