Memory Researchers

Reasons for forgetting - Interference

Aim: Test if new memories interfered with past memories

Method: Two groups, B learnt first list of words, A learnt first and second list of words

Findings: B had better recall

Conclusions: Learning the 2nd list interfered with the ability to recall 1st list - retroactive interference

Types of memory

Sensory memory

Findings:

Very large capacity (unlimited)

Types of memory

Short term memory

Findings: 0-18 seconds duration

Types of memory

Short term memory

Findings: Limited capacity, 7 +/- 2

Types of memory

Short term memory

Findings: Encoded auditory

Types of memory

Long term memory

Findings: Unlimited duration potentially - definitely 47 years

Types of memory

Long term memory

Findings: Encoded semantically

Types of memory

Short term memory

Aim: Test short term memory capacity

Method: Using digit span

Findings: Could remember 9.3 number and 7.3 letters

Multistore model of memory

Method: Got football and non-football fans to memorise league table

Findings: Football fans did better

Conclusions: STM relied on LTM to consolidate information

Reasons for forgetting - Retrieval cues

Encoding specificity principle

Memory is most effective is information present at time of encoding is available at time of retrieval

Reasons for forgetting - Retrieval cues

Context dependent forgetting

Method: 4 conditions

1 - Normal room, normal teacher

2 - Different room, same teacher

3 - Same room, different teacher

4 - Different room, different teacher

Findings: Those with the same room/teacher performed best as were in familiar settings

Conclusions: Environment acts as a cue

Reasons for forgetting - Retrieval cues

Suggested that cues were no longer a factor when learning something meaningful

Reasons for forgetting - Retrival cues

Method: 4 conditions, learning a set of words on land/underwater and recalling a set of words on land/underwater

Findings: Highest recall was was both contexts matched

Working memory model

Aim: To show how the STM works

Findings: 4 stores

Central executive - Direct attention to a particular tast whilst collecting & controlling sensory info

Phonological loop - Controls auditory stimuli

Visuo - spatial sketchpad - Controls visuo stimuli

Episodic buffer - General store, sends stimuli to LTM

Working memory model

Method: Studied K.F who forgot auditory but not viual stimuli

Findings: Found brain damage was restricted to the phonoligical loop

Misleading information on EWT

Aim: Does the wording of a question affect EWT

Method: Lab experiment, IMD, 45 students, car collision video, answer 10 identical questions, 1 critical question

IV - Hit, smashed, bumped, collided or contacted

Findings: Highest avg = 40.8 - smashed, Lowest avg = 31.8 - contacted

Conclusions: Memory reconstruction/distortion as a result of the wording

Cognitive Interview

Method: 4 stages

Reinstate emotions

Details

Reorder

Other perspective

Cognitive Interview

Method: Conducted a meta analysis of 53 studies

Findings: 34% increase in correct information after using CI

Cognitive Interview

Findings:

CI took more time than that was available

Required special training which was expensive

Anxiety on EWT

Aim: To see if anxiety could affect EWT

Method: Lab exp, IMD, IV - anxious or not, DV - accuracy of identification, uni students, students outside room and heard an argument, A - holding a greasy pen, B - holding a bloody knife

Findings:

A - 49% accurate

B - 33% accurate

Conclusions: Weapon focus phenomena, EW focus on weapon so attention is away from the face