Memory

• AO1 for multi-store model of memory

  MSM has three stores, with information passing through them in sequence. Sensory register receives info from senses into separate stores (echoic + iconic). Capacity is large but duration is less than 2 secs. If this info is attended to, it will pass into the STM, or its lost. STM has a capacity of 7 +/- 2 items (Miller). Baddeley - STM prefers info to be encoded acoustically. Peterson and Peterson - duration of STM is less than 30 seconds. Rehearsal can keep info in this store for longer and if its rehearsed enough info may be transferred to the LTM
• Evaluation of MSM (PRE)

  The MSM is effective at explaining the primacy recency effect.

  Words at the start of a list are rehearsed and transferred to LTM from where they can be recalled.

  Words at the end of a list are recalled because they remain in STM whereas words in the middle have been displaced from STM but not rehearsed sufficiently to be encoded into LTM and are therefore forgotten. 

  The model can also account for differences between STM and LTM in encoding found in studies by Baddeley.
• Evaluation of MSM (RS)

  Shallice and Warrington on KF supports the idea that STM and LTM are separate stores because KF had a poor STM after a bike crash, but his LTM remained good. However, they found that actually his STM could recall visual information, but it could not handle verbal information- this highlights a key limitation of MSM in that STM is more than one store and this is not shown in the model. 

  Furthermore, Milner found similar results in the case study of HM who could add procedural memories to his LTM but not episodic.

  Consequently, LTM must also be more than one store.
• Evaluation of MSM (OW)

  Limitation of MSM is that it indicates a one-way flow of information, which is incorrect. 

  Morris et al. found football fans used their LTM to interpret fictitious football scores and had a better short term recall than non fans.

  The structure of MSM does not reflect this ability to access LTM when encoding information into STM. 

  Furthermore, MSM represents a passive view of memory which does not reflect the active processing that memory carries out. Consequently WM may be a better model.
• Evaluation of capacity (R)

  One strength of Jacob's study is that it has been replicated.

  As this study is an old one, early research in psychology often lacked adequate controls. For example, some participants' digit spans might have been underestimated because they were distracted during testing.

  Despite this, Jacobs findings have been confirmed by other, better controlled studies such as Bopp and Verhaeghen in 2005

  This suggests that Jacobs study is a valid test of digit span in STM
• Evaluation of capacity (O)

  One limitation of Miller’s research is that he may have overestimated STM capacity.

  Nelson Cowan reviewed other research and concluded that the capacity of STM is only about 4+/-1 chunks.

  As a result, the digit span capacity may not be 7+/-1 as Miller has suggested for English speakers.

  Therefore, Baddeley found that the capacity of STM is what can be articulated in 2 seconds.
• Types of LTM


  • Episodic memory
  • Semantic memory
  • Procedural memory
• Episodic memory


  Based on events that have happened in our lives, time-stamped as we remember when they happened, involves several elements such as people, places, objects and behaviours, declarative memory requiring conscious effort to recall
• Semantic memory


  Stores our general knowledge of the world, helping us to interpret and understand it, such as the meanings of words to understand directions we are given, declarative memory requiring conscious recall
• Procedural memory


  Implicit, about knowing how to do something, a store of all the skills and actions we have often learned through repetition, such as learning how to ride a bike, recall is usually an unconscious process because the behaviour has become automatic
• Evaluation of the types of LTM (CS)

  Strength is evidence from the case studies of HM and Clive Wearing.

  Episodic memory in both men = severely impacted due to brain damage but semantic memories were relatively unaffected - they understood meaning of words.

  Procedural memories were intact - HM could learn mirror writing, Clive played piano. This supports Tulving's view - different memory stores in LTM - one store can be damaged but other stores are unaffected.

  However, HM was not neurotypical = cannot be generalised but Clive Wearing was neurotypical before his brain infection.
• Evaluation of the types of LTM (CR)

  Limitation = conflicting research findings linking types of LTM to areas of the brain. Peterson reviewed location of semantic + episodic memory - semantic memory is located in the left side of the prefrontal cortex and episodic memory on the right. However, other research links the left prefrontal cortex with encoding and the right prefrontal cortex with episodic retrievalChallenges evidence to support types of memory as there's poor argument on where each type might be located so it suggests that communication is important in using our memory efficiently.
• Evaluation of the types of LTM (PA)

  Strength = understanding types of LTM allows psychologists to help people with memory problems

  As people age = memory loss. Research has shown that this seems to be specific to episodic memory

  Sylvie Belleville et al devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people. Trained participants performed better on a test of episodic memory after training than a control group

  This shows that distinguishing between types of LTM enables specific treatments to be developed
• Central executive


  The control centre, responsible for the allocation of resources such as attention to each modality. Limited resources of its own and no storage, but it is flexible.
• Phonological loop


  • Consists of an articulatory processor for verbal rehearsal e.g something you are about to say
  • Consists of a phonological store which holds auditory information
  • Maintenance rehearsal loop between the two which has a capacity of 2 secs
• Visuo-spatial sketch pad


  A modality which acts as our inner eye. It holds info about what things look like. VSS records movements and actions.
• Episodic buffer


  A temporary store for info which integrates visuo-spatial and verbal material which the CE cannot hold. It maintains a sense of time-sequencing so that episodes can be stored in the LTM.
• Evaluation of WMM (CS)

  One strength is evidence  from the case studies of KF.

