Memory Quiz- Psychology (AS)

Retroactive interference: newer older( newer, older ) memory interferes with older newer( older, newer ) memory e.g. teacher can't remember previous current( previous, current ) class' names
Proactive interference: older newer( older, newer ) memory interferes with newer older( newer, older ) memory e.g. teacher can't remember current previous( current, previous ) class' names

The word type which produced the worst recall in McGeoch and McDonald's retroactive study was synonyms antonyms nonsense syllables 3-digit numbers no new list unrelated words( synonyms, antonyms, nonsense syllables, 3-digit numbers, no new list, unrelated words ).

Retrieval Failure: an explanation for forgetting that suggests that insufficient cues sufficient cues disruptive memories lack of intelligence( insufficient cues, sufficient cues, disruptive memories, lack of intelligence ) cause information to be forgotten. These cues can be state context food envionment location( state, context, food, envionment, location ) dependent (internal, e.g. drunk, tired) or context state environment drug( context, state, environment, drug ) dependent (external, e.g. location)

Baddeley Tulving McGeoch Peterson and Peterson( Baddeley, Tulving, McGeoch, Peterson and Peterson ) (1975 1985 1983 1931( 1975, 1985, 1983, 1931 )) conducted a study deep sea divers based on context state( context, state ) dependent forgetting. They learned words either in/out of the sea and then recalled them either in/out of the sea. When the environmental contexts matched (e.g. sea - sea, land - land) the recall was better worse the same( better, worse, the same ).

Carter and Cassaday McGeoch and McDonald Baddeley Bahrick( Carter and Cassaday, McGeoch and McDonald, Baddeley, Bahrick ) (1998 1985 1983 1975( 1998, 1985, 1983, 1975 )) conducted a study based on state context( state, context ) dependent forgetting. They either gave the participants anti-histamines alcohol cigarettes to smoke food( anti-histamines, alcohol, cigarettes to smoke, food ) or didn't, asked them to learn and recall word lists. They recalled them either on the drug or not. They found that when there was a mismatch match similarity( mismatch, match, similarity ) of internal states, recall was worse better( worse, better ).

The response bias researcher bias participant bias memory bias( response bias, researcher bias, participant bias, memory bias ) explanation suggests that the wording of a question has no effect a big effect some effect( no effect, a big effect, some effect ) on the participants' memories, but it changes the way they decide to answer. Words such as 'smashed contacted bumped hit( smashed, contacted, bumped, hit )' encouraged them to answer a higher lower( higher, lower ) estimated speed.

Loftus and Palmer Miller Baddeley Carter and Cassaday( Loftus and Palmer, Miller, Baddeley, Carter and Cassaday ) (1974 1931 1966 1998( 1974, 1931, 1966, 1998 )) conducted a second experiment to prove that memory was wasn't( was, wasn't ) changed by wording location state( wording, location, state ). They found that participants who heard 'smashed contacted bumped hit( smashed, contacted, bumped, hit )' were more less( more, less ) likely to report broken glass even though there wasn't any.

If witnesses criminals police officers( witnesses, criminals, police officers ) discuss a crime with each other, their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated more accurate lies( contaminated, more accurate, lies ). This is because they combine ignore change( combine, ignore, change ) information from others with their own memories.

Gabbert Tulving Baddeley Loftus and Palmer( Gabbert, Tulving, Baddeley, Loftus and Palmer ) put participants in pairs, and they watched a video of the same a different( the same, a different ) crime from different the same( different, the same ) perspectives. They had a post-event discussion, and were then asked to recall the event. Gabbert found that 71 66 31 84( 71, 66, 31, 84 )% of participants recalled information that they couldn't have seen from their perspective, suggesting post-event discussion directly affects doesn't affect positively affects( directly affects, doesn't affect, positively affects ) eyewitness testimony.

The Yerkes-Dodson Johnson-Scott Deffenbacher Peterson-Peterson Baddeley( Yerkes-Dodson, Johnson-Scott, Deffenbacher, Peterson-Peterson, Baddeley ) law suggested that the relationship between emotional arousal physical arousal physiological arousal cognitive arousal( emotional arousal, physical arousal, physiological arousal, cognitive arousal ) and performance production happiness terror anxiety( performance, production, happiness, terror, anxiety ) looks like an inverted U M N V( U, M, N, V ). This means that too little much( little, much ) anxiety leads to too little much( little, much ) recall, and too much little( much, little ) anxiety leads to too little much( little, much ) recall. Therefore, there is an optimal worst normal( optimal, worst, normal ) level of anxiety to ensure accurate recall.

What are the 4 steps of a cognitive interview?

1. Report everything Reinstate the context Reverse the order Change perspective( Report everything, Reinstate the context, Reverse the order, Change perspective )- include every detail, no matter how seemingly significant they are. They may actually be important, or trigger other memories
2. Reinstate the context Report everything Reverse the order Chnage perspective( Reinstate the context, Report everything, Reverse the order, Chnage perspective )- the witness should return to the scene in their mind, and remember their feelings and the environment (e.g. weather)
3. Reverse the order Report everything Reinstate the context Change perspective( Reverse the order, Report everything, Reinstate the context, Change perspective )- change the chronology of event, preventing lying or basing answers on expectations
4. Change perspective Report everything Reinstate the context Reverse the order( Change perspective, Report everything, Reinstate the context, Reverse the order )- ask the witness to imagine themselves as a different witness/criminal, and then what they would've seen. This prevents basing answers on expectations.