Memory AO3

• Strength of research into coding of STM and LTM (Baddeley): separate memory stores


  P - Identified a clear difference between two memory stores.

  
  

  E - Later research showed that there are some exceptions to Baddeley's findings.

  - But the idea that STM uses mostly acoustic coding and LTM mostly semantic has stood the test of time.

  
  

  K - Important step in our understanding of the memory system, which let to the multi-store model.
• Limitation of research into coding of STM and LTM (Baddeley): artificial stimuli


  P - Used quite artificial stimuli rather than meaningful material.

  
  

  E - E.g. the word lists had no personal meaning to participants.

  - Baddeley's findings may not tell us much about coding in different types of memory tasks, especially in everyday life.

  - When processing more meaningful information, people may use semantic coding even for STM.

  
  

  K - Findings from his study have limited application.
• Strength of research into capacity of STM (Jacobs): valid study


  P - Study has been replicated.

  
  

  E - Very old study.

  - Early reseach in psychology often lacked adequate controls.

  - May have been confounding variables.

  - E.g. some participants' digit spans may have been underestimated because they were distracted during testing.

  - Despite this, Jacob's findings ahve been confirmed by other, better controlled studies since (e.g. Bopp and Varhaeghen 2005).

  
  

  K - Jacobs study is a valid test for of digit span in STM.
• Limitation of research into the capacity of STM (Miller): not so many chunks


  P - May have overestimated STM capacity.

  
  

  E - Cowan (2001).

  - Reviewed other research and concluded that the capacity of STM in on about 4 + or - 1 chunks.

  
  

  K - Lower end of Millers estimate (5 items) is more appropriate than 7 items.
• Limitation of research into duration of STM (Peterson and Peterson): meaningless stimuli in STM study


  P - Stimulus material was artificial.

  
  

  E - Study was not completely meaningless becuase we do sometimes try to remember fairly meaningless material (e.g. phone numbers).

  - However, recalling consonant syllables does not refelct most everyday memory activities where what we are trying to remember is meaningful.

  
  

  K - Study lacked external validity.
• Strength of research into the duration of LTM (Bahrick et al.): high external validity


  P - High external validity.

  
  

  E - Researchers investigated meaningful memories (i.e. peoples names and faces).

  - When studies on LTM were conducted with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates were lower (Shepard 1976).

  
  

  K - Bahrick et al.'s findings reflect a more 'real' estimate of the duration of LTM.
• Strength of multi-store model: research support


  P - Support from studies showing that STM and LTM are different.

  
  

  E - Baddeley found we tend to mix up words that sound similar when using our STM.

  - And that we mix up words with similar meanings when we use our LTM.

  - This showed that STM is acoustically coded and LTM is semantically coded.

  - Further support:

  - Studies show that STM and LTM have different capacities and durations.

  
  

  A - However...

  - Most of the studies that found that the duration, capacity and coding of STM and LTM are different used artificial stimuli.

  - E.g. Peterson and Peterson used consonant syllables.

  - These studies don't include meaningful stimuli and cannot be be generalised to the real world.

  - Lacks ecological validity.

  
  

  K - STM and LTM are separate and independent memory stores, as claimed by MSM.
• Limitation of multi store model: more than one STM store


  P - Evidence for more than one STM store.

  
  

  E - KF study.

  - Client refered to as KF had a clinical memory disorder, called amnesia.

  - KF's STM for digits was very poor when they were read out loud to him.

  - His recall was much better when he read them to himself.

  -Further studied of KF showed that there could be another short term store for non-verbal sounds (noises).

  
  

  K - MSM is wrong in claining that there is just one STM store processing different types of information.
• Limitation of multi store model: elaborative rehearsal


  P - Prolonged rehearsal is not needed for transfer to LTM.

  
  

  E - According to MSM, what matters about rehearsal is the amount of it.

  - The more you rehears something, the more likely it is to transfer to LTM.

  - This is prolonged rehearsal.

  - Researchers found that the type of rehearsal is more important than the amount.

  - Elaborative rehearsal is needed for long term storage.

  - This occurs when you link the information to your existing knowledge.

  - Information can be transfered to LTM without prolonged rehearsal.

  
  

  K - MSM does not fully explain how long term storage is achieved.
• Strength of types of long term memory: clinical evidence


  P - Evidence from case studies of HM and Clive Wearing.

  
  

  E - Episodic memory in both men was severely impaired due to brain damage.

  - But their semantic memories were relatively unaffected.

  - E.g. HM could not recall stroking a dog half an hour earlier but he did not need to have the concept of 'dog' explained to him.

  - Their procedural memories were also intact.

  - They both still knew how to walk and speak.

  - Clive Wearing (professional musician) knew how to read music, sing and play the piano.