  Shallice and Warrington studied KF after his brain injury, KF had poor STM ability for auditory information but could process visual information normally. He could recall letters and digits when he read them than when they were read to him.

  KF’s phonological loop was damaged but his visuo-spatial sketchpad was intact. This supports the existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores

  Therefore, the phonological loop is more complex than what has been researched.
• Evaluation of WMM (DT)

  Strength = dual-task performance supports the separate existence of visuo-spatial sketchpad.

  Baddeley pts carried out visual and verbal task at the same time, their performance on each was similar to when they carried out the tasks separately but when the tasks were visual = performance declined substantially

  Visual tasks compete for the same subsystem (VSS), whereas there is no competition when performing a verbal and visual task together

  Must be a separate subsystem (VSS) that processes visual input and one for verbal processing (PL)
• Evaluation of WMM (LC)

  Limitation = lack of clarity over the nature of the central executive

  Baddeley himself recognised this when he said the most important but the least understood component of working memory. The CE needs to be more clearly specified than just being simply ‘attention’

  Some psychologist believe the CE may consist of separate subcomponents eg reasoning and decision making

  This means that the CE is an unsatisfactory component and this challenges the integrity of the WMM.
• Explanations for forgetting: Interference

  Interference is where two pieces of semantically similar information cause conflict with each other, resulting in the forgetting or distortion of one or both memories. Proactive interference is where older memories affect newer memories, for example calling a new partner by an old partner’s name. Retroactive interference is where newer memories affect older memories, for example making a group of new friends and forgetting the names of your old friends.
• Explanations of forgetting: Retrieval Failure

  Retrieval failure = memories are intact but are inaccessible because no suitable cues are provided. Tulving’s encoding specificity principle = memories encoded with cues, if these cues are different or absent at retrieval there will be some forgetting. Context dependent cues include external environment in which you learned the info, whilst state dependent cues refer to the internal state – such as hungry, happy or drunk – of the person when the information was learned.  Category dependent cues = way we have organised information in our memories.
• Evaluation of the explanations of forgetting: interference (EV)

  Limitation = artificial and lacking ecological validity.

  Keppel = participants typically remembered the three-letter trigrams that were presented first in a sequence

  Many psychologists argue that these findings lack ecological validity, do not represent everyday examples of interference (or forgetting) and are limited in their application to everyday human memory.

  Therefore, the results cannot be generalised to the general population
• Evaluation of the explanations of forgetting: interference (RS)

  RS for interference effects in everyday situations

  Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall the names of the team they had played against during rugby season.

  Players who played the most games had the poorest recall, which shows that interference can operate in some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.

  However, interference may cause forgetting in everyday situations but its unusual because conditions necessary for interference to occur are rare so partial explanation
• Evaluation of the explanations of forgetting: interference (T)

  Limitation = interference is temporary and can be overcome

  Tulving gave pts lists of words organised into categories. Recall averaged about 70% for the first list, but became worse as pts learned each additional list.

  At the end of the procedure the pts were given a cued recall test - they were told the names of the categories and recall rose again to about 70%

  Therefore, this shows that interference causes a temporary loss of accessibility to material that is still in LTM, a finding not predicted by interference theory.
• Evaluation of retrieval failure (U)

  Limitation = unscientific as its unfalsifiable circular argument

  The ESP suggests that if a cue does not allow an individual to recall a memory, then the cue was not learned during encoding, yet this is not testable and cannot be disproved.

  Despite this, retrieval failure should not be abandoned as an explanation as it makes cognitive sense

  Furthermore, it has had many practical applications. For example, encouraging witnesses to reinstate context and state cues before recalling an event has increased the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
• Evaluation of retrieval failure


  RS for state-dependent cues

  Overton experimented on two groups of rats, one group was given a mild drug, one did not get the drug. Placed in a simple maze and taught to escape an electrical shock.

  Group with the drug were placed back in the maze without the drug they could not remember how to escape the shock but if they were given the drug again they could recall how to escape.

  Therefore, highlights importance of an individual being in ‘the same state’ when recalling their memory. A different internal state can impair memory making recall difficult.
• Factors affecting EWT - Anxiety/arousal

  Loftus found that anxiety causes recall to worsen. She asked participants to sit in a waiting room where they either heard a discussion over equipment failure followed by a person appearing holding a pen with grease on their hands; or they heard an argument followed by a person emerging holding a paper knife with blood on their hands. When asked to identify the man from 50 photos, 49% of the pen group were correct; only 33% of the knife group could recall him.
• Factors affecting EWT - Weapon Effect

  Loftus concluded that anxiety leads to the weapon effect – the stressful situation means that attention is drawn from the face of the person onto the weapon, so recall is poor. Other research includes Christianson & Hubinette, who interviewed witnesses of a real-life bank robbery 4-5 months after the event, and found that staff who witnessed the robbery had better recall of events than customers (staff were in a position of high anxiety compared to customers). They concluded that anxiety improves recall.
• Evaluation of misleading factors that affect accuracy of EWT (R)

  One strength = Lab studies have high control over variables which allows for replicability.

