Psychology AS - Memory

HideShow resource information

Multi Store Model


  • 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)


  • 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
1 of 8

Long Term Memory

Explicit: (Conscious effort)

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

Implicit: (Unconscious effort)

  • Procedural - skills


  • 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
2 of 8

Working Model of Memory

  • 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

3 of 8

Retrieval Failure

  • 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


  • 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
4 of 8

Interference Theory

- Proactive Interference: Old memories interfer with new

- Retroactive Interference: New memories interfer with old

- Interference: One memory blocks another


- 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

5 of 8

Eyewitness Testimony - Misleading information

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

6 of 8

Eyewitness Testimony - Cognitive Interview

- Report everything

- Reinstate context

- Reverse order

- Change perspective

- Add social dynamics


  • Takes longer
  • Requires special training
  • Report and context produce best recall effect
7 of 8

Eyewitness Testimony - Anxiety

  • 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


Ethics: Cause psychological harm to relive robbery

Not real-life: Situation may be exaggerated

8 of 8


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Conformity resources »