Memory

CAPACITY

JOSEPH JACOBS 1887 found average span digits 9.3 items and 7.3 letters 

easier recall did bits as less of them than letters

MAGIC NUMBER 7+-2 GEORGE MILLER 1956

our immediate memory span 7 items 

evident -people only remember 7 dots on screen

people could recall five words as well as letters as we CHUNK items  together 

EVALUATION

although research to support miller didn't specify size each chunk so can't conclude exact capacity And didn't take into account factors like age, JACOBS FOUND DIDGIT SPAN RECALL INCREASED WITH AGE DUE TO CHANGES BRAIN CAPACITY-8YEARS 6.6 19YRS 8.6

Research for stm for visual info found 4 times the limit so lower range of 7+-2

therefore stm not as extensive as initially thought 

LOYD AND MARAGRET PETERSON 1959

used 24 students 8 trials-each trial given a consonant syllable and 3 digit number 

given retention interval of either 3,6,9,12,15,or 18 seconds and  then asked to recall

during interval count back from 3 digit number 

90%-correct after 3 s

20%-9s

2%-18

=stm low duration-lower than 18 seconds 

Evaluation

testing for this artificial as memeprisong symbols so doesn't refleft everyday life therefore not going to retain for very long 

when retaining something generally has a level of meaning 

HOWEVER-some things like phone number are just digits not THAT MEANINGFULL=study does has some relevance

forgetting during stm could be due to displacment

ef. Counting number backwards displaced memory

wouldnt usually be given a task like this 

How info written in memory

either held in sound-acoustic- visual or semantics -meaning 

ACOISTIC AND SEMANTIC 

ALAN BADDEDLEY did test to find out effects of acoustic and semantic on ltm and stm

cat,cab,can etc-ACOUSTICALLY SIMILAR SEMANTICALLY DIFFERENT 

great,big,large-SEMANTICALLY SIMILAR ACOUSTICALLY DIFFERENT 

'RESULTS-acoustucally similar words easier to retain in stm whereas semantically easier to retain in ltm 

-stm encoded acoustically 

-ltm encoded semantically 

Evaluation

stm not entirely acoustic as Visual codes also used 

BRADIMOTE ET AL-SAID PPL USED PPL USED VISUAL CODING IF GIVEN VISUAL TASK 

PPTS HAD TO SAY 'LA LA LA ' before doing visual recall task 

verbal rehearsal was prevented 

so used visual codes 

ltm not entirely semantic 

FROST 1972 LT RECALL ALSO RELATES TO VISUAL 

NELSON AND ROTHBART 1972 FOUND ACOUSTIC EVIDENCE IN LTM 

'LTM CODING. ARIES WITH CIRCUMSTANCE

BADDELELY MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY TESTED LTM 

'WHY-his methodology has been critiqued as he asked ppl to recall a list only 20 mins after hearing so not long Anouilh to transfer to Ltm 

