Psychology: Memory

Psychology: Memory

1. Short and Long Term Memory

   • Capacity
     • Jacobs: Span 9.3 items and 7.3 letters
     • Miller: immediate memory 7 +/- 2
       • Cowan max 4 chunks not as extensive as first thought
       • Jacobs recall increased with age - brain capacity or strategies developed
   • Duration
     • STM: Peterson and Peterson. recall consonant syllable after intervals. 3 seconds = 90% accuracy, 9 seconds = 20%. 18 seconds = 2%
       • Artificial: Not real life situation. Results could be due to displacement
       • Reitman: Auditory tones longer STM. Due to displacement not decay
     • LTM: Bahrick year book. 15 years 90% 48 years 70% cued recall
   • Coding
     • Baddeley: STM encoded acoustically and LTM encoded semantically
       • Not test LTM with 20 minutes interval - too short
       • STM not always acoustic can be visual as well same for LTM
   • Primacy and Recency Effect
     • Glanzer and Cunitz
       • Remember more words at the start and end of a list. Rehearsal for LTM
         • Lack ecological validity

2. Multi-Store Model

   • Atkinson and Shiffrin
   • Sensory Register (Small Capacity)
     • Supporting Evidence: Controlled lab studies support separate short and long term stores
     • Too Simple
   • Attention
   • STM: Immediate use, limited duration
     • Beardsley found prefrontal cortex active in STM not LTM. Squire found hippocampus engaged in LTM.
   • Maintenance Rehearsal: Repetition transfers from STM to LTM
     • Case Study: HM brain damage personality and intellect in tact but not able to form new LTMs
     • More than Rehearsal: Craik and Lockhart process deeply remember more
   • LTM: Potentially unlimited duration and capacity

3. Working Memory Model

   • Baddeley
   • CE
     • Direct attention to tasks how resources allocated. Limited capacity
       • Too vague and similar to attention
   • PL
     • Limited Capacity. Auditory info and preserves order. inner eat loop = maintenance rehearsal
       • Dual task Performance: Task involving same process twice was slower
   • VSS
     • Spatial tasks and visual info.
       • KF short term forgetting auditory info. Restricted to PL. Suggest separate stores
   • Episodic Buffer
     • Needed a general store for info relating to more than one type of task
       • Process of brain injury is traumatic can change persons behaviour causing underperformance on certain tasks

4. Types of LTM

   • Episodic
     • Personal events. Specific details, context and emotion
       • Different areas active. Episodic = hippocampus, temporal lobe and frontal lobe
       • Priming: implicit memories influence response to a stimulus. Priming controlled by separate system supports explicit memories.
         • 4th Type of LTM: PRS (perceptual representation)
   • Semantic
     • Shared memory for facts and knowledge. e.g. social customs
       • Areas active: temporal lobe
       • Brain Damaged patients could have problems with the connection between parts of the brain not the localised area
   • Procedural
     • Physical skills acquired through repetition and practice. Becomes automatic
       • Areas active: Cerebellum and motor cortex

5. Forgetting: Interference

   • Retroactive
     • Current attempts to learn something interfere with past learning
       • Memory tested after 24 hours showed recovery interference occurs temporally not available
   • Proactive
     • Past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something
       • Interference doesn't occur often. special conditions needed
   • Similarity of Test Materials
     • McGeoch and Mcdonald. List B similar to A poor recall (12%) List B nonsense (26%). List B numbers (37%). Interference strongest more similar the items
       • Artificial research. Not relate to everyday.
   • Real-World Study
     • Baddeley and Hitch: Rugby players recall names of teams played. player played more most game forgot more - interference not decay
       • Greater working emery span less susceptible to proactive interference

6. Forgetting: Retrieval Failure

   • Encoding Specificity Principle: Tulving and Thompson
     • Proposed memory best when info present at encoding available at retrieval
   • Context-Dependent Forgetting: Abernathy
     • Familiar things = memory cues. Pp tested in same room with same instructor scored better
     • Research Support includes lab, field and natural. High ecological validity
     • Research suggest revise in room taking exams. unrealistic. mental reinstatement as effective
   • State-Dependent Forgetting: Goodwin
     • Learn list when drunk or sober. asked to recall in same state. Info learnt in one state more available in same state later on
     • Complex associations less easily triggered
     • Baddeley said impossible to test. Stimulus lead to retrieval then encoded. If not retrieval means can't be encoded. Can't be proved

7. EWT: Misleading Info

   • Loftus and Palmer
     • 45 students shown traffic accidents. After each film given questionnaire asked with different verbs: smashed, collided and hit.
       • More violent words estimated higher speed
       • Requires info from two sources. Elderly difficulty remembering source of info not actual content
   • Post- Event Discussion
     • Pps put in pairs each partner watched different video. encouraged to discuss. High number went on to recall mistaken info that had been discussed with partner
   • Suppporting Evidence: Brauns evaluate Disney. reported shaking hands with Bugs Bunny created false memories
     • Criminal Cases rely heavily on EWT can result in innocent conviction
   • Loftus' research inaccurate and unreliable. Lab not real life - low ecological validity

8. EWT: Anxiety

   • Yerkes-Dodson Effect
     • Arousal negative effect on performance. When low or high = bad. Medium level of arousal is most beneficial
       • Alternative model: Catastrophe model Arousal increase beyond optimum see decline
       • Lab not real life leads to reduced anxiety
   • Weapon Focus Effect: Johnson and Scott
     • Pps in waiting room saw man running through with pen in grease or knife in blood. Asked to identify. 33% high anxiety 49% low anxiety focus drawn to weapon
       • Pickel claimed not due to anxiety but surprise. Experiment with chicken. Best accuracy in high surprise condition
       • Individual Differences of emotional sensitivity. Labelled neurotic showed decreasing accuracy with stress compared to stable
   • Resolving: Deffenbacher
     • 10/21 studies showed higher arousal = better accuracy. 11 showed opposite. Small differences
   • Positive Effect
     • Christianson and Hubbinette
       • Real robberies most anxious person had highest accuracy of memory

9. Cognitive Interview (CI)

   • Normal police interview focus' on interviewer as they do most of the talking. CI encouraged interviewee dominance
     • Real World: Not all components always used instead related techniques. Decrease validity
   • Mental Reinstatement
     • Meta-Analysis found 34% increase correct info. 61% increase false positives. Careful when reviewing info
   • Report Everything
     • Reviewed with one component. Recall similar. Interview with 2 components recall was higher
   • Change Order
     • CI not spread due to limited time in interviews and needs special training for police
   • Change Perspective
     • Individual Differences: Negative stereotype of older people makes cautious when relaying info. CI overcome this