psychology p1

• episodic memory


  personal experiences e.g. holidays, birthdays
• semantic memory 


  facts and general knowledge
• procedural memory 


  complex skills , action based
• encoding 


  changing info so it can be stored
• storage


  holding info in memory
• retrieval 


  recovering info from storage
• how are memories encoded and stored?

  visually-how words look acoustically-sound semantically-meaning
• multi model store

  info arrives at senses. stays in sensory store for short time. we pay attention here , moves to short term store. new info moves old out. rehearse info = moves to long term store
• features of multi model store

  sensory-coding is same as received. duration is less that 1 second. capacity is very limited. short term-coding is mainly acoustic. duration is up to 30 seconds. capacity is approximately 7 chunks. long term-coding is mainly semantic. duration is lifelong and unlimited. capacity is unlimited.
• evaluation of multi model store

  + practical application - using rehearsal to revise for exams. support from case study , Murdock - doesn't explain why we can recall info we didn't rehearse e.g. what we did last weekend. lacks detail
• primacy and recency - Murdock 


  primacy - first few words recalled because rehearsed and passed on to long term memory store recency - last few words recalled because end of list so still readily available in short term
• Murdock serial position curve study


  lab experiment. aim: recall position of words. method: 16 participants had to remember list of 20 words in any order. given 90 seconds to recall. test repeated 80 times over a few days. result: words at end and start well remembered. middle were forgotten. displayed on graph called serial position curve. conclusion: evidence to show short and long term stores. first few recalled - long term - primacy. last few recalled - short term - recency. middle - neither
• evaluation of Murdock


  + other researchers finding similar supporting ideas. increases credibility and reliability - participants all same age and study psychology , can't generalise. criticised for simplistic explanation. learning lists of words isn't usually how we use memory in everyday life so lacks ecological validity
• effort after meaning 


  making sense of something after it has happened. making assumptions or guesses about what could or should happen. mistakenly remembering things that aren't really there because they make sense within the situation
• Bartletts war of ghost study


  lab study. aim: how memory of story affected by previous experiences and knowledge. method: participants read story and had to retell 15 minutes later to next person. next person did same and so on. record made each time story retold. results: story got shorter and details taken out (no ghost) changes order of events and details (unfamiliar names to familiar and canoes to boats) conclusion: memory is not exact copy. influenced by schema , beliefs , stereotypes
• factors affecting memories - false memories

  remebering something that never happened. research shows it is very easy to plant false memories into someones mind. Loftus carried out study of questioning participants about childhood. researcher true stories (from parents) and one about being lost in shopping centre. 25% actually believed they had been lost and could even describe in detail what happened.
• factors affecting memory - interference

  difficulty recalling info as other info gets in the way. proactive - old info interfering with new. retroactive - new info interfering with old.
• factors affecting memory - context 


  general environment where something happened. recall of info is higher if learning and recall happen in same place or context. e.g. forgetting why you went to room , return to what you were doing, remember again.
• sensation vs perception


  sensation - info from world around us which we receive from sense organs. perception - how we organise, interpret and make sense of info e.g. using schemas
• monocular depth cues


  how far something is using one eye
• binocular depth cues


  how far something is using both eyes
• monocular depth cues 


  height in plane - how high object appears. bottom of picture = perceive as nearer. top of picture = perceive as further away. relative size - smaller object = further away. bigger object = closer. occlusion - one object blocks the other , first is closer (covered one perceived as further) linear perspective - parallel lines that go back into distance appear to get closer (converge)
• binocular depth cues

  retinal disparity - difference between 2 images when something is closer. further away = less difference. brain combines both images of each eye to make 1 3d shape convergence - muscles in eye have to work harder when looking at something close. closer object = eye converges more
• visual illusions


  perception tricked into seeing something inaccurately/ brain flips between 2 images
• visual illusions


  misinterpreted depth cues - distance not actually there - ponzo/mullerlyer ambiguity - different interpretations of same image - necker cube fiction - seeing something not actually there - kanzsia triangle size constancy - keeping original perception of object, even when changed by eyes - Ames room
• Factors affecting perception


  • Culture
  • Motivation
  • Emotion
  • Expectation
• Culture


  Different cultures have different experiences. What we are used to and familiar with determine how we interpret
• Motivation


  We are motivated to perceive something in a particular way e.g. looking for something in a cluttered environment
• Emotion


  Make us more likely to perceive something in line with how we feel
• Expectation


  If we are expecting to see something, we are more likely to perceive stimulus in a particular way, even if not fully accurate e.g. seeing someone in a crowd
• bruner and minturn evaluations


  + carefully designed and controlled . lab study . can be replicated . real world application , Bartletts war of ghost = explains why people changed story based on expectation . increase reliability snd credibility - lacks ecological validity . rarely find ambiguous figures in real life. makes study unpractical- not very similar to perception in real life. less participants not generalisable
• Gilchrist and Nesburg motivation study


  aim: how motivation(hunger) affects perception. method: 26 undergrad. no food 20 hours. control group - not deprived. all randomly assigned. both show 4 slides, 15 seconds each ( spaghetti burgers, chicken). told they had to match pictures. after each slide , light got dimmer. asked to adjust to normal light again. tested at start, after 6 hours and 20 hours. result: hungrier judged pics to be brighter.conclusion: hunger affects perception, so does food
• Gilchrist nesburg evaluation

  + support from similar studies. Stanford 1936 deprived participants from food for varying lengths of time. found longer no food, more like to select ambiguous figures and interpret as food. high ecological validity, repeatable - involved depriving people of food. ethical issue , discomfort , lack of protection from harm. not many participants and similar age so difficult to generalise
• motion parallax


  visual field changes with movement. closer object seem to move away faster than further objects.
• assimilation 


  adding new info to schema
• accommodation


  receiving new info that changes understanding so new schema formed
• conservation


  ability to understand although appearance of material changes, quantity stays same
• nature vs nurture


  nature -genetic influences nurture - environment
• Gibson theory of perception


  sensation and perception are same thing. everything in visual field tells us info we need to know without needing past experiences. influence of nature- abilities are innate . eyes detect change. The real world presents sufficient information for direct perception without inference.
• Gregory - influence of nurture 


  perception dependant on past experiences and knowledge. use schemas to make sense of world around us.Perception uses inferences from visual cues and past experience to construct a model of reality.