AQA A-Level Psychology Paper 1
MEMORY
Evaluation Points
+ -
Coding Findings led to development of MSM Artificial stimuli, lacks mundane realism
Capacity Poor control, Jacob’s, 1887 Miller overestimated capacity - COWAN
CA: been replicated by BOPP 2005 COWAN reviewed research, found capacity is 5 + or - 1, so the
lower end of Miller’s estimate is more accurate
Duration High ecological validity - BAHRICK et al. Peterson + Peterson - Low ecological validity - artificial stimuli
SHEPARD, reviewed studies on LTM, found recall with meaningless
pictures was lower BAHRICK et al. - low control - ppts still in contact/look at yr book
Multi-Store + -
Model
Research support - Baddeley, Peterson + Peterson CA: artificial stimuli, doesn’t reflect real life using memory
Research support - HM (Scoville and Milner) More than 1 type of STM: SHALLICE + WARRINGTON = KF
HM had epilepsy, his hippocampus was removed during surgery Amnesia patient KF, recall worse when words read to him, better
LTM was damaged (read same magazine every day, couldn’t recall when read himself
what he had eaten) Other model - WMM is better
STM intact, performed well on tests of immediate memory
Bygone model - more types of LTM - TULVING
More than 1 type of LTM - episodic, procedural + semantic
Elaborative rehearsal not prolonged rehearsal - CRAIK +
WATKINS
Types of + -
Long-Term
Memory
, Research support - HM + Clive Wearing CA: no control and case studies
Both had damaged episodic memories but semantic was fine, HM Don’t know their memory capacity before, can’t measure extent of
couldn’t remember stroking a dog but did know what one was change
Had fine procedural memory - both could walk and talk, Clive was a
pro musician + could still play piano and read music
Real life application - BELLEVILLE No agreement on where types of LTM are
Knowing types of LTM, can develop treatments to help people BUCKNER + PETERSON episodic is right prefrontal cortex,
BELLEVILLE: created intervention improving episodic memory in semantic is left prefrontal cortex (PFC)
alzheimer patients, trained patients performed better on episodic TULVING: ENCODING episodic is left PFC, episodic retrieval is right
memory test than control ppts (not trained) PFC
Separate semantic/episodic stores?
TULVING believes episodic is just specialised store of semantic -
argued you can’t have damaged semantic and normal episodic
But, HODGES + PATTERSON: alzheimer patients can form new
episodic memories and not semantic
Working + -
Memory Model
Clinical evidence - KF - SHALLICE + WARRINGTON CA: case studies, lack control, not generalisable
Visuo-spatial sketchpad was fine, but phonological loop damaged, KF in motorcycle accident, trauma could have affected his cognitive
good recall when read digits himself, bad when read to him ability
Dual-task performance studies - BADDELEY CA: low ecological validity
Performance was better when doing visual task and verbal task at
same time (and separately) vs when they were both visual/verbal
tasks - low competition for the separate stores = more efficient at
processing
Central Executive is too vague
BADDELEY: ‘CE is most important but least understood part’
Cognitive psychologists believe it needs to be described as more
than just attention
Some think it has many subcomponents
= damages integrity
MEMORY
Evaluation Points
+ -
Coding Findings led to development of MSM Artificial stimuli, lacks mundane realism
Capacity Poor control, Jacob’s, 1887 Miller overestimated capacity - COWAN
CA: been replicated by BOPP 2005 COWAN reviewed research, found capacity is 5 + or - 1, so the
lower end of Miller’s estimate is more accurate
Duration High ecological validity - BAHRICK et al. Peterson + Peterson - Low ecological validity - artificial stimuli
SHEPARD, reviewed studies on LTM, found recall with meaningless
pictures was lower BAHRICK et al. - low control - ppts still in contact/look at yr book
Multi-Store + -
Model
Research support - Baddeley, Peterson + Peterson CA: artificial stimuli, doesn’t reflect real life using memory
Research support - HM (Scoville and Milner) More than 1 type of STM: SHALLICE + WARRINGTON = KF
HM had epilepsy, his hippocampus was removed during surgery Amnesia patient KF, recall worse when words read to him, better
LTM was damaged (read same magazine every day, couldn’t recall when read himself
what he had eaten) Other model - WMM is better
STM intact, performed well on tests of immediate memory
Bygone model - more types of LTM - TULVING
More than 1 type of LTM - episodic, procedural + semantic
Elaborative rehearsal not prolonged rehearsal - CRAIK +
WATKINS
Types of + -
Long-Term
Memory
, Research support - HM + Clive Wearing CA: no control and case studies
Both had damaged episodic memories but semantic was fine, HM Don’t know their memory capacity before, can’t measure extent of
couldn’t remember stroking a dog but did know what one was change
Had fine procedural memory - both could walk and talk, Clive was a
pro musician + could still play piano and read music
Real life application - BELLEVILLE No agreement on where types of LTM are
Knowing types of LTM, can develop treatments to help people BUCKNER + PETERSON episodic is right prefrontal cortex,
BELLEVILLE: created intervention improving episodic memory in semantic is left prefrontal cortex (PFC)
alzheimer patients, trained patients performed better on episodic TULVING: ENCODING episodic is left PFC, episodic retrieval is right
memory test than control ppts (not trained) PFC
Separate semantic/episodic stores?
TULVING believes episodic is just specialised store of semantic -
argued you can’t have damaged semantic and normal episodic
But, HODGES + PATTERSON: alzheimer patients can form new
episodic memories and not semantic
Working + -
Memory Model
Clinical evidence - KF - SHALLICE + WARRