7893668
Description
Flashcards by Beth Spring, updated more than 1 year ago
More
|
Created by Asterisked
almost 10 years ago
|
|
|
Copied by Beth Spring
almost 8 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Summarise the Multi-Store Model (Atkinson and Shiffrin) | Sensory->STM->LTM |
| RESEARCH FOR Multi-Store Model | Glanzer & Cunitz (Recency Effect) PP's could remember first and last few words First words rehearsed = LTM (Primary Effect) & Last words in STM (Recency Effect) Supports existence of separate stores |
| Summarise the Working Memory Model (Baddeley and Hitch) | Central Executive: Phonological Loop (Phono Store - Inner Ear // Articulatory Loop - Inner Voice) ; Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (Inner Scribe - 'draws' objects in visual field // Visual Cache - Inner Eye) & Episodic Buffer (Backup Store) |
| RESEARCH FOR Working Memory Model | KF's Case Study KF suffered brain damage; motorcycle accident damaged STM; KF's impairment mainly for verbal info - visual largely unaffected; shows there are separate STM components: 1 for visual; 1 for verbal |
| PROS and CONS of WMM | Little known about how central exec works - important for model but exact role = unclear Model doesn't explain link between working memory and LTM |
| EWT |A01 Loftus: Research of Automobile Destruction Part 1: Leading Questions | 45 US students; Opportunity Sample; Lab Experiment; Independent Measures Design IV: hit,smashed,collided,bumped,contacted Findings: Estimated Speed affected by verb; verb implied info about speed, affecting memory of incident |
| Eyewitness Testimony (EWT) Research of Automobile Destruction Study (A02) | Cons: Lacks mundane realism: clip doesn't have emotional impact of real life (eco-validity) US Students used - Can't generalise Pros: Easy to replicate (lab experiment) External Validity |
| Effect of Age on EWT |A01 Poole & Lindsay (2001) | Kids 3 - 8 yrs old shown science demo; parents then read book with elements of demo in it; kids integrated new info into original memory; kids asked to 'Source Monitor' (separate new info from old); older kids were better at Source Monitoring |
| Effect of Age on EWT |A02 Poole & Lindsay (2001) | Application to Real life: ensure witnesses don't hear new info Pros: Informed consent from parents + parental involvement = kids less susceptible to investigator effects |
| Effect of Age on EWT |A01 Cohen & Faulkner (1989) | Showed middle-aged & elderly PP's footage of kidnapping: G1: Narrative account w/accurate info G2: Narrative account w/misleading info = Elderly people more susceptible to misleading info |
| Effect of Age on EWT |A02 Cohen & Faulkner (1989) | Cons: Lab Conditions - PP's aware of 'lack of consequence' concerning any mistakes - lacks eco-validity. Potential Investigator Effects: Tone/Body Lang of researchers could've influenced results. |
| Effect of Anxiety on EWT Yerkes-Dodson Law | |
| Effect of Anxiety on EWT |A01 Christianson & Hubinette | Survey; 110 PP's - witnesses of real bank robberies; 2 groups: Bystanders and Victims (those close by and/or harassed) Victims had better recollection than Bystanders; Victims exposed to higher levels of stress |
| Effect of Anxiety on EWT |A02 Christianson & Hubinette | Pros: Real Life Event; Real Danger & Real Reactions; Has Ecological Validity Cons: Distance between event & survey: 110 to all witness recent bank robberies = unlikely; memory potentially strengthened (e.g. police interviews) |
| Effect of Anxiety on EWT |A01 Loftus: Weapon Effect 'Does weapon-induced anxiety take attention away from other factors?' | PP's sat outside lab listening to convo inside; G1: Peaceful convo; man emerges w/greasy hands & pen G2: Hostile convo; man emerges w/bloody hands & knife 50 photos to recall face; G1 better recall - G2's focus was on knife. |
| Effect of Anxiety on EWT |A02 Loftus: Weapon Effect 'Does weapon-induced anxiety take attention away from other factors?' | Pros: Genuine responses - has ecological validity Cons: Lack of extraneous variables - no distractions, full attention on conversation etc. = not ecological |
| EWT |A01 Loftus: Research of Automobile Destruction Part 2: Misleading Info | I.V: Original Question Asked 'hit/bumped/collided/smashed/contacted' D.V: Interval between Question given and Answer provided (1 week) I.V continued to distort memory; 32% 'smashed' & 14% 'hit' reported broken glass when there was none |
| Eyewitness Testimony (EWT) Research of Automobile Destruction Study (A02) | Contrasting Arguments on why Misleading Information affected PP's Yuille & Cutshall - Real life; shop owner shot & killed thief; 21 witnesses; questioned by researchers; witnesses could accurately recall event months after shooting |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.