HENRY BAHRICK 1975

tested 400 ppl -17-74- on memory of class,ages 

used 2 different tests

1-photo recognition test with 50 pics some from individuals yearbook

asks to recall as many as could remember 

those tested within 15 yrs graduation-90% accurate 

48 yrs-70%

2-free recall test 

60% accurate after 15 years 

3% after 48 yrs 

RICHARD ATKINSON AND RICHARD SHIFFRIN 1968 PROPSED IDEA OF 3 DOFFERENT MEMEORY 

Proposed by RICHARD ATKINSON AND RICHARD SHIFFRIN 1968

3 MEMORY STORED

1.SENSORY REGISTER - info held at each sense and corresponding area of brain

BIG CAPACITY

MOST info received little attention paid to

if attention paid to remains for BRIEF DURATION

2.ATTENTION-if attention focused on data goes to STM 

info can be used for immediate tasks like directions 

LIMITED DURATION AND WILL DECAY QUICK IF NOT REHEARSED 

if want to remember-maintance rehearsal-repeat

Info gets replaced /displaced quickly by new info as stm has LIMITED CAPACITY 

3.MAINTANENCE REHEARSAL 

repetion keeps at stm and eventually Ltm 

SHUFFRIN AND ATKINSON FOUND DIRECT LINK BETWEEN REHEARSAL STM AND STRENGTH IN LTM

MORE REHEARSED REMEBERED MORE

4.LTM

UNLIMITED DURATION AND CAPACITY 

5.RETRIVAL

getting info from Ltm 

info passes back through stm 

Evaluation

SUPPORT 

conrrolled lab studies prove existence of separate stm and Ltm 

brain scanning studies show difference between Ltm and stm 

BEARDSLEY 1997 PREFRONTAL CORTEX ACTIVE IN STM NOT LTM TASKS

SQUIRE ET AL PROVED HIPPOCAMPUS ACTIVE WHEN LTM ENGAGED 

Case studies show diff areas of brain involved in Ltm and stm with brain damaged patients 

eg.HM 1957 BRAINNDAMAGE CAUSED BY OP TO REMOVE HIPPOCAMPUS TO REDYCE EPILEPSY 

HIS INTELLIGENCE AND PERSONALITY DIDNT CHANGE 

BUT COULDNT FIRM NEW LTM ONLY REMEBER THUNGS PRE SURGERY 

Shows MSM different stores 

WEAKNESSES 

too simple as suggests stm and Ltm 'unitary stores'

WMM SUGGESTS STM DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT STORES NIT JUST CAPACITY AND DURATION 

Ltm different stores-maintancecrehearsal explains Ltm in semantic but not for epidoic-experiences 

ltm involves more than maintance rehearsal -CRAIK AND TULVING GOT PPL LOST NOUNS AND ASKED QS INVOLVING EITHER DEEP OR SHALLOW THINKING =remebered deep more 

msm suggests stm comes before Ltm but LOGIE SAYS STM RELIES ON LTM 

ege.list letters Abbhypo-to chunk these need to recall meaningfull letters using Ltm 

BADDELEY AND HITCH said stm has several stores 

why-I'd do 2 things same tine one visual one sound no interference as can do them simultaneously 

=separate stores 

1.CENTRAL EXECUTIVE

directions attention to sone tasks and determines what slave system

LIMITED CAPACITY 

2.SLAVE SYSTEMS 

1.PHONOLOGICAL LOOP

limited capacity and deals with auditory info

SUBDIVES TWO CATAGORIES 

1.PHONOLOGICAL STORE-holds words

2.ARTICULATORY LOOP-processes words by silently repeating 

2.VISIO-SPATIAL PAD

used to plan a visual Spatial task like gett8ng from one room to another 

info temporarily held 

SPATIAL-PHYSUCAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THINGS 

SUBDIVIDED 

1.VISUAL CACHE -stores the vusual

2.INNER SCRIBE-stores arrangement of objects 

3.EPISODIC BUFFER BADDELEY AND HITCH 1974

Temporary store that integrates info from the other components 

limites capacity and sends info to Ltm 

EVALUATION

Accounts for dual task performance -DIFFERENT STORES OF STM

'BADDELEY AND HITCH STUDY

TWO TASK 

1-occupied ce lasted true/false as about letters 

2-al and ce at work together 

results-task 2 quicker -proves complexity of stm 

Brain damaged patients SHALLICE AND WARRINGTON STUDIES MAN KF 

HIS st forgetting  WAS AUDITORY MORE THAN VISUAL

=ONLY PHONOLOGICAL LOOP USED 

PROVES SEPERATE STORES 

WEAKNESSES 

using brain damaged patients not accurate as accident May have been traumatic and therefore alter behaviour and performance 

they might underperform=not accurate results 

their unique and indivdual so results can't be generalised to most people 

EVIDENDE FOR PHONO AND ARTIC LOOP

phono only holds words for 2 seconds so therefore hard to remeber long words like representation =longercwords can't be rehearsed 

BUT ARTICULATORY LOOP EEPEATS WORD AND IT CANT REGEARSE DHORTER WORDS QUICKER THAN LONGER 

EVIDENCE-rasa repealing short word whilst reading - can't renewer one Activities words better than others 

reader has longer words 

'FOR CE 

AGAINST 

too vague all 'does' is allocate stores 

probably more components 

DAMASIO AND ESLINGER STUDIED EVA

HAD CEREBEAL TMOUR REMOVED 

COULD PERFORM ON REASONING TESRS BUT NOT DECUSION MAKING 

WHOLE CE NOT INTACT-SEPERATE STORES 

Divide into two types 

EXPLICIT-DECLARATIVE-KNOWING SOMETHING 

=SEMANTIC AND EPISODIC

IMPLICIT-PROCEDURAL-KNOWING HOW

=PROCEDURAL MEMORY

EPISODIC

KNOWING SOMETHING FROM PERSONAL EVEBTS/MEMORIES/EMOTIONS/CONTEXT

Semantic 

knowing that but also additional facts 

ege knowledge shared by everyone-social norms and customs 

we acquire knowledge from personal experiences 

sometimes a transfer from episodic to semantic as info looses association with particular events 

PROCEDURAL

skills 

auired by repetition and practise 

becomes automatic 

can do whilst Doing other tasks 

Evaluation 

three kinds supported by brain scan research 

episodic associated  with hippocampus and temporal love and frontal cortex

Semantic temporal lobe 

proceduarl cerebellum 

evidence from case studies 

HM NO HIPPO COULDNT FORM NEW LTM SO NO SEMANTIC OR EPISODIC 

BUT RETAINED PRE EXISTING LTM 

'COULD STILL DRAW SO PROCEDUARL INTACT BUT COULDNT REMEMBER HOW LEARNT THIS 

WEAKNESSES

cant reach prper conclusion from brain damaged patients 

hard to know exactly what parts damaged until patient dead 

damage to one area doesn't always mean it's responsible for change in behaviour 

relationship between a brain region and type of Ltm not always clear 

could be 4th type Ltm-perceptual representation system to priming 

STRENGTHS

Difference in semantic and episodic from Alzheimer patients 

some patients could form new semantic but not procedura; 

INTERFERENCE 

one type of forgetting 

explanation for forgetting-one memory displacing ability to recall another 

happens when 2 memories similar 

2 types 

PROACTIVE-PAST LEARNING INTERFERING WITH ABULITY TO LEARN NEW INFO

RETROACTIVE-CURRENT ATTMEPT LEARN SOMETHING INTEREFRES WITH PAST LEARNING 

RETROACTIVE 

GEORG MULLER AND STUDENT PITZELLER 1900

gave participants lost nonsense syllables to learn for 6 mins with retention interval

asked to recall

performance LESS good if given task in interval

later task in interval interfere with what previously learnt 

PROACTIVE

BRENTON UNDERWOOD 1957 SHOWEC ITS SIGNIFICANCE 

Analysed findings from studies 

Found when ppl learned series word lists don't learn the words encountered later or earlier 

if ppl memories q0 or more lists after 24 hours only 20% remenered

if one list 70% remebered 

how link to proactive?

each additional list makes it harder to learn next-subsequent-list

Other studies 

MCGEOCH AND MCDONALD 1931 gave pets 10 adjectives-list a

when leaned given resting period where would learn list b 

'followed by recall

if list b and a similar-recall 12%

if b nonsense -26%

if b numbers -37%

more similar interference stronger 

How links to real world studies 

BADDELEY AND HUTCH 1977

Investiagted on rugby players recalling names of teams played gains over rugby season

some played all games whereas some missed some 

if interference correct those who played more should forget more 

all additionall games played interfered with r,beefing new ones 

Evaluation 

ARTFICIAL REASEARCH 

'artificial list of words to remember 

doesn't relate to everyday life 

participants may lack motivation to remember lists in studies so interference affects appear stronger than actually are 

=low ecological validity 

only explains some instances of forgetting that don't occur that often as not all 2 memories are the same or similar 

so relatively unimportant explanation for forgetting 

ANDERSON 2000 no doubt interference plays part in forgetting but not clear all forgetting links to forgetting 

other theories 

evidence some people less effected by proactive than others 

KANES EAGLE 2000-PPL QITH HIGHER WORKING MEMORY LESS INTERFERENCE 

EG.Partcicpants 3 word lists to learn 

those with lower wm more porcative interference when recalling second list 

highlights role in individual differences ply in how people faceted with interference 

Another type of forgetting coutures in a sense of cues 

THE ENCODING SPECIFICITY PRINCIPLE

ENDEL TULVING AND DONALD THOMSON 1973 said memory most effective if info present at encoding also available at retrival

closer the cue more useful 

study TULVING AND PEARLSTONE 1966 

PPTS LEARN 48 WORDS belonging to 12 catagories 

eg fruit-apple 

2 different recall conditions 

1-recall as many words-40% recalled 

2-given cues in catafory 60%

The higher percentage means that the cue info had been implicitly or explicitly encoded for at time of learning so and meaningful link'

CONTEXT DEPENDENT FORGETTING 

STUDY ETHEL ANERNETHY 1940

arrange group students Ed when certain courses began

tested each week 

some tested in room with usual teacher and some in different room

-those tested same place and teacher better at rembering 

the environment acted as a memory cue 

STUDY FODDEN AND BADDELEY 1975

INVESTIGATED CONTEXTUAL CUES 

recruited scuba divers

Had to learn set of words 

some underwater and some on land 

4 diff conditions 

wither learn and recall under/on land 

or learn and then recall with on la d or under water 

highest recall with those who learnt and recall in same condition 

Emotional state at time 

STUDY GOODWIN ET AL 1969

asked volunteers to rme er list words when either drunk or sober 

asked to recall after 24 hours 

conclusion if in same state when errant and recall r,beer more 

EVALUATION 

SUPPORT 

wealth of research for evidence shows importance of cues 

eg lab field and natural experiments 

TULVING AND PEARLSTONE 1966 LAB EXPERIMENT SHOW3D -OWER OF RETRIVAL CUES 

FIELD EXPERIMENT BY Abernethy 1940 STUDY ON SCHOOL ROOMS 

real world application like abernethys 

smith 1979nsaid even thinking of room where learning occurred helpful -mental reinstatement 

WEAKNESSES 

'retrieval cues don't always work 

info leaning retaliated to more than just cues ]

complex things less likely learnt from cues 

according to smith and Veta 2001 context competent LARGELY  ELIMINTED WHEN LEARNING MEANINGFUL CONTEMT 

SO EXPLAIN ALL FORGETTING 

Dangers of circulatory-realtionship between encoding cues and later retrival is a collelation not a cause 

NAIRNE 2002 CALLS IT 'MYTH OF THE ENCODING' 

BADDELY 1997 IF A STIMULUS LEADS TO RETRIVAL OF A MEOERY IT MUST VE ALSO BEEN ENCODED AT MEMORY

CUES DONT CASU3 RETIAL THEY ARE OMLY ASSOCIATED WITH IT 

STRENGHTS

retrical failure explains interference effects 

TULVING AND PSOTKA 1971 I enter French effects are due to aBarnes of cues 

STUDY PPTS GIVEN 6 DIFFERENT LATS LEARN EACH 24 WORDS 6 CATAGORIES 

aksed to list words with no cues or given category names of cues 

When given cues recall  70%

info is there but can't  be retrieved without cues 

MISLEADING INFO

LEADING QS

LOFTUS AMD PALMER 1974 FOUND HARSHER THE VERN HIGHER THOUGHT SPEED WAS IN EXPERIMENT 

2 EXPERIMENTS 

1-PROCEDURE 

45 students shown 7 films of different traffic accident 

dyer each film given questionnaire and asked to describe accident

ONE CRITICAL Q'HOW FAST CAR TRAVELLING WHEN HIT EACH OTHER?'

