Cognitive Approach

Cognitive Approach

Key Assumptions
1. Behaviour can be explained by adopting an information-processing approach
  1. Info-processing model explains how we receive, interpret and respond to info. Describes the flow of information.
2. The human brain operates like a computer (the computer analogy)
  1. Believes that there are similarities between how a computer processes info and how the human brain processes info
Levels of Processing (Craik and Lockhart 1972)
1. Types of Rehearsal
  1. Type I
    1. Information is rehearsed in order to preserve it for a short time - unlikely to result in a long term memory
  2. Type II
    1. Giving information meaning is more likely to result in a short term memory
2. The deeper the processing the more likely it is to be retained as a long term memory
3. Proposes that memory is not necessarily a conscious function but more a by-product of the way info is proposed.
4. Types of Processing
  1. Structural Processing
    1. Lowest level of processing
    2. Based on what something looks like
  2. Phonetic Processing
    1. Based on what something sounds like
  3. Semantic Processing
    1. Deepest level of processing
    2. Based on what something means
5. Strengths
  1. Has supporting studies eg. Hyde and Jenkins + Craik and Tulving
  2. Students can be taught to make notes which have meaning
6. Weaknesses
  1. Contradictory evidence exists - Morris et al
  2. Empirical support is la based, lacks ecological validity
  3. Problems w/ defining deep processing
Multi Store Model of Memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968)
1. Proposes that memory consists of 3 stores with different capacities, durations and mode of storage
2. Sensory Memory
  1. Lasts for a fraction of a second
  2. Acts as a filter - unwanted info filtered out
  3. Encodes info from outside world into brain waves
3. Short Term Memory
  1. Info held for 18-30 seconds
  2. Info encoded acoustically - by sound
  3. Forgetting in STM is due to displacement or decay
  4. 7 +- 2 items
  5. Rehearsal creates LTM
4. Long Term Memory
  1. Unlimited capacity
  2. Unlimited duration
  3. Info encoded semantically - by meaning
  4. Forgetting in LTM due to interference or decay
5. Strengths
  1. Supporting evidence eg. Glanzer and Cunitz
6. Weaknesses
  1. Experiments tend to use artificial tasks
  2. Too simplistic
Cue Dependent Theory of Forgetting (Tulving 1974)
1. Two events necessary for recall of info
  1. A memory trace
    1. Info is retained in a store as a result of the original perception of an event
  2. A retrieval cue
    1. The environment at the time of encoding matches the environment at the time of retrieval
      1. Info is best recalled at the place it was learned
2. "The inability to recall something that could be recalled on an earlier occasion"
  1. State Dependent Forgetting
    1. We encode info with the emotional and physical state we were in at the time
    2. Lang et al (2001) supports this
      1. 54 students who feared snakes/spiders had fear induced whilst learning a list of words. Fear induced for recall - scared to recall the words.
3. Context Dependent Forgetting
  1. The place that we learned info can help trigger the memory that was learned there
  2. Godden and Baddeley (1975) supports this
4. Strengths
  1. Accounts for many instances of forgetting
  2. Lots of experimental support
  3. Influenced other research which came to the same conclusions
5. Weaknesses
  1. Supporting evidence uses artificial tasks - lacks validity
  2. Most lab research can't tell whether what is being provided is a state or context cue
Displacement Theory of Forgetting
1. Applies to short term storage of info
2. Primary Effect
  1. Info learned first is remembered well - has gone into the long term store through rehearsal
3. Recency Effect
  1. Info learned last is well remembered - it's still in the rehearsal loop in the short term store and so is available for immediate recall
4. Waugh and Norman (1965) tested this
5. Glanzer at al (1967) - thought that displacement was a factor in forgetting but also thought that decay caused forgetting.
6. Strengths
  1. Fits with the Multi Store Model
  2. Tested by well controlled experiments - yield info about cause and effect
  3. Experiments are reliable
7. Weaknesses
  1. Difficult to operationalise and measure accurately
  2. Tested using artificial tasks
Craik and Tulving (1975) - Levels of Processing Experiment
1. Aim
  1. To test the LoP framework. Investigating whether processing words at different levels would affect recognition of the words
2. Sample
  1. 24 participants
3. Procedure
  1. P's shown 60 words and asked q's about the word. Then asked to recognise the words from a list of 180 words.
4. Results
  1. 17% of words recognised in structural processing, 36% of words recognised in phonetic processing, 65% of words recognised in semantic processing
5. Conclusion
  1. The deeper the processing the greater the recognition
6. Strengths
  1. There was no intentional learning - Craik and Tulving didn't inform the P's of the true nature of experiment
7. Weaknesses
  1. Tasks were artificial
  2. Study ignored the role of imagery + emotion that are associated w/ log lasting memories
Godden and Baddeley (1975)
1. Aim
  1. To investigate if a natural environment can act as a cue for recall
2. Sample
  1. 13 male and 5 female deep sea divers
3. Procedure
  1. Divers randomly allocated to one of four conditions, learned and recalled lists of 38 words. Words presented in sets of 3 w/ a 4 second gap between each set. Each list presented twice. After 4 minutes diver had to write down the words in any order in 2 minutes
    1. Condition 1 - learn on dry land, recall on dry land. Condition 2 - learn underwater, recall underwater. Condition 3 - learn on dry land, recall underwater. Condition 4 - lean underwater, recall on dry land
4. Results
  1. Learn on dry land
    1. Recall on dry land - 13.5 words out of 36 (mean)
    2. Recall underwater - 8.6 words out of 36 (mean)
  2. Learn underwater
    1. Recall on dry land - 8.5 out of 36 (mean)
    2. Recall underwater - 11.4 out of 36 (mean)
5. Conclusion
  1. Environment can act as a contextual cue for recall
6. Strengths
  1. Conducted in a realistic environment
  2. Has practical applications for education and police interviews
7. Weaknesses
  1. Lack of control
  2. Sample from same diving club
Eyewitness testimony
1. Unreliable
  1. Loftus et al (1987) - found that the estimated duration of an event is distorted
  2. Post event info - leading questions affect the events recalled
  3. Stress - recall is poorer when under high stress
  4. Lack of attention - if you haven't seen something then you are unreliable
2. Reliable
  1. Lab based studies lack ecological validity
  2. Real life examples show EWT can be reliable

Próximo

Descrição

Resumo de Recurso

Semelhante

	Criado por emilyyoung212 quase 11 anos atrás