Memory

• Working Memory Model

  Made by Baddeley and Hitch, states that the STM store in the Multi-Store Model is an active store with 4 subcomponents
• 4 subcomponents of Working Memory Model

  • Central executive
  • Phonological Loop
  • Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad
  • Episodic Buffer
• Central executive


  Supervisory function, controls slave systems and responsible for allocating attention between stores
• Phonological Loop


  Processes written or spoken information, with a limited capacity, deals with auditory info and is divided into articulatory processes (repeating information) and phonological store (holding information)
• Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad

  Stores visual or spatial information. Divided into visual cache (storing info about visual items) and inner scribe (stores info about arrangement of objects)
• Episodic Buffer


  Integrates and stores information temporarily from other subcomponents and sends it to LTM. Capacity = 4 chunks
• KF case study supports working memory model. KF suffered brain damage due to a motorcycle accident, which damaged his STM. He was able to process visual information but had problems with verbal information. This shows that there are separate STM components for visual and verbal information as the phonological loop appeared to be damaged but the rest of the STM was intact.
• The use of case studies of brain damaged individuals to support the model is criticised. As the trauma that caused the brain damaged, may have been the cause for cognitive change. The brain damage and trauma cannot be separated so cause of change cannot be determined. Additionally, we cannot generalise findings to the rest of the population as not everyone has suffered brain damage (STM). Lacking overall validity
• Baddeley's dual task method found that it was easier to do two tasks that involved different processing systems, such as central executive and phonological loop. Whilst it was harder to do two tasks that used the same part of the STM. Supporting the idea of separate components in the STM
• 3 different forms of Long Term Memory

  • Procedural
  • Episodic
  • Semantic
• Procedural memory


  Memories of learned skills/knowledge of how to do things (e.g. how to write and read). Not time stamped and takes an unconscious effort to recall
• Episodic memory


  Memories of events that have occurred in our life (e.g. birthday party). Time stamped and takes a conscious effort to recall
• Semantic memory


  Memories of general knowledge of the world such as facts (e.g. noise a cat makes). Not time stamped and takes a conscious effort to recall
• Time stamped


  Knowing when the memory was made
• Clive wearing was a man who suffered from a viral infection, which damaged his LTM. He struggled to recall semantic and episodic memories but was able to recall procedural memories. This supports the idea that there are different types of LTM stored separately in the brain
• The case study of Clive wearing lacks generalisability because it is an isolated case of only one individual's LTM damage. This makes it very hard to replicate to test for validity and therefore also lacks reliability.
• Beleville found that psychologists can target scan certain types of memories to improve people's lives. Identification of different types of LTM allowed for psychologists to create memory training which improved episodic memory in older people with cognitive impairment.
• Loftus and Palmer conducted research into effect of misleading info on eyewitness testimony. In the first study, 45 participants watched videos of traffic incidents and were asked decoy questions after viewing them, including a critical question: "how fast were the cars going when they HIT each other." The word HIT was the critical verb which was swapped with either smashed, collided or bumped. Those asked with the word 'hit' gave a slower speed than those asked with the word 'smashed'.
• In another study, 150 participants watched the same traffic videos, asked the same questions and were also asked if they had seen broken glass a week after watching the videos. There was no broken glass, however those asked questions with an aggressive critical verb were more likely to report seeing broken glass.
• Gabbert investigated the effect of post event discussion on eyewitness testimony. 120 participants watched a video of a girl stealing money from different perspectives, either individually or in pairs. However, only one person actually saw the girl steal. Participants discussed crime together, where misleading information was spread. 71% of participants reported information they had not seen and 60% called the girl guilty despite not seeing her steal.
• The Loftus and Palmer studies lack ecological validity because participants had to watch a video of car accidents from start to finish which is very different from witnessing a real life car accident as it lacks the stress of a real accident and usually we rarely see the whole event.
• The Loftus and Palmer studies lack population validity because the sample consisted of only 150 American students. Students may have been less experienced drivers, who may be less accurate at estimating speeds. Experienced drivers may have not been affected by misleading questions in the same way.
• Johnson and Scott investigated the effect of weapon anxiety on recall. Participants believed they were taking part in a lab study and had to wait in a waiting room, whilst in the waiting room, an argument could be heard in the next room. In the low anxiety scenario, a man ran past carrying a grease covered pen. In the high anxiety scenario, a man ran past carrying a knife covered in blood. 49% of participants were able to correctly identify the man in the low anxiety scenario, 33% of participants were able to correctly identify the man in the high anxiety scenario.
• Johnson and Scott's study broke numerous ethical guidelines as participants were deceived about the nature of the experiment and were exposed to a man with a bloody knife which may have caused extreme feelings of anxiety.
• Johnson and Scott's study has high ecological validity because participants did not know that they were being observed and did not know what happened was part of the experiment as it was a field experiment. However, it is a limitation that it is a field experiment and so there is less control over extraneous variables that may bias the results.
• Multi-Store Model of Memory


  Proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin which suggests that memory is made up of three components: sensory register, STM and LTM. The model proposes that memories are formed sequentially and information passes from one component to the next, in a linear fashion
• 3 components of Multi-Store Model of Memory

  • Sensory register
  • STM
  • LTM
• Sensory register


  Unlimited capacity due to large amount of information received daily. With a duration of 250 milliseconds and modality specific coding.
• STM


  Capacity of 7+/-2 chunks of information and a duration of 18-30 seconds with an acoustic coding.
• LTM


  Unlimited capacity, can store and retrieve information potentially forever. With a semantic coding.
• Squire used brain scanning techniques and found that STM can be associated with activity in the prefrontal cortex and LTM can be associated with activity in the hippocampus. Suggesting that different components of MSM are processed by different brain regions, supporting the idea that memory is made up of separate stores.
• Evidence suggests that there are multiple STM and LTM stores and not a single store. For example, LTM can be split into episodic, semantic and procedural memories and STM can be split into central executive, episodic buffer, visuo-spatial sketchpad and phonological loop. Therefore, suggesting that the model is outdated
• Shallice and Warrington studied a patient known as KF, his STM for digits was very poor when they read them out aloud to him, but his recall was much better when he was able to read digits to himself. Suggesting that there is more than one STM store, one for sounds and one for images.
• Cognitive Interview


  Developed by Gieselman, identified 4 techniques believed to improve accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony: Reinstate the context, Reverse the order, Change the perspective, Report Everything (REMEMBER ROPE)
• A meta analysis by Kohnken combined the data from 55 studies comparing Cognitive Interview to standard police interviews. The Cognitive Interview gave an average 41% more accurate information compared to standard interviews.
• Fisher examined the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview in real police interviews. Trained detectives obtained 46% more information and 90% more accurate information, in comparison to detectives using standard interview (control group).
• A limitation of Cognitive Interview is the amount of time and training needed to implement it. For example, CI requires more time to establish rapport with a witness and to allow them to relax. CI also requires special training and many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours of training. This means that the use of CI in police interviews has not been widespread or implemented properly, therefore ineffective.
• Retrieval Failure


  Forgetting due to the absence of cues
• Encoding Specific Principle


  If a cue is to help us remember information, it must be present during encoding (when we learn the material) and at retrieval (when recalling it). If cue at encoding and retrieval are different, forgetting is more likely to occur.
• Context Dependent Forgetting


  When environmental cues are missing (e.g. place or smell)