OTHER GROUPS GIVEN ONE IF THESE VERBS INSTAED 'SMASHED' 'CONTROLLED' ETC 

Results-smahsed 40.8 speed

contacted 31.8 speed 

ESPERIMENT 2 PRODEDURAL

leading was may cause bias response as cause info to be altered 

New set PPTS divided into 3 groups 

shown one min car accident 

another critical q 'DID YOU SEE ANY BROKEN GLASS?'

there was none in film but those who thought car travelling after thought was glass

smashed-yes 16 control yes-6

leading as change memory 

POST EVENT DISCUSSION 

'memory may be a;erred by discussing event with another person or questioned a number of times 

COMFORMITY EFFECT

cowitness may reach conclusion of what happened by talking to someone else

FIONA GABBERT INVESTIGATED THIS 2003

ppgs in pairs each partner watched different vid of same event 

pairs asked to discuss event before individually recalling event 

71% of those who discussed made mistakes in recall

REPEAT INTERVIEWING 

each time eyewitness interviews comments will be incorporated into memeory and recollection of event 

interviewers leading as may alater memory

Especially in children 

What is eyewitness testimony 

1.witness codes details of event into Ltm 

distorted due to how quick a lot crimes occur 

2.witness retains info over a period of time Where memories may be modified and other activities between endowing and retribal may interfere 

3.witness retrieves some from storage 

abswnse Of retrival cues or nature of as affect recall

EVALUATION 

TO SUPPRT MISLEADING INF]O

LOFTUS CONDICTED EXPERIMENT WITH BUGS BUNNY AND USED COLLEG STUDENTS 

GOT THEM TO EBALUATE ADVERTISEMT FOR DISNEYLAND 

EMBEEDED IN IT MISLEADIMG INFO ABOUT BUNNY AND ARUEL WHK WERE NOT DISNEY AT TIME 

ALLGROUPS VISISTED DISNEYLAND AS CHILD 

SPLIT INTO THREE GROUPS BUGS ARIEL AND CONTROL

IF IM CHACATER GROUP MORE LIKEY TO SAY SHOOK HANDS WITH THEM THAN IFNIN CONTROL GROUP AS NO MISLEADIMG INFO 

SHOWS HOW [OWERUFL MISLADIMG INFO IS 

EWT IN REAL LIFE 

LOFTUS SAID SOME EW INACCURATE BUT NOT A;L TEASEARCH SUPPORTS THIS 

EG. LAB experiments don't show tea, life and people don't take them seriously / not emotionally aroused enough as would be in actual situation 

FOSTER ET AL 1994 FOUMD IF PARTICIPANTS THOUGHT WERE WATCHING REAL LIFE ROBBERY AND THOUGHT THEIR R[EORT WOULD INFLUMCE TRIAL WOULD REPORT MORE ACCURATLEY THEREFORE IDEMTIFICATION OF ROBBER MORE ACCURATE 

Evishall 1986 found witness reports crime 4 months after event accurate despite given two misleading info

-MISLEADIMG info less influmce than loftus said 

REALWORKD APPLICATION 

strength 

applies to criminal justice system as relies on eyewitnesses 

psychological research warn justice system regsrding issues with eyewitness identities 

dna exoneration cases have confirmed this 

shows how important role of ewt research to emdure less innocent people convicted 

Weaknesses 

individual differences 

ew acquire info from 2 sources 

1.own observation

2.suggestion from others etc 

age-elderly more likely forget 

Bias 

LOptus and Palmer found leading as changed original memory

HOWEVER BEKERIAN AND BOWERS 1938 FOUND PPTS NOT SUCCEOYINLE TO MISLEADING INFO IF QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN SAME ORDER AS PRHINAL DATA -lofts presented the A's in a random order 

therefor order of as significant effect 

therefore memory change due to response bias not storage 

highlights importance of order 

Has negative effects on accuracy memory and performance 

JOHNSON AND SCOTT 1976

REASON ANXIETY AFFECTS ANXIETY DUE TO WEAPON FOCUS EFFECT -weapon in criminals hand distracts attention due to anxiety created therefore reduces accuracy of identification

PROCEDURE

aaksed PPTS sit waiting room heard argument in adjoining room and saw man run through room

either carrying-

1.pen covered grease -low anxiety cond

2.knife covered in blood-high anxiety

ppts later asked to identify the man from photos 

FINDINGS 

49% ACCUARCY IN GREASE 33% KNIFE 

LOFTYS ET ALL 1987 SHOWED ANXIETY DOES FOCUS ATTENTION ON CENTRAL FEATURES OF A CRIME LIKE A WEAPON 

reasearchers monitored eye movement and found presence of a weapon caused attention drawn to it and away from other things 

Anxiety can have positive effects in accuracy 

high arousal can create high enduring memories 

evolutionist argument adaptive to rember things that are emotionally important so can know how to respond if similar events occurred in future 

CHRISYIANSON AND HUBINETTE 1993 FOUND EVIDECE-ENHANCED RECALL WHEN QUESTIONED REAP WOTNESSES TO A BANK ROBBERY 

WOTNESSES EITHER VICYIMS OR OR EMPLOYEES HIGH VS LOW ANIXETY

INTERVIEWS 4-5 MONTHS AFTER 

THOSE WHO MOST ANXIOUS BEST RECALL 

CHRISTIANNSON 1992 COCOIDED MEMEORY FOR NEGATIVE EMOTIONLA EVENTS IS BETTER THAN FOR NEUTRAL ONES 

KENNETH DEFFENBACHER 2993 REVIEWED 21 STUDIES ON EFFECTS OF ANXIETY ON EWT

10 OF THESE=HIGHER AROUSAL=BETTER ACCURACY HIWEVER 11 SHOWED THE OPPOSITE

DEFFENBACHER SUGGESTED THIS IS DUE TO YERKES-DODSON EFFECT 

WHAT IS THIS?

AROUSAL HAS NEGATUVE IMPACT IN PERFORMANCE WHEN EITHER  ERY LOW OR. ERY HIGH BUT MODERATE LEVELS BENEFICIAL 

INVERTED U SHAPE 

Critics of weapon focus affect 

weapon focus may not be caused by anxiety 

pickle 1998 said reduced accuracy could be due to surprise not accuarcy 

arranged PPTS watch thief at salon with scissors-high threat low surprise ,handgun-high threat high suprise wallet lost threat low surprise or whole raw chicken -low threat high surprise 

identification least accurate in high surprises rather than high threat 

REAL LIFE VS LAB STUDIES 

eg christians0. Etc study in real life context 

labs don't create real levels of anxiety during actual crime 

but DEFFENBACHER also said that lan studies in general lead to reduced accuracy and real life even more so 

kind of suggest lab studies are valid as produce sismilar results 

Violence of crime may affect accuarcy 

many other studies don't involve crime or violence 

Halfords and Milne 2005 found victims of violent crimes more accurate than non violent 

=no simple rule about effect anxiety on ewt

EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES MAY AFFECT ACCURACY LIKE EMOTIONAL STABILITY 

BOTHWELL ET AL 1987 ppts tested characteristics either neurotic or stable 

stable better accuarcy as stress levels increased opp for neurotics 

AN ALTERNATUVE MODEL

FASEY AND HARDY 1988 SUGGESTED MORE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANXIETY AND PEROFMANCE THAN YERKES-DODSON MODEL

When physiological arousal increases above optimum level decrease in performance 'BUT FAZEY AND HARDY THERE IS SOMETIMES A BIG DECLINE DUE TO INCREASED MENTAL ANXIETY