  
  

  A - However...

  - Clinical studies are not perfect.

  - Lack control variables.

  - Brain injuries are usually unexpected.

  - Researcher has no knowledge of individuals memory before the damage.

  - Difficult to judge how much worse it was afterwards.

  - Clinical studies are limited to what they can tell us about different types of LTM.

  
  

  K - Supports Tulving's view that there are different memory stores in LTM.

  - One store can be damaged but the others are unaffected.
• Strength of types of long term memory: real world application


  P - Understanding types of LTM allows psychologists to help people with memory problems.

  
  

  E - E.g. as people age, they experience memory loss.

  - Research has shown it seems to be specific to episodic memory.

  - It becomes harder to recall memories of personal events that occurred recently.

  - Past episodic memories remain intact.

  - Belleville et al (2006).

  - Devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people.

  - The trained participants performed better on a test of episodic memory than a conrol group.

  
  

  K - Distinguishing between types of LTM enables specific treatments to be developed.
• Limitation of types of long term memory: conflicting neuroimaging evidence


  P - Conflicting research findings linking LTM to areas of the brain.

  
  

  E - Buckner and Petersen (1996).

  - Reviewed evidence regarding the location of semantic and episodic memory.

  - Concluded that semantic memory is located on the left side of the prefrontal cortex.

  - Episodic memory on the right.

  - However, other research left prefrontal cortex with episodic memories and the right with semantic memories (Tulving et al.).

  
  

  K - Challenges any neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory as there is poor agreement on where each type might be located.
• Strength of the working memory model: clinical evidence


  P - Support from case study of patient KF.

  
  

  E - After KF's brain injury.

  - He had poort STM ability for auditory information.

  - But could process visual information normally.

  - His immediate recall or digits and letters was better when he read them than when they were read to him.

  - KF's phonological loop was damaged but his visuo-spatial sketchpad was intact.

  
  

  A - However...

  - It's unclear whether KF had other cognitive impairments (apart from damage to phonological loop) which may have affected him performance on memory tasks.

  - E.g. his injury was caused by a motorbike accident.

  - The trauma may have affected his cognitive performance apart from any brain injury.

  - Problems with evidence from clinical studies of brain injuries as many different systems may have been affected.

  
  

  K - Findings strongly support the existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores.
• Strength of the working memory model: dual-task performance


  P - Studies of dual-task performance support the separate existence of the visuo-spatial sketchpad.

  
  

  E - Baddeley et al (1975).

  - His participants carried out a visual and verbal task at the same time (dual task).

  - Their performance on each was similar to when they carried out the tasks separately.

  - But when both tasks were visual (or both were verbal) performance on both declined substantially.

  - Becuase both visual tasks compete for the same slave system (VSS).

  - Whereas, there's no competition when performing a visual and verbal task together.

  
  

  K - Must be a separate slave system (the VSS) that processes visual input and one for verbal input (PL).
• Limitation of the working memory model: nature of central executive


  P - Lack of clarity over the nature of the CE.

  
  

  E - Baddeleye (2003) recognised this when he said:

  - "The CE is the most important but least understood component of the working memory".

  - The CE needs to be more clearly specified that just simply being 'attention'.

  - E.g. some psychologists believe the CE may consist of separate subcomponents.

  
  

  K - CE is an unsatisfactory component and this challenges the integrity of the WMM.
• Strength of interference as an explanation for forgetting: real-world interference


  P - Evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations.

  
  

  E - Baddeley and Hitch (1977).

  - Asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they played against that season.

  - The players all played for the same time interval over the season.

  - But the number of intervening gamwes varied as some players missed matches due to injury.

  - Players who played the most games (most interference for memory) has the poorest recall.

  
  

  A - Interference may cause some forgetting in everyday situations but it's unusal.

  - Conditions necessary for interference to occur are relatively rare.

  - Unlike lab studies.

  - Where the high degree of control means researcher can create idea conditions for interference.

  - E.g. two memories have to be fairly similar in order to interfere with each other.

  - This may happen occassionally in everyday life but not often.

  - Forgetting may better be explained by other theories such as retrieval failure due to a lack of cues.

  
  

  K - Interference can operate in at least some real world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.
• Strength of interference as an explanation for forgetting: support from drug studies


  P - Retrograde facilitation.

  
  

  E - Researchers gave participants a list of words and later asked them to recall the list, assuming the intervening experiences would act as interference.

  - When the list was learned under the influence of the drug diazepam, recall one week later was poor compared to a control group.

  - When the list was learned before the drug was taken, latter recall was better than the control group.

  - Drug improved (facilitated) recall or material learned beforehand.

