A03 Memory

Question 1

Coding - Badley’s

Answer 1

+ clear difference between 2 different memory stores. Later details show that there are some exceptions to this. Shows that STM is acoustically coded whereas LTM is semantically coded. Important step with understanding the multi-store model.
- artificial stimuli
Used quite artificial stimuli rather than meaningful material
Word lists had no personal meaning towards the p’s. May not tell us much about memory tasks in everyday life. When processing more meaningful info some people may use semantic coding even for STM.
Mnemonic -
Smart - separate memory stores
Students - STM is acoustically coded
Study - semantically coded is LTM
Carefully - contributes to MSM
But - bad stimuli (artificial stimuli not meaningful)
Real - real life memory may not work the same way
Life - limited application (can’t be used in real life)
Varies - variation some may use semantic coding for STM for more meaningful info

Question 2

Capacity - Jacob’s and Miller

Answer 2

+ Jacob’s study has been replicated. This study is very old and lacked control over some variables. Eg some participants digit spans may have been overestimated as they were distracted during the test (confounding variables).
Despite this his findings have beeen confirmed by better studies such as Bopp) this suggests that his study is a valid test of digit span in STM.

• Point: A limitation of early research into the capacity of Short-Term Memory (STM) is that it may have overestimated how much we can actually hold.

Evidence: Miller (1956) famously suggested the capacity was “7 +/- 2” items. However, more recent research by Cowan (2001) reviewed Miller’s findings and concluded that the capacity of STM is actually closer to only 4 chunks.

Explanation: This suggests that Miller’s original “magic number seven” may have been too optimistic. If the capacity is actually lower, it changes how we view the “bottleneck” of the Multi-Store Model. It also highlights the importance of replicability in science—by repeating and reviewing old studies, we get a more accurate “empirical” picture.

Link: Therefore, while Miller’s work was a vital starting point, modern psychologists view it as lacking temporal validity, requiring a more conservative estimate of human mental capacity.

Question 3

Duration - Peterson and Peterson and Bahrick

Answer 3

STM
- stimuli was artificial and meaningless
Study wasn’t complete irrelevant as we do try and remember meaningless material eg phone numbers. But doesn’t reflect everyday memory activities where what we are trying to remember is meaningful . Lacked external validity

LTM
+high external validity
More meangiful memories eg people’s faces when studies on LTM where conducted with meaningless pictures to be remembered recall rates were lower (Shepard).
This suggests that Bahricks findings display a more real estimate of the duration of LTM.

Question 4

Multi store model

Answer 4

+ research support from studies showing that STM and LTM are different. For example Badley found that we tend to mix up our words when they sound similar in our STMs. We also mix up words that have similar meanings for our LTMs. As claimed by MSM it clearly also shows that LTM and STM are different stores.
CP: these studies used meaningless materials such as word lists and digits, whereas in real life we use more meaningful material in our STM and LTMs such as memories and places.

• evid of more than one STM store
  Shallice and Warrington studied a client who had amnesia. The patients STM for digits were really bad when read out loud but when read to himself it was better. Further studies have shown that there could even be another store for non-verbal sounds. This suggests that MSM is wrong for claiming that there is only one STM store processing different info.
• prolonged rehearsal isn’t needed for transfer to LTM
  MSM claims that prolonged rehearsal - which is where you repeat something in order for it to travel for, your STM to your LTM, but this is shown that this is not needed. Elaborated rehearsal is needed (Craik and Watkins proposed this). This is where you link the new information to your existing knowledge. This shows that MSM doesn’t fully explain how long term storage is achieved.

Mnemonic: silly parrots make messy lists but clever owls remember more
Silly - support from research (stm and LTM are different stores)
Parrots - proven by Baddley (STM mixes up similar sounds and LTM confuses meanings)
Make - MSM is correct in saying that stm and LTM are separate
Messy - materials used were meaningless
Lists - lacks real life memories as we often remember places and memories not just words
But - but there’s evidence of more than one stm store
Clever- client w amnesia KF had worse recall when digits were read out to them then when he read them to himself
Owls - other studies suggest that there is an STM store for non verbal sounds
Remember - rehearsal (prolonged rehearsal doesn’t always help)
More - MSM is incorrect - elabroative reheasral is needed (craik and Watkins) which links existing memories to the one

Question 5

Types of LTM - Tulving

Answer 5

+ evid from famous case studies such as Clive Wearing and HM
Both of them endured severe brain damage. However their semantic memories still remained unaffected. For example HM couldn’t remember the fact that he stroked a dog a few mins after but didn’t need to be told what a dog is. Their procedural memories also remained intact. For example Clive Wearing still could play the piano and walk and talk and read music. This supports Tulvings theory that there are different memory stores in LTM- one store can be damaged but the others are unaffected.
CP: clinical evi is good but it lacks control over variables eg the researcher doesn’t know the state of the ps memory before the incident. Also had no control over the incident happening. Difficult to judge exactly how much worse it is afterwards. Lack of control limits what clinical studies can tell us about different types of LTM.
- conflicting research findings linking types of LTM to areas of the brain.
Buckner and Petersen reviewed evidence regarding location of semantic and episodic memory. They concluded that semantic was on the left prefrontal cortex and episodic was on the right. However other research (tulving) suggests that encoding of episodic is on the left and on the right episodic retrieval.
This challenges any neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory as there is poor agreement on where each type is located.
+understanding types of LTM can help psychologists to help people with memory problems.
Eg as people age they experience memory loss. But many episodic memory as research has shown - harder to recall personal events and experiences. Belleville et al devised an intervention to improve older people’s episodic memory’s. The trained ps performed better than the control group. This shows that distinguishing between different LTMs can allow specific treatments to be developed.

Question 6

WMM - Baddeley

Answer 6

+ clinical evidence
Shallice and Warringtons case study about KF who had amnesia. After his brain injury this patient had poor STM ability for auditory info but could process visual info normally. eg his instant recall of letters and digits were better when he read them to himself (visual) then when someone read them to him (auditory). KF’s phonological loop was damaged but his vision sketchpad was still intact. These findings strongly support the existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores.
CP: unclear whether KF had any other cognitive impairments which may had affected his performance on tasks. eg he was in a motorcycle accident which could have been traumatising and affected his cognitive performance. this challenges evid that comes from clinical studies of people with brain injuries that may have affected different systems making it less generalisable.

+studies of dual task performance support the separate existence of the VSS. when Baddeleys ps carried out visual and verbal tasks at the same time (dual tasks) their preference on each was simlar to when they carried out the tasks separately. but when both tasks where visual or both verbal, performance on both declined. this is because both visual tasks compete for the same subsystem (VSS) whereas there is no competition for verbal and visual tasks together. This shows that there must be a separate subsystem the VSS that processes visual input and one for verbal.

• validity of model may not be there as the tasks for dual tasks are unlike the tasks we do on a daily. also carried out in highly controlled lab settings.
• Lack of clarity over the nature of the central executive
  Baddeley himself recognised this when he said ‘The Central executive is the most important but the least understood component of the working memory’. it needs to be more clearly specified rather than simply just being ‘attention’. Eg some psychologists think that the CE may have separate subcomponents. Challenges the integrity of the WMM as the CE is an unsatisfactory component.

Question 7

Explanations for forgetting - interference

Answer 7

+ evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations
Eg Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams that they played during rugby season. Players who played the most games had the worst recall. This study shows that interference can operate in at least some real - world situations, increasing the validity of the theory.

• A limitation of interference theory is that it may only explain a temporary loss of accessibility rather than a permanent loss of the memory itself.
  Evidence: Tulving gave participants five lists of 24 words, each organised into categories (e.g., types of fruit, metals). Recall averaged about 70% for the first list but fell as participants were given additional lists to learn (Interference). However, when participants were later given a cued recall test (told the names of the categories), recall shot back up to 70%.
  Explanation: This is a significant blow to interference theory. If the “new” lists had actually interfered with and “overwritten” the “old” lists, the participants shouldn’t have been able to remember them at all. The fact that the memories returned with a hint (cue) proves the information was still available in LTM—it was just temporarily “blocked.”
  Link: This suggests that interference only explains why we can’t find a memory at a specific moment, rather than why we actually forget it. Therefore, the theory lacks explanatory power because it ignores the role of retrieval cues in overcoming interference.
• environmentally reductionist
  ignores biological complexity of the brain eg the role of the hippocampus. by reducing it to simple word lists this doesnt involve the holistic theory of a human’s behaviour eg doesnt take into account emotions and hormones on interference.
  therefore lacks explanatory power as it provides an oversimplified account of a complex cognitive process.
• most studies supporting interference theories are lab based, so researcher s can control variables. Use artificial material and unrealistic procedures. In everyday life we often learn something and recall it much later such as revising for exams. lacks mundane realism

Question 8

Explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure

Answer 8

+ retrieval cues can help in the legal system
eg. in the cognitive interview, context reinstatement is used where the eyewitnesses are asked to put themselves back into the enviornment they were in at the time of the crime. they often retrieve memories that they have lost. ESP has life saving techniques in the legal system. it suggests that forgetting is just a temporary lack of cues rather than a permanant lack of info.
CP: however, Baddelely argues that importance of context cues IRL are quite limited the studies used are extreme and the enivornments IRL arent usually different enough to cause singnificant forgetting.
therefore lacks explanatory power.

• context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested.
  Godden and Baddeley replicated their underwater test but used a recognition test instead of recall. - ps had to say if they recognised a word read to them from a list, instead of retrieving it for themselves. Performance was the same in all 4 conditions. This suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies when a person has to recall info rather than recognise it.

-artificial stimuli used again

Question 9

Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading info