Download AQA A-Level Psychology: Memory Essay Plans and more Summaries Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
Coding, Capacity and Duration of Memory
Coding
- Coding - form in which information is stored
- Acoustic - way things sound
- Semantic - what things mean
- 72 participants randomly allocated into 4 groups
- Baddeley gave different lists of words to 4 groups (acoustically similar, acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar and semantically different)
- Participants were then asked to recall the words
- Participants tended to do worse when recalling semantically similar words from LTM ( minute gap allowed)
- Information is coded acoustically in STM and semantically in LTM
Capacity
- Capacity - the amount of information we can hold
- Jacobs read out 4 digits then asked participants to recall the numbers and continued increasing the digits until ppts could no longer recall
- Mean span for digits was 9.3 and for letters it was 7.
- Miller said the span of STM is 7±2 items
- Chunking - groupings sets of digits or numbers into chunks
- Capacity of LTM is unlimited
Duration
- Duration - how long we can store things for Duration of STM
- Peterson + Peterson showed a trigram to participants and asked them to count back from a certain number in intervals then asked to stopped after certain time period then were asked to recall the trigram
- When the time taken to count back increases the ability to recall the trigram decreased
- After 3 seconds recall was 80% correct and only 3% correct at 18 seconds
- Conclusion: duration is 18-30 seconds for STM Duration of LTM
- Bahrick et al used high school yearbooks from the participants
- 392 American participants
- He done a photo recognition test and a free recall test
- Participants within 15 years of graduation were 90% accurate and those after 48 years were 70% accurate in the photo recognition
- Free recall was 60% and 30%
- Conclusion: LTM can last a lifetime
AO3 Evaluation
Coding
POint: research in coding is reliable Evidence: Study uses random lists of words which have no real meaning to participants GRAVE term: We can be confident in our findings Point: Artificial task Evidence: In real life we remember very different things e.g. shopping lists GRAVE term: Low mundane realism and not useful in explaining how we remember in real life
Capacity
Point: research to support Jacobson's study Evidence: Findings have been confirmed by other better controlled studies GRAVE term: His findings have credibility Point: Miller research may lack accuracy as capacity of STM may have been overestimated Evidence: Cowan reviewed similar studies and found STM can only remember 4 chunks of information GRAVE term: Lacks credibility
Duration
POint: High external validity Evidence: High school yearbooks were used which are meaningful memories GRAVE term: Findings are more credible POint: Use of artificial and meaningless stimuli Evidence: We don’t remember trigrams in real life so it is meaningless material GRAVE term: cannot generalise findings to how long we remember things in real life using our STM
The Working Memory Model
Central Executive and
Phonological Loop
Central Executive
- Monitors incoming data and allocated tasks to subsystems
- Involves higher mental processing like decision making
- Limited capacity and does not store information Phonological Loop
- Deal with auditory information
- Coding is acoustic
- Divided into:
- Phonological store (inner ear) - stores words we hear for a limited duration (1-2s)
- Articulatory process (inner voice) - allows maintenance rehearsal by repeating sounds of words to keep them in working memory
- Capacity of this is believed to be 2 seconds worth
Visuo-spatial Sketch pad
and Episodic Buffer
Visuo-spatial sketchpad
- Known as the ‘inner eye’
- There is a limited capacity of 3-4 objects
- Divided into: - Visual cache - stores visual information passively e.g. colours and shapes - Inner scribe - deals with the spatial organization and movement of visual information Episodic buffer
- Integrates information processed by other stores
- Maintains a sense of time sequencing
- Transfers information to LTM
- Limited capacity of 4 chunks
AO3 Evaluation
POint: Research support Evidence: After KF motorcycle accident injury he had poor STM ability for auditory information but could process visual information normally GRAVE term: Explanatory power Point: Research support from dual task studies Evidence: Baddeley and Hitch found that when participants were asked to complete a verbal task in the articulatory loop and a separate task in the central executive, recall was not affected. However, when the same participants were asked to complete two similar tasks then recall was affected GRAVE term: Supports separate subsystems Point: Does not account for all types of memory Evidence: Berz found participants were able to listen to instrumental music without impairing performance on other acoustic tasks. However, according to WMM, listening to instrumental music should occupy the PAS’s limited capacity, making it difficult to carry out other acoustic tasks GRAVE term: Incomplete model of memory POint: Lack of evidence for central executive Evidence: Little direct evidence for how the central executive actually works, what it does and its capacity Grave term: Weakens its credibility
Explanation for Forgetting:
Interference
Types of interference
- Interference - when two pieces of information are similar so disrupt each other resulting in forgetting or distortion of memory Proactive interference
- When old memories interfere with the recall of new ones
- E.g. remembering an old friends birthday but not a new friends birthday Retroactive interference
- When new memories interfere with the recall of older ones
- E.g. only being able to recall your new phone number and not your old one
Research on Effects of
Similarity
- Interference is worse when memories are similar discovered by McGeoch and McDonald
- Participants had to learn a list of 10 words until they could recall them with 100% accuracy
- Then participants were put into 6 groups and each group had to learn a new list
- The different lists were: synonym, antonyms, unrelated words, consonant syllables, 3 digit numbers and no list (control)
- When asked to recall the original list the most similar material produce the worst recall
AO3 Evaluation
POint: Research support Evidence: Danaher found recall and recognition of an advertisers message was impaired for participants who were exposed to 2 similar adverts of competing brands over a week GRAVE term: Increases validity Point: Artificial materials used and lack mundane realism Evidence: Many studies ask participants to remember and recall random lists of words participants recall words 1 to 2 hours after learning which does not reflect real life as several days may pass before we need to recall information like in exams GRAVE term: Reduced generalisability and a weak explanation Point: Interference is a weak form of forgetting Evidence: Tulving made participants memorise words lists and found when he gave participants cues their recall ability increased GRAVE term: Weak explanation as it doesn’t explain why we permanently forget
Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Misleading Information Post Event Discussion: Gabbert et al Procedure
- Participants were split into pairs, each participant watched a video of the same crime but from different viewpoints
- This meant that each participant could see elements in the event that the other could not i.e. only one could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman
- Both participants then discussed what they had seen before they individually completed a test of recall
- In a control group, there was no discussion before the recall task Findings
- In the experimental condition 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the post-event discussion
- The corresponding figure was 0% in the control group
- Memory contamination - when co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other their eye witness testimonies become altered because they combine misinformation with their own information
- Memory conformity - witnesses often go along with each other Leading Questions: Loftus and Palmer Procedure
- 45 American students were shown seven films of different car accidents
- After each film, the participants were given a questionnaire asking them to describe the accident
- They were asked a series of specific questions including a critical question: “how fast were the cars going when they _____ each other?”
- The participants were divided into five groups and each group was asked the critical question with one of the following verbs: smashed, hit, collided, bumped, contacted Findings
- The group given the word ‘smashed’ estimated the highest speed of 40.8 mph and the group given the word ‘contacted’ estimated the lowest speed of 31.8 mph
- Response bias explanation - the wording of the question has no effect on the participants’ memories, but it influences how they decide to answer - Substitution explanation - the wording of the question changes the participants memory of the clip Key Words
- Eyewitness testimony - is the evidence provided by a person who has witnessed a crime/incident with a view to identifying the perpetrator of the crime
- Leading question - a question which is worded in a way to suggest a particular answer from someone - Post event discussion - when people discuss information after an event has taken place and can influence an individual's memory
AO3 Evaluation POint: practical
implications in the real
world
Evidence:
Loftus (1975)
suggested that police
officers need to be
very careful when
phrasing and
delivering their
questions to
eyewitnesses as it can
have a profound
impact
GRAVE term:
real world applications
Point: research
uses artificial material
Evidence:
For example, in Loftus
& Palmer’s study, the
participants watched
film clips of car
accidents taking place
GRAVE term:
lack of mundane
realism
Point: might be
individual differences
between participants
which may be
unaccounted for
Evidence:
Anastasi & Rhodes
(2006) found that
older people are less
accurate than
younger people when
giving EWT. 18-25 and
35-45 were more
accurate than those
in 55-78 age group
GRAVE term:
internal validity of
studies is decreased
POint: Lab
experiments
Evidence:
Watching film clips
in a lab is very
different to watching
them occur in real
life
Grave term:
Cannot be sure if
EWT will be similar
or different
Improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Cognitive interview Step 1 and 2 Recall Everything
- Report every detail about the event that you can recall even if it seems irrelevant
- Small details may be important and help to trigger more memories Reinstate the Context
- Witnesses should try to return to the original crime scene in their mind and imagine the environment and their emotions at the time
- This helps to trigger memories Step 3 and 4 Reverse the Order
- Events should be recalled in a different order to how they were in the original sequence
- This helps to interrupt schema and makes it harder to reconstruct a story that makes sense Change the perspective
- Adopt viewpoint of another witness to help recall more information
- Also interrupts schemas and expectations Enhanced cognitive interview
- Developed by Fisher et al emphasizes the social dynamics of the interaction. Interviewers use appropriate eye contact, speak slowly and reduce anxieties and distractions AO3 Evaluation POint: Research support Evidence: For example, Milne and Bull found in particular a combination of report everything and context reinstatement produced better recall than the standard police interview GRAVE term: Even a shortened version of CI still results in more accurate recall from witnesses Point: Cognitive interview
is very time consuming
Evidence: Time is needed to establish rapport with a witness and allow them to relax. The CI also requires time for special training which many police forces have not been able to provide GRAVE term:
Less practical
Point: Increase in
inaccurate information
Evidence: Kohnken et al. carried out a meta-analysis of 55 studies and found an 41% increase of correct information but also an increase of incorrect information when compared to a standard police interview GRAVE term: produces inaccurate information, which questions the accuracy of the interview procedure
