Psychology: Memory

Short and Long Term Memory
1. Capacity
  1. Jacobs: Span 9.3 items and 7.3 letters
  2. Miller: immediate memory 7 +/- 2
    1. Cowan max 4 chunks not as extensive as first thought
    2. Jacobs recall increased with age - brain capacity or strategies developed
2. Duration
  1. STM: Peterson and Peterson. recall consonant syllable after intervals. 3 seconds = 90% accuracy, 9 seconds = 20%. 18 seconds = 2%
    1. Artificial: Not real life situation. Results could be due to displacement
    2. Reitman: Auditory tones longer STM. Due to displacement not decay
  2. LTM: Bahrick year book. 15 years 90% 48 years 70% cued recall
3. Coding
  1. Baddeley: STM encoded acoustically and LTM encoded semantically
    1. Not test LTM with 20 minutes interval - too short
    2. STM not always acoustic can be visual as well same for LTM
4. Primacy and Recency Effect
  1. Glanzer and Cunitz
    1. Remember more words at the start and end of a list. Rehearsal for LTM
      1. Lack ecological validity
Multi-Store Model
1. Atkinson and Shiffrin
2. Sensory Register (Small Capacity)
  1. Supporting Evidence: Controlled lab studies support separate short and long term stores
  2. Too Simple
3. Attention
4. STM: Immediate use, limited duration
  1. Beardsley found prefrontal cortex active in STM not LTM. Squire found hippocampus engaged in LTM.
5. Maintenance Rehearsal: Repetition transfers from STM to LTM
  1. Case Study: HM brain damage personality and intellect in tact but not able to form new LTMs
  2. More than Rehearsal: Craik and Lockhart process deeply remember more
6. LTM: Potentially unlimited duration and capacity
Working Memory Model
1. Baddeley
2. CE
  1. Direct attention to tasks how resources allocated. Limited capacity
    1. Too vague and similar to attention
3. PL
  1. Limited Capacity. Auditory info and preserves order. inner eat loop = maintenance rehearsal
    1. Dual task Performance: Task involving same process twice was slower
4. VSS
  1. Spatial tasks and visual info.
    1. KF short term forgetting auditory info. Restricted to PL. Suggest separate stores
5. Episodic Buffer
  1. Needed a general store for info relating to more than one type of task
    1. Process of brain injury is traumatic can change persons behaviour causing underperformance on certain tasks
Types of LTM
1. Episodic
  1. Personal events. Specific details, context and emotion
    1. Different areas active. Episodic = hippocampus, temporal lobe and frontal lobe
    2. Priming: implicit memories influence response to a stimulus. Priming controlled by separate system supports explicit memories.
      1. 4th Type of LTM: PRS (perceptual representation)
2. Semantic
  1. Shared memory for facts and knowledge. e.g. social customs
    1. Areas active: temporal lobe
    2. Brain Damaged patients could have problems with the connection between parts of the brain not the localised area
3. Procedural
  1. Physical skills acquired through repetition and practice. Becomes automatic
    1. Areas active: Cerebellum and motor cortex
Forgetting: Interference
1. Retroactive
  1. Current attempts to learn something interfere with past learning
    1. Memory tested after 24 hours showed recovery interference occurs temporally not available
2. Proactive
  1. Past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something
    1. Interference doesn't occur often. special conditions needed
3. Similarity of Test Materials
  1. 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
    1. Artificial research. Not relate to everyday.
4. Real-World Study
  1. Baddeley and Hitch: Rugby players recall names of teams played. player played more most game forgot more - interference not decay
    1. Greater working emery span less susceptible to proactive interference
Forgetting: Retrieval Failure
1. Encoding Specificity Principle: Tulving and Thompson
  1. Proposed memory best when info present at encoding available at retrieval
2. Context-Dependent Forgetting: Abernathy
  1. Familiar things = memory cues. Pp tested in same room with same instructor scored better
  2. Research Support includes lab, field and natural. High ecological validity
  3. Research suggest revise in room taking exams. unrealistic. mental reinstatement as effective
3. State-Dependent Forgetting: Goodwin
  1. Learn list when drunk or sober. asked to recall in same state. Info learnt in one state more available in same state later on
  2. Complex associations less easily triggered
  3. Baddeley said impossible to test. Stimulus lead to retrieval then encoded. If not retrieval means can't be encoded. Can't be proved
EWT: Misleading Info
1. Loftus and Palmer
  1. 45 students shown traffic accidents. After each film given questionnaire asked with different verbs: smashed, collided and hit.
    1. More violent words estimated higher speed
    2. Requires info from two sources. Elderly difficulty remembering source of info not actual content
2. Post- Event Discussion
  1. 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
3. Suppporting Evidence: Brauns evaluate Disney. reported shaking hands with Bugs Bunny created false memories
  1. Criminal Cases rely heavily on EWT can result in innocent conviction
4. Loftus' research inaccurate and unreliable. Lab not real life - low ecological validity
EWT: Anxiety
1. Yerkes-Dodson Effect
  1. Arousal negative effect on performance. When low or high = bad. Medium level of arousal is most beneficial
    1. Alternative model: Catastrophe model Arousal increase beyond optimum see decline
    2. Lab not real life leads to reduced anxiety
2. Weapon Focus Effect: Johnson and Scott
  1. 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
    1. Pickel claimed not due to anxiety but surprise. Experiment with chicken. Best accuracy in high surprise condition
    2. Individual Differences of emotional sensitivity. Labelled neurotic showed decreasing accuracy with stress compared to stable
3. Resolving: Deffenbacher
  1. 10/21 studies showed higher arousal = better accuracy. 11 showed opposite. Small differences
4. Positive Effect
  1. Christianson and Hubbinette
    1. Real robberies most anxious person had highest accuracy of memory
Cognitive Interview (CI)
1. Normal police interview focus' on interviewer as they do most of the talking. CI encouraged interviewee dominance
  1. Real World: Not all components always used instead related techniques. Decrease validity
2. Mental Reinstatement
  1. Meta-Analysis found 34% increase correct info. 61% increase false positives. Careful when reviewing info
3. Report Everything
  1. Reviewed with one component. Recall similar. Interview with 2 components recall was higher
4. Change Order
  1. CI not spread due to limited time in interviews and needs special training for police
5. Change Perspective
  1. Individual Differences: Negative stereotype of older people makes cautious when relaying info. CI overcome this

Next up

Psychology: Memory

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Emilia Leydon over 6 years ago