  - It was suggested that the drug prevents new information (after the drug is taken) reaching parts of the brain involved in processinh memories.

  - So it cannot interfer retroactively with information already stored.

  
  

  K - Forgetting can be due to interference.

  - Reduce the interference, reduce the forgetting.
• Limitation of interference as an explanation of forgetting: interference and cues


  P - Interference is temporary and can be overcome by using cues.

  
  

  E - Tulving et al. (1971).

  - Gave participants a list of words organised into categories, one list at a time (participants were not told what the categories were).

  - Recall averaged about 70% for the first list, but became progressively worse as they learned each additional list (proactive interference).

  - At the end, participants were given a cued recall test - they were told the names of the categories.

  - Recall rose to 70% again.

  
  

  K - Interference causes a temporary loss of accessability to material that is still in LTM.

  - A finding not predicted by interference theory.
• Strength of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting: real world application


  P - Retrieval cues can help overcome some forgetting in everyday situations.

  
  

  E - Cues may not have a very strong effect on forgetting.

  - Baddeley suggests they are still worth paying attention to.

  - E.g. being in one room and thinking 'I must go an get such-and-such from another room'.

  - You go to the other room only to forget what you wanted.

  - But the moment you go back to the first room, you remember again.

  - When we have trouble remembering something, it is probably worth making the effort to recall the environment in which you learned it first.

  
  

  K - Research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall.
• Strength of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting: research support


  P - Range of research that supports the retrieval explanation.

  
  

  E - Godden and Baddeley.

  - Conducted research on context dependent forgetting.

  - Either learning underwater or on land, and then retrieving underwater or on land.

  - They found when the context of learning and retrieval was different, accuracy of recall was 40% lower than matching conditions.

  - Carter and Cassaday.

  - Conducted research on state dependent forgetting.

  - Either learning on drug or not on drug, and then retrieving on drug or not on drug.

  - Conditions where there was a mismatch between internal state at learning and retrieval, performancy on the memory test was significantly worse.

  
  

  A - Baddeley argues context effects are actually not very strong, especially in everyday life.

  - Different contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen.

  - E.g. land and underwater are very different.

  - Retrieval failure dure to lack of contextual cues may not actually explain much everyday forgetting.

  
  

  K - Retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as highly controlled conditions of the lab.
• Limitation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting: recall vs recognition


  P - Context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested.

  
  

  E - Godden and Baddeley.

  - Replicated their underwater experiment but used a recognition test instead of recall.

  - Participants had to say whether they recognised a word read to them from a list, instead of retrieving it for themselves.

  - When recognition was tested there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all 4 conditions.

  
  

  K - Retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies to when a person has to recall information rather than recognise it.
• Strength of misleading information affecting accuracy of EWT: real-world application


  P - Important practical uses in the criminal justice system.

  
  

  E - Consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious.

  - Loftus (1975).

  - Believes leading questions can have such a strung distorting effect on memory that police officers need to be very carefulp about the phrasing of their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses.

  - Psychologists are sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court trials and explain the limits of EWT to juries.

  
  

  A - However...

  - Practical applications of EWT may be affected by issues with research.

  - Loftus and Palmer.

  - Participants watched film clips in a lan, a very different experience from witnessing a real event (less stressful).

  - Foster et al (1994).

  - Pointed out that what eyewitnesses remember has important consequences in the real world.

  - But participants' responses in research do not matter in the same way (so research participants are less motivated to be accurate).

  
  

  K - Psychologists can help improve the way the legal system works, especially by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT.
• Limitation of misleading information affecting the accuracy of EWT: evidence against substitution


  P - Limitation of substitution explanation is that EWT is more accurate for some aspects of an event than others.

  
  

  E - Sutherland and Hayne (2001).

  - Showed participants a video clip.

  - When participants were later asked misleading questions, their recall was more accurate for central details of the even than for peripheral ones.

  - Participants attention was focused on central features of the event and these memories were relatively resistant to misleading information.

  
  

  K - Original memories for central details survived and were not distorted, an outcome that is not predicted by substitution explanation.
• Limitation of misleading information affecting the accuracy of EWT: evidence challenging memory conformity.


  P - Limitation of memory conformity explanation is evidence that post event discussion actually alters EWT.

  
  

  E - Skagerberg and Wright (2008).

  - Showed their participants film clips.

  - Two versions: muggers hair was dark brown in one and light brown in the other.

  - Participants discussed the clips in pairs, each having seen different versions of the clip.

  - They often didnt report what they had seen in the clip or heard from the co-witness, but a mix of the two.

  - E.g. medium brown hair.

  
  

  K - Memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than the result of memory conformity.
• Strength of anxiety affecting EWT: support for negative effects


  P - Evidence supporting the view that anxiety has a negative effect on the accuracy of recall.

