Memory

Memory

Multi-store Model
1. Serial Positioning effect
  1. Murdock
    1. Aim: Provide evidence to support the MSM
    2. Method
      1. Ppts had to learn list of words
      2. Words presented one at a time for two seconds
      3. Ppts had to recall words in any order
    3. Result: Words at the end recalled first (recency effect)
      1. Words at Beginning recalled quite well (primary effect)
        Word in middle recalled poorly
    4. Conclusion: Provides evidence for separate STM and LTM stores
    5. Evalutation
      1. Quantative data
      2. Low ecological validity
2. Beardsley
  1. Results: fMRI scans showed different patterns of activity for STM and LTM tasks
  2. Conclusion: Hippocampus= LTM, Prefrontal lobe= STM, Supports multi store explanation of memory
3. Short term memory
  1. Duration up to 30 seconds
  2. Capacity: George Miller claimed we can hold 7+/- 2
    1. This can be increased by chunking
  3. Encoding: Acoustic and Visual
4. Long term memory
  1. Duration: few days to lifetime
  2. Capacity: Potentially unlimited
  3. Encoding: Acoustic, Visual, and Semantic
5. Strenghts
  1. Simple discription
  2. Scientific approach in research
6. Weakness
  1. Studies lack ecological validity
  2. Not every we learn needs to be rehearsed
7. Application
  1. Revision for exams- rehearsal allows information transfer from STM to LTM
    1. Techniques that increase elaboration helps info go to LTM
Levels of Processing
1. Craik and Tulving
  1. Aim: To see if level at which information is processed has an effect on a person's memory
  2. Method
    1. Ppts told study was testing speed of reaction and perception
    2. Word presented very quickly, question asked about word
      1. Structural level of word
        "Does it have capital letters?"
      2. Phonetic level of word
        "Does it rhyme with ....?"
      3. Semantic level of word
        "Does it fit into this sentence?"
    3. Ppts given long list of words, asked which they saw earlier
  3. Results: More words recalled if Ppt had to think about meaning of word, rather than appearance
  4. Conclusion: The deeper material is process the more likely it is remembered
  5. Evaluation
    1. Lack internal validity- if depth of processing or length of time
    2. Repeated measures
2. Developed by Craik and Lockhart
  1. Agreed STM and LTM were in separate stores
    1. Suggest the process of information determines whether we rember it or not
3. Strenght
  1. Atkinson and Shiffrin used scientific approach
4. Weakness
  1. Lack of ecological Validity
  2. Doesn't explain why deeper processing helps, or if it is the extra time.
5. Application
  1. Improving Study skills- Don't read repeatedly, write in own words. Uses semantic encoding and deeper processing
Chunking
1. Bower and Springston
  1. Aim: Test effects of Chunking
  2. Method
    1. Two groups of Ppts
    2. Control group presented with groups of letters such as FB, IPH, DCI, A
    3. Exeperimental group had letters grouped differently: FBI, PHD, CIA
    4. Results: Experimental group recalled more words
    5. Conclusion: Chunking increase capacity of STM, especially when relying on knowledge in the LTM
  3. Evaluation
    1. Low ecological validity
    2. Quantitative data
Reconstructive Memory
1. Wynn and Logie
  1. Aim: To see if recall of familiar stories change after serial reproduction
  2. Method
    1. Asked Uni students to recall details of first week at Uni
    2. This was done several times throughout the year
  3. Result: Accuracy of description remained the same, no matter how many time recalled
  4. Conclusion: Memories of familiar events will not change over time
  5. Evalutaion
    1. Biased sample
    2. High Ecological Validity
2. 1932, Developed by Bartlett
  1. Very old, theory, lots of support
    1. Existing knowledge called schemas are used to understand new information and impose meaning
      1. Schema: Pocket of related information about something
3. Strenghts
  1. Emphasises influence of, people's previous knowledge
  2. Real life task
4. Weakness
  1. Difficult to measure accuracy of recalled events
5. Implication
  1. Help understand why people recalling the same event may have different versions
    1. Previous experience can alter facts when trying to make sense of event
Amnesia
1. HM
  1. Hippocampus removed from both sides of brain, Anterograde amnesia, could remember things before surgery but not after
  2. Conclusion: Hippocampus is crucial for memory
2. Retrograde amnesia: Individual can't recall events before amnesia developed
3. Anterograde amnesia: Loss of ability to remember event after amnesia occurred
Eye witness Testimony
1. Facial Recognition
  1. Bruce and Young
    1. Aim: see if familliaty affects accuracy of indentifying faces
    2. Method
      1. Psychology lecturers were caught on security camera
      2. Ppts asked to identify faces seen on security camera tape
      3. Series of high quality photographs used
    3. Result: the lecturers students made more correct identifications than even experienced police officers
    4. Conclusion: Previous familiarity helps when identifying faces
    5. Evaluation
      1. Participant variables (use of psy students)
      2. Low ecological validity (still faces)
2. Leading Questions
  1. Loftus and Palmer
    1. Aim: See if asking leading questions affects accuracy of recall
    2. Method
      1. Ppts shown film of car accidnet
      2. Some asked "how fast was the car going when it hit the other car?"
    3. Some asked "How fast was the car going when it smashed the other car?"
    4. Result: those told smashed gave higher speed estimate
    5. Conclusion: Leading questions affect accuracy of recall
      1. word smashed made people believe car was faster
    6. Evaluation
      1. Quantative data
      2. Low ecological validity (not real car crash
3. EWT: Where individual has seen a crime/ event and gives a statment of what they have seen during the legal process
Context
1. Godden and Barddley
  1. Aim: See if people who learn and are tested in the same environment recall more
  2. Method
    1. Deep sea divers memorised a list of words
    2. One group did this on the beach, the other under water
    3. Each group split in half, half of beach people went under water, half of water people went on beach
  3. Results: Ppts who stayed in the same environment recalled 40% more words than the others
  4. Conclusion: Recall of information improved when in the same context where it was learnt
  5. Evaluation
    1. Field Experiment= Extraneous variables
    2. Natural environment
2. Context: General setting of environment in which activities happen
3. Changing context of when information is learnt and recalled can lead to forgetting
4. Try to reinstate exam context when revising
Interference
1. Underwood and Postman
  1. Aim: Test retroactive theory in experimental set up
  2. Method
    1. Ppts learn a list of paired words
    2. Ppts learn a second list where word pairs had the same first word as first list
    3. Control group was not given second list
    4. Both groups old to recall first list
  3. Results: Control group recollections were more accurate
  4. Conclusion: learning second list of items hinders ability to recall first list
  5. Evaluation
    1. Low ecological validity
    2. Use of control group to compare data
2. Retroactive interference: new info interferes with ability to recall old info
3. Proactive interference: Old info affect ability to recall new info
4. Application
  1. Better study habits- Avoid studying two similar subjects in a short space of time

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Gladys Mba over 9 years ago