AS Psychology Unit 1 - Memory

AS Psychology: Unit 1 Memory Multi-Store Model: |Atkinson & Shiffrin Sensory --> STM -->LTMSTM: Encoding - Mainly Acoustic Duration - 18-30 seconds Capacity - 7 +/-2LTM: Encoding - Mainly Semantic Duration - Up to a lifetime Capacity - Limitless Research: 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 Working Memory Model |Baddeley & Hitch Central Exec: Supervisory; Controls Slave Systems; Modality Free Phonological Loop: Phonological 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: KF’s Case Study KF suffered brain damage; motorcycle accident damaged STM; KF’s impairment mainly for verbal info – visual largely unaffected; shows separate STM components; 1 for visual (VSS); 1 for verbal (phono loop) EVALUATION: Little known about how central exec works – important to model but exact role unclear; Model doesn’t explain link between working memory & LTM EWT | Loftus: Research of Automobile Destruction Part 1: Leading Questions 45 US Students; Opportunity Sample; Lab Exp; Independent Measures Design I.V – Verbs used ‘Hit/Smashed/Bumped/Collided/Contacted’ Findings: Estimated Speed affected by verb; verb implied info about speed, affecting memory of incident EWT | Loftus: Research of Automobile Destruction Part 2: Misleading Info I.V – Original Question Asked ‘hit/bumped/collided/smashed/contacted’; D.V – interval between Q&A (1 week); I.V continued to distort memory; 32% ‘smashed’ & 14% ‘hit’ reported broken glass when there was none EVALUATION: Lacks mundane realism – clip without emotional impact of real life (lacks eco-validity); US Students used – can’t generalise; Pros: Easy to replicate (lab experiment); External Validity (can be applied to real life); Yuille & Cutshall – Real life; shop owner shot & killed thief; 21 witnesses; questioned by researchers; witnesses could accurately recall event months after shooting Effect of Age on EWT | Poole and Lindsay 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; older kids better at it than younger EVALUATION: Can be applied to real life – ensure witnesses don’t hear new info (external validity); Informed consent from parents + parental involvement = kids less susceptible to investigator effects Effect of Age on EWT | Cohen and Faulkner Middle-aged and elderly PP’s shown footage of kidnapping; G1 – narrative account w/accurate info; G2 – narrative account w/misleading info; elderly people more susceptible to misleading info EVALUATION: Lab conditions made PP’s aware of ‘lack of consequences’ concerning any mistakes made – 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 | Christianson and Hubinette Survey; 110PPs – witnesses of real bank robberies; 2 groups – bystanders and ‘victims’; victims had better recollection than bystanders and were exposed to higher levels of stress EVALUATION: Real life event – real danger and real reactions = ecological validity; Distance between event & survey – 110 to all witness recent bank robberies = unlikely – memory potentially strengthened (e.g. police interviews) Effect of Anxiety on EWT | Loftus: Weapon Effect | If weapon-induced anxiety takes focus off other factors? PP’s sat outside lab listening to convo inside; G1: Peaceful convo – man emerges w/greasy hands & pen; G1: Hostile convo – man emerges w/bloody hands & knife; 50 photos given to recall face; G1 better recall – G2’s focus was on knife EVALUATION: Genuine responses – ecological validity; Lack of extraneous variables – no distractions, full attention on conversation = not ecological Cognitive Interview | Fisher’s Findings Studied police interviews in Florida (4 months); brief, direct, close-ended questions were asked = witnessed couldn’t talk freely; Fisher: Interruptions ‘unhelpful’ R.E (Report Everything – Even Minute Details) C.R (Context Reinforcement – Recall Scene) R.O (Change Order: Report event from different point rather than beginning) C.P (Change Perspective – Try to recall from another’s POV) Cognitive Interview | Milne & Bull All cognitive procedures tested (singly or in combination); All 4 better than standard technique; Most effective combination = R.E & C.R Cognitive Interview | Fisher et al Real settings (Miami police interviews); trained detectives to use C.I skills w/real witnesses; significantly increased recall Cognitive Interview | Koehnken et al Witnesses questioned with C.I technique; witnesses recalled more INCORRECT info than w/standard technique: probably due to more info being recalled overall. Memory Improvement | Strategies LOCI – Using a known route one takes to remember a list of things through association; more vivid = better recall ACRONYM – 1st letter recovery cues to recall e.g. – SMART = Specific, Measure, Achievable, Realistic, Timely ACTIVE PROCESSING – Craik & Lockhart: Memory depends on deep and meaningful processing; Craik – tested recall in different conditions – 4 diff. Groups given list of printed words and asked to carry out task: 1) Structural Questions 2) Acoustic Task 3) Semantic Task 4) Remember Words; Recognition Task = 3) better than 1) & 2) & on same level as 4); meaningful engagement w/stimulus materials leads to better retention FACE-NAME SYSTEM – Lorayne & Lucas – image similar to person’s name & link to prominent feature on person’s face