  Loftus and Palmer were therefore able to limit the amount of extraneous variables confounding the dependent variable.

  One such extraneous variable might be if participants were fully attending to the incident, but as it was shown to them on a screen, researchers were able control this, and ensure participants were attending. 

  Therefore, there is high internal validity.
• Evaluation of misleading factors that affect accuracy of EWT (RL)

  Lab experiments not represent real-life. 

  Foster et al found that if participants thought they were watching a real-life robbery, and also thought that their responses would influence the trial, their identification of a robber was more accurate.

  This is a weakness because it can be argued that the findings from artificial laboratory research settings may not be applicable to real life EWT behaviour. 

  This weakens the research as support for the role of misleading information affecting the accuracy of EWT.
• Evaluation of anxiety/arousal on accuracy of EWT (EV)

  Limitation = lacks ecological validity

  Loftus = artificial situation = not representative of real-life situations. 

  In real life people are aware that there's consequences - care more about accuracy of their testimony. Foster suggests when people think their responses will be used in court = more accurate. 

  Christianson & Hubinette = extraneous variables such as proximity to the thief. Therefore, it is difficult to establish whether anxiety has a positive or negative effect on recall in everyday cases.
• Evaluation of anxiety/arousal on accuracy of EWT (WF)

  Weapon focus effect may not be due to anxiety at all.

  Pickel = surprise may be the cause instead, her experiment involving a thief walking into a hairdressing salon carrying different items. 

  Recall of the thief was poorer in the high surprise conditions, where a chicken or handgun was carried, than where surprise was low

  These results suggest that surprise has a bigger impact on recall than anxiety, so research into the link between anxiety and EWT may be measuring arousal in general, not specifically anxiety. 
• AO1 for EWT - leading questions

  Loftus and Palmer’s study found that leading questions distort our memories, decreasing the accuracy of EWT. Pts were shown a car accident and asked to estimate the speeds. The mean estimate of speed increased with language, from 32mph in the “contacted” condition to 41mph in the “smashed” condition. A week later, 32% of the “smashed” condition inaccurately reported seeing broken glass compared to 14% of the “hit” condition. This demonstrates that leading questions alter how our memories are stored
• EWT - post event discussion

  Gabbert found that post-event discussion (PED) also decreases the accuracy of EWT by introducing new information. Pairs of participants were shown the same crime but from different angles. After PED, 71% of participants reported an aspect they did not see; a control group with no PED made no errors. This is explained by memory conformity; we go along with other witnesses’ memories either to gain social approval (normative social influence) or because we believe they are correct (informative social influence), leading to contamination of our memories. 
• Evaluation of improving the witness statements (I)

  Strength of CI = supported by psychological evidence = more influential.

  Loftus spreading activation model suggests that there are multiple pathways to access the same memory, explaining the success of the report everything technique.

  Furthermore, Tulving’s retrieval failure explanation of forgetting suggests that memory recall is improved if we have the same cues present = why context reinstatement is effective.

  CI increases recall of accurate information by 81%, highlighting its effectiveness. 
• Evaluation of improving the witness statements (II)

  Kohnken also found that the CI increases recall of inaccurate information by 61%.

  This presents a problem for cases with only one eyewitness, as it is difficult to identify what information is accurate and inaccurate.

  Despite this, the benefits of the CI to eyewitness testimony outweigh the negatives, so this research should be used to improve – but not abandon – the CI. 
• Evaluation of improving the witness statements (EfC)

  Mixed evidence about whether or not the CI is effective for children

  Geiselman reviewed many cases and found that in children under 8, recall of events was slightly less accurate (complexity)

  However, Holliday found that children aged 5 to 9 could remember more about a video of a birthday party when interviewed using the CI as opposed to a standard interview

  Concepts of the CI are effective with children, but emotional impacts = more susceptible to confusion = limits the value of the CI in a small number of cases.
• AO1 for Cognitive interview

  Geiselman developed the cognitive interview (CI) to improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Unlike standard interviews, the CI involves minimal conversational input from the officer in order to prevent memory contamination. The CI also emphasises the importance of interpersonal skills, such as appropriate eye-contact, as this helps to build a rapport between the witness and the officer, relieving any anxiety that may reduce recall accuracy. 
• AO1 for Cognitive interview - Context Reinstatement

  Eyewitness asked to recreate crime scene in mind (context reinstatement), imagining the environment and their emotions = trigger context or state dependent cues that help retrieve info. The witness is encouraged to report everything, as information the witness believes is trivial may be important. Allowed to talk uninterrupted so that memory is not disrupted by questions. In order to disrupt schemas and prevent witnesses reporting what they think happened, the witness is asked to recall the crime out of chronological order.