  
  

  E - Supporting research on weapon focus, finding negative effects on recall.

  - Researchers used an objective measure (heart rate) to divide participants into high and low anxiety groups.

  - In thi study anxiety clearly disrupted the participants' ability to recall details about the actor in the London Dungeons Labrinth.

  
  

  K - High level of anxiety does have a negative effect on the immediate eyewitness recall of a stressful event.
• Strength of anxiety affecting EWT: support for positive effects


  P - Evidence showing that anxiety can have positive effects on the accuracy of recall.

  
  

  E - Study where 58 witnesses to an actual bank robbery were interviewed.

  - Some of the witnesses were directly involved (e.g. bank workers).

  - Some were indirectly involved (e.g. bystanders).

  - The researchers assumed those directly involved would experience the most anxiety.

  - Recall was more that 75% accurate across all witnesses.

  - The direct victims (most anxious) were even more accurate.

  
  

  A - The interview took place several moths after the event.

  - The researchers had no control over what happened to their participants in the intervening time (e.g. post-event discussions).

  - The effects of anxiety may have been overwhelmed by these other factors.

  - Possible lack of control over confounding variables may be responsible for these findings.

  - Invalidating research's support.

  
  

  K - These findings from actual crimes confirm anxiety does not reduce the accuracy of recall for eywitnesses and may even enhance it.
• Limitation of anxiety affecting EWT: unusualness not anxiety


  P - Limitation of study by Johnson and Scott is that they may not have tested anxiety.

  
  

  E - The reason participants may have focused on the weapon may be because they were surprised rather than scared.

  - Pickle (1998).

  - Conducted an experiment using scissors, a handgun and a wallet or a raw chicken in a hairdressing salon video.

  - (Scissors would be high anxiety, low unusualness).

  - Eyewitness accuracy was significantly poorer in the high unusualness conditions (chicken and handgun).

  
  

  K - Weapon focus affect is due to unusualness rather than anxiety/threat.

  - Therefore tells us nothing specifically about the effects of anxiety on EWT.
• Strength of the cognitive interview: support for effectiveness of the CI


  P - Evidence that it works.

  
  

  E - Meta-analysis.

  - Data from 55 studies comparing the CI (and ECI) with the standard police interview.

  - CI had a 41% increase in accuracy of information.

  
  

  A - However...

  - Increase in amount of innacurate information reported.

  - ECI produced more inaccurate information than CI.

  - CI may sacrifice quality for quantity.

  
  

  K - CI is an effective technique for witnesses to retrieve memories that aren't immediately accessible.
• Limitation of the cognitive interview: some elements may be more useful


  P - Not all of its elements are equally effective or useful.

  
  

  E - Research found that each of the four techniques used alone produce more information than the standard police interview.

  - Using a combination of report everything and reinstate the context produced better recall than any of the other elements or combination of them.

  - Confirms police officers' suspicion that some aspects of CI are more useful than others.

  
  

  K - Casts some doubt on the credibility of the overall cognitive interview.
• Limitation of the cognitive interview: time consuming


  P - Police officers may be reluctant to use the CI becuase it takes more time and training than the standard police interview.

  
  

  E - E.g. more time is needed to establish a rapport with a witness and allow them to relax.

  - CI also requires special training and many forces do not have the resources to provide more than a few hours.

  
  

  K - The complete CI as it exists is not a realistic method for police officers to use and it might be better to focus on just a few elements.
• Evaluation of research into coding of STM and LTM (Baddeley)


  S - separate memory stores

  L - artificial stimuli
• Evaluation of research into capacity of STM (Jacobs and Miller)


  S - valid study (Jacobs)

  L - not so many chunks (Miller)
• Evaluation of research into duration of STM and LTM (Peterson and Peterson + Bahrick)


  L - meaningless stimuli (STM)

  S - high external validity (LTM)
• Evaluation of multi-store model of memory


  S - research support

  L - more than one STM store

  L - elaborative rehearsal
• Evaluation of types of LTM


  S - clinical evidence

  S - real-world application

  L - conflicting neuroimaging evidence
• Evaluation of WMM


  S - clinical evidence

  S - dual-task performance

  L - nature of central executive
• Evaluation of interference as an explanation for forgetting


  S - real-world interference

  S - support from drug studies

  L - interference and cues
• Evaluation of retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting


  S - real-world application

  S - research support

  L - recall vs recognition
• Evaluation of misleading information affecting accuracy of EWT


  S - real-world application

  L - evidence against substitution

  L - evidence against memory conformity
• Evaluation of the cognitive interview

  S - effectiveness

  L - some elements may be more useful

  L - time consuming