Psychology AS - Memory

Structure:

• Stimulus
• Ionic, Echonic and Other Stores
• Short-term Memory (Attention to Stimulus) - Limited Duration and Capacity
• Long-term Memory (Elaborate Rehearsal) - Unlimited Duration and Capacity)

Evaluation:

• Weakness: More than one type of STM and LTM - e.g. KF recalled better with specific types (Different locations)
• Strength: LTM and STM coded differently - we mix similar sounding words in STM
• Strength: Many studies prove this  Validity

Explicit: (Conscious effort)

• Episodic: Events (Time stamped)
• Semantic - world knowledge

Implicit: (Unconscious effort)

• Procedural - skills

Evaluation:

• Clinical Evidence: Clive Wearing - not all LTM affected (Different locations)
• Neuroimaging: Different types of tasks with different parts of brain used - Brain scans
• Real-life: Enabe specifc treatment to development

• Central Executive: Allocates slave systems - Limited
• Visual-Spatial Sketchpad: Visual Cache (Visual data), Inner Scibe (arrangment of objects)
• Phonological Loop: Articulatory process (words in loop) and Store (words heard)
• Episodic Buffer: Temporary store of information - limited capacity
• LTM

Clinical Evidence: KF Loop was damaged but other stores were fine (Different locations)

Neuroimaging: different types of tasks use different areas of brain - shown on Brain scan

Central Executive: Least understood - theory not complete yet

• Retrieval Failure:Memory lacks necessary cues
• Cues: Things that trigger memory
• Context-dependent: recall better in the same environment - e.g. learn underwater, recall underwater
• State-dependent: recall better in same state - e.g. learn on drugs, recall on drugs

Evaluation:

• Validity: lots of studies in real-life and in labs
• Context-dependent: not that strong - big diference needed
• Cues: only effect memory if tested certain way - no effect in real-life situations

- Proactive Interference: Old memories interfer with new

- Retroactive Interference: New memories interfer with old

- Interference: One memory blocks another

Evaluation:

- Validity: Lots of lab studies

- Generalizability: Artificial tasks and not real-life situations

- Real-life study: Rugby players tested on player name memories -  recall better if they hadn't played a game between

Leading Questions: Questions that suggest a certain type of answer - e.g. Loftuys and Palmer car crash film and asked what speed (Used words such as "Smashed" or "Hit"

Response bias: no effect on memory but changes how people answer

Substitution: Changes witness memory

Post-event discussion: Talking to other eye witnesses will contaminate memories - e.g. study showed that, with talking, memories of experiment tape would exist even if they hadn't seen it

Real-life: Practicle uses

Artificial: Loftus and Palmer - car crash film different from reality

Individual difference: older people recall less acuratly than younger people

- Report everything

- Reinstate context

- Reverse order

- Change perspective

- Add social dynamics

Evaluation:

• Takes longer
• Requires special training
• Report and context produce best recall effect

• Negative effect: Low anxiety low recall - e.g. pen and grease experiement
• Positive effect: High anxiety low recall - e.g. interviewing past victims of robbery
• Weapon focus: Victims recall worse if there if a weapon involved - anxiety focus
• Yerkes-Dodson Model: Anxiety goes up, perfomance goes up but decrease once anxiety gets too high

Evaluation:

Ethics: Cause psychological harm to relive robbery

Not real-life: Situation may be exaggerated