Paper 1 Memory

• Multi-store memory model


  Primary effects = items at beginning of list remembered better

  Recency effects = items at end of list remembered better

  
• STM = Miller (1956)


  Capacity - made observations of everyday practice, things come in 7s, span of STM in 7 things +or-2/
• STM = Peterson and Peterson (1959)


  Duration - Each student trialled 8 times, give 3 consonant syllable (trigram)e.g TGR, then given 3 digit number to count backward from in threes and stop at different amounts of time ranging from 3-18 seconds. STM has duration of 18 seconds
• STM = Conrad (1964)


  Participants found it harder to remember acoustically similar letters
• MSM = Milner (1978)


  Patient HM suffered brain damage. Good recency effects (items at end of list) but no primary effects (items at beginning of list)
• LTM = Bahrick (1975)

  Duration - 400 participants aged between 17-74 to recall or recognise former classmates.

  Within 15 years recognised = 90% and free recall = 60%

  After 48 years recognised = 80% and free recall = 30%
• LTM = Baddeley (1966)


  Encoding = Determine whether encoding in LTM is semantic. Semantically similar words are harder to remember.
• LTM = Tulving


  Found there were 3 types of memory : semantic, episodic, procedural.
• LTM = Cohen and Squire (1980)


  Disagree with Tulving's division into 3 types. Argue episodic and semantic are the same called consciously recalled declarative memory.
• Working memory model


  Phonological loop (primary acoustic store = words held, articulatory process = words rehearsed)

  Visuo spatial sketchpad (visual cache = stores info about form and colour, inner scribe = route finding)
• WMM = Baddeley (1975)


  Phonological loop - multi-syllabic words are recalled with less accuracy than mono-syllabic. Loop has capacity of 2 seconds.
• WMM = Gathercole (1989)


  Phonological loop - Used finding to identify children with learning difficulties at early age in school
• WMM = Gathercole and Baddeley (1993)


  Visuo-spatial sketchpad - Found participants held difficulty tracking a moving point of light and describing angles.
• WMM = Shallice and Warrington (1970)


  Case study of KF, poor STM for sound, but could process visual info. Visuo-spatial sketchpad intact, phonological loop damaged.
• EWT = Johnson and Scott (1976)


  Anxiety created psychological arousal, so prevents us from paying attention to important cues to recall is worse. 2 conditions emerge holding pen covered in grease 49% identify and paperknife covered in blood 33%
• EWT = Loftus (1987)


  Monitored eye movement, found that people fixated on the weapon.
• EWT = Pickel (1998)


  Could be because they were surprised. Came out with scissors, gun and raw chicken. Memory just as poor for chicken as gun.
• EWT = Loftus and Burns


  Participants watched violent or non-violent. PPs in violent version were less accurate recalling details.
• EWT = Christianson and Hubinette (1993)


  Questioned 58 real witnesses to bank robberies in Sweden 4-15 months after. 75% accurate. Shows people are good at remembering highly stressful events in real life.
• EWT = Halford and Milne (2005)


  Victims of violent crimes more accurate in recall than non violent.
• EWT = Yerkes Dodson law


  Accuracy is low when emotional arousal is high or low
• EWT = Loftus and Palmer (1974)


  Misleading info - Showed 45 uni students car crashes and asked to estimate speed using words like bumped, hit, smashed. Leading questions affect recall.
• EWT = Gabbert et al (2003)


  Participants watch video of crimes at different angles. Discussed after watching, 71% repeated things they couldn't have seen.
• EWT = Milne and Bull (2002)


  Cognitive interview - Each techniques produce more info than standard interview, but report everything and reliable context produced better recall.
• EWT = Kebbel and Wagstaff (1997)


  Special training and hours long.
• EWT = Gunter Kohnken et al (1999)


  Cognitive interview - Combine data from 55 studies comparing cognitive interview with standard interview. CI average 41% increase in accurate info compares with the SI. CI effective in helping recall.
• Main components of cognitive interview


  1. Mentally reinstate context at time (external and internal cues)

  2. Recount events in variety of orders

  3. Witness report from other perspectives

  4. Witness reports everything
• F = Godden and Baddeley


  Recall was 40% lower in non matching as the external cues available at learning were different from recall leading to retrieval failure.
• F = Godwin et al (1969)


  Male volunteers remember a list of words when drunk or sober. Recall 24 hours later, words learnt drunk recalled better when drunk.
• F = McGeoch and McDonald (1931)


  Studied retroactive interference by changing amount of similarity between materials. Learn 10 words until 100% accuracy.
• Encoding specificity principle


  the idea that cues and contexts specific to a particular memory will be most effective in helping us recall it
• 2 types of cue dependent forgetting


  State - internal (mood)

  Context - external (retrace steps)
• 2 types of interference


  Retroactive = new memory interferes with old

  Proactive = old memory interferes with new