Memory

• Baddeley’s research on coding 


  Used word lists to test a type per group (acoustically and semantically similar/ dissimilar), found STM recall is acoustic and LTM is semantic
• Petersons’ study on STM


  Used trilogys with numbers and letters and tested recall after retention intervals (3,6,9,12,15,18 secs), they got participants to count down backwards before recall to prevent mental rehearsal
• Petersons’ study findings on STM


  Found a very short capacity for STM unless rehearsal takes place, however argued against that the study was using meaningless things so memory could differ in different situations
• Bahrick study on LTM


  Tested participants on recall of high school attendees at their previous school to test memory (facial recognition or free recall of names)
• Bahrick’s findings on LTM


  After 48 years 70% correctly recalled photo recognitions and 30% on free recall
• Multi-Store Memory- Sensory register


  A stimulus from the environment; store for each sense, e.g iconic memory is for visual coding and echoic memory is for auditory coding; short duration of half a second and very large capacity; if information is paid attention to, memory passed to LTM
• Multi-Store Memory- Short-Term Memory

  Limited capacity store (once reached limit, it is forgotten), 7+/- 2 chunks, 9.3 and 7.3 (proposed by Jacob and Miller), coded acoustically unless rehearsed for over 30 seconds (maintenance rehearsal)
• Multi-Store Memory- maintenance rehearsal

  Occurs when we repeat/rehearse information to ourselves in order to keep it in STM, if rehearsed enough it is passed to LTM
• Multi-store Memory- Long-term Memory

  Potentially permanent memory store, unlimited capacity (Bahrick’s study applied), coded semantically, to recall information it is passed back to STM (retrieval)
• Types of coding

  Semantic- meaning ; acoustic- hearing ; visual - sight
• Multi-store Memory A03


  Supporting evidence for two separate memory stores (LTM & STM) (Bahrick’s study) ; there is more than one store for STM - KF case study on amnesia (had surgical removal of hippocampus) shows his memory quality differs depending on context for STM e.g non-verbal sounds and self-recall, LTM didn’t work but STM did ; more than one type of rehearsal (elaborative rehearsal- adding information to existing information that links to the same thing) (proposed by Craik and Witkins)
• Types of long-term memory

  Episodic- event-related (time-stamped, conscious, several elements like people, place etc.) ; semantic- facts (labelling or general knowledge) ; procedural- actions/skills (unconscious, hard to explain, for example how to drive or walk)
• Types of LTM A03

  Clinical evidence- HM case study shows he had impaired his episodic memory but his procedural and semantic memory was still in tact (but proves LTM isn’t just semantically coded as Tulving finds different locations for different long term memory) ; neuro-imaging evidence- Tulving et al study using a PET scanner to see if different types are recalled in separate areas in the brain, he found (episodic and semantic found in prefrontal cortex)
• Working Memory Model

  Aspect of how short term memory works; shows how we temporarily store and organise information
• WMM- central executive 


  Monitors incoming data, makes decisions and allocates data to specific systems
• WMM- phonological loop


  Deals with auditory information, coding is acoustic (phonological store- stores the words you hear, articulatory process- allows maintenance rehearsal, loop capacity is two seconds)
• WMM- Visuo-spatial sketchpad


  Stores visual and spatial information (e.g things that require visualising like your home), 3-4 object capacity (Baddeley), visual cache- stores visual data, inner scribe- records arrangement of objects in visual field (proposed by Logie)
• WMM- episodic buffer


  Combines visual, spatial and verbal information ; maintains a timestamp ; links to LTM ; capacity of 4 chunks (Baddeley)
• Working Memory Model A03

  Evidence of different types of STM (KF- only some aspects of his STM was damaged but others remained in tact) ; model is vague about function of central executive ; WMM is more detailed than the MSM (different systems for different types of STM)
• Forgetting: Interference 


  Cause of retrieval issues (lack of access as interfering memories makes the memory hard to locate, causing forgetting)
• types of interference

  Proactive: older memory interferes with new one ; Retroactive: new memory interferes with old one
• McGeoch and McDonald study on retroactive interference 


  Studied with words lists comparing to a set list (similar meanings, unrelated etc), found worst recall was when there was similarities
• Interference A03

  Evidence from lab studies- McGeoch and McDonald‘s study shows validity as it prevents any other distraction to cause forgetting ; artificial materials- using word list for studies isn’t realistic to real-life application, therefore the occurrence of this could differ; interference effects can be reduced by cues
• Retrieval failure theory

  Insufficient cues (failure to retrieve information that is there); encoding specificity principle - cue has to be present when learning material (encoding) and recall (retrieval)
• Types of retrieval failure

  Context-dependent forgetting: environment/external cues (Godden And Baddeley’s research of scuba divers, found that when environment was changed recall of specific instructions was 40% lower) ; state-dependent forgetting: state of mind (Carter and Cassiday study on antihistamines drowsiness’ effects on recalling a list of words, found mismatch state caused worse recall)
• Retrieval failure theory A03

  Supporting evidence (Carter and Cassiday, Godden and Baddeley) ; questioning of context effects as retrieval in different places is always likely and doesn’t always result in forgetting (the study context is far fetched) ; studies on recognition rather than retrieval as they are being prompted to see if they recognise the information
• Factors effecting EWT: misleading information

  Loftus and Palmer’s study- asked a leading question referring to a video of a car crash (used range of terms) to see if it effected response, study demonstrated response-bias explanation (wording doesn’t change the memory but changes how they describe it) ; substitution explanation (leading words can change what people pay attention to, e.g aggressive words use influence fixating on violence or harm)
• EWT: post-event discussion

  Co-witnesses can influence opinion of events from each others recollection (memory conformity)
• EWT: misleading information A03

  Useful real-life applications (helping police avoid inaccurate testimonies) ; artificial tasks means people won’t likely experience the stress they’d feel in a real event (ignores emotional effects) ; individual differences (age can influence recall due to maturity, e.g children may be more exaggerative)
• Factors effecting EWT: anxiety

  Neg: physical arousal from anxiety prevents us from paying attention to important cues, making recall worse Pos: activation of fight or flight increases alertness and makes us more aware
• research into anxiety

  Neg: Johnson & Scott tested weapon effect on recall of event (argument in next room) either a man walked out with a bloody knife (added smashing glass sound) or a pen, results shown recall worsened to identify the man when he held the knife (tunnel theory- fixates on the threat) Pos: Yuille & Cutshall used a real life shooting and asked months later for recall correlating stress level, found high-stressed participants had more accurate recall
• EWT: anxiety research continued

  Yerkes-Dodson law: recall best when in medium level, so not too low or too high (I.e emotional arousal level)
• EWT: anxiety A03

  Weapon focus effect may not be relevant (tests surprise rather than anxiety, not a normal experience) ; field studies lack control (e.g post-event discussion) ; demand characteristics from lab studies as they may realise they’re going to be asked about their recall
• Improving accuracy of EWT: cognitive interview

  Fisher and Gieselman- stages: 1 report everything, 2 reinstate the context (replay as though they were there), 3 reverse the order (avoids expectancy effects and prevents dishonesty) , 4 change perspective (avoids schema expectancy)
• Cognitive interview A03

  Time consuming adding all the elements compared to normal standard interview ; some elements more important than others (report everything and context reinstatement) ; effective