Paper 1- Memory

  • Created by: 12Hannah
  • Created on: 01-05-19 12:41
View mindmap
  • Psychology Paper 1- Memory
    • Coding, Capacity & Duration
      • Coding
        • Baddely- STM= Acoustic LTM= Semantic
        • Evaluation
          • Artifical Stimuli- word lists has no persoinal significance
      • Capacity
        • Digit span- Jacobs: 9.3 digits, 7.3 letters
        • Span of memory/ chunking- Miller: 7+/- 2 span. Chunking extends STM capacity
        • Evaluation
          • Lacking validity- Could be extraious variables (distractions, etc).
          • Not So Many Chunks- Cowan: STM about four chunks
      • Duration
        • STM- Peterson & Peterson: up to 18 seconds (without rehersal)
        • LTM- Bahrick et al. (yearbooks): recognition of faces 90% after 15 years, recall 60%. Recognition dropped to 70% after 48 years
        • Evaluation
          • Meaningless Stimuli- Consonant syllables used.
            • Higher External Validity- Meaningful real life memories, showed greater recall than LTM studies with meaningless material (Shephard)
    • The Multi-Store Model
      • Sensory Register- Iconic & Echonic stores = very brief duration, high- capacity. Transfer by attention.
      • Short- term Memory- Limited capacity & duration store. Mainly acopustic coding. Transfer to LTM by rehersal.
      • Long- term Memory (LTM)- Unlimited capacity & duration store. Mainly semantic. Created via maintenance rehearsal.
      • Evaluation
        • Supporting Research Evidence- Studies into coding, capacity & duration demonstrates differances between STM & LTM
        • More Than One Type Of STM- Studies of amnesia (KF) show different STMs for visual & auditory materials
        • More Than One Type Of Rehersal- Elaborative rehersal neccessary for transfer to LTM, not maintenance rehearsal
    • Types of Long-term Memory
      • Episodic Memory- Memory for events in our lives ('diary')
      • Semantic Memory- Memory for knowledge of world. Like encyclopedia & dictionary. Includes language
      • Procedural Memory- Memory for automatic & skilled behvaiours
      • Evaluation
        • Clinical evidence- Clive Wearing & HM damaged episodic memories but semantic & procedural memories fine.
        • NeuroimagingEvidence- Episodic & procedural memories recalled from different parts of prefrontal cortex.
        • Real-life applications- Training programme for adults with mild cognitive impairments.
    • The Working Memory Model
      • Central executive- Co-ordinates slave systems & allocates resources, limited storage
      • Phonological loop- Auditory info- Phonological store & articulatory process (maintenance rehearsal)
      • Visuo-spatial Sketchpad- Visual info- visual store & inner scribe (spatial arrangement)
      • Eposodic buffer- Integrates processing of slave systems & records order of events. Linked to LTM
      • Evaluation
        • Clinical Evidence- KF had poor auditory memory but good visual memory. Damaged PL but VSS fine.
        • Dual- Task Performance- Differcult to do visual tasks at same time, but one visual and one verbal OK (Baddley et al).
        • Lack Of Clarity Over CE- Not yet  fully explained, probably has different components.
    • Explanations For Forgetting
      • Interferance
        • Types of interferance- Proactive = Old memories disrupt New ones. Retroactive = New memories disrupt old ones.
        • Effects of similartity- McGeoch & McDonald: Similar words created more interferance.
        • Evaluation
          • Evidence From Lab Studies- Well- controlled studies show interferance effects
          • Artificial Materials- Lists of words are not like everyday memory, may overemphasise interferance as an explanation
          • Real-Life Studies- Baddely & Hitch (rugby players) supported interferance
      • Retrieval Failure
        • Encoding specificity principle- Tulving: Cues mosty effective if present at coding and at retrieval. May be meaningful link
        • Context- Dependant Forgetting- Godden & Baddely (deep- sea divers): Recall better when external contexts matched.
        • Evaluation
          • Supporting Evidence- Wide range of support. Eysenck claims retrieval failure is most important reason for LTM forgetting
          • Questioning Context effects- No forgetting unless contexts are very different e.g. on land Vs underwater (Baddeley)
          • Recall Vs Recognition- Absence of cues affects recall but not recognition
        • State-Depending Forgetting- Carter & Cassaday (anti-histamine): Recall better when internal states matched
    • Factors Affrecting Eyewitness Testimony
      • Misleading Information
        • Leading questions- Loftus & Palmer (car speed): Estimates affected by leading question (smashed vs contacted)
        • Why Do Leading Questions Affect EWT? Response bias- no change to memory. Substuitution explanation supported by Loftus & Palmer and report presence of glass.
        • Post- Event Discussion (PED)- Discussions with others contaminates eyewitnesses' memories. Gabbert et al: Demonstrated effect, calling it memory conformity- informative & normative social influence involved
        • Evaluation
          • Useful Real- Life Applications- Could help prevent miscarriages of justice & change police interviewing.
          • Tasks Are Artificial- Watching film clips ignores stress & anxiety associated with a real accident/crime
          • Individual Differances- Oldfer people may be less accurate because of own-age bias
      • Anxiety
        • Anxiety has negative effect on recall- Johnson & Scott (weapon focus): high anxiety knife condition lead to less good recall. Tunnel theory of memory
        • Anxiety has positive effect on recall- Yuille & Cutshall (shooting): high anxiety associated with better recall when witnessing real crime
        • Explaning the contradictory findings- Yerkes-Dodson law suggests both low & high anxiety lead to poor recall (Deffenbacher)
        • Evaluation
          • Weapon Focus Effect May Not Be Relevant- Pickel (raw chicken) showed that it maybe surprise and therefore tells us nothing about effects of anxiety
          • Field Studies Sometimes Lack Control- Resaerchers can't control what happens to witnesses between the crime and the interview
          • There Are Ethical Issues- Creating anxiety in lab studies may cause psychological harm
    • ImprovingThe Accuracy Of Eyewitness Testimony- Cognitive Interview
      • Report Everything- Include even unimportant details
      • Reinstate The Context- Picture the scene and recall how you felt. Context- dependant forgetting
      • Change The Order- Recall from different points in the event i.e. from end to beginning, from middle to end, etc
      • Change Perspective- Put yourself in the shoes of someone else present. Disrupts schema.
      • Evaluation
        • CI Is Time-Consuming- Takes longer and needs special training
        • Some Elements More Valuable Than Others- Report everything & reinstate the context used together produced best recall
        • Support For The Effectiveness Of ECI- ECI consistantly produces more accurate recall than standard interview
      • Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)- Adds social dynamics, e.g. establishing eye contact.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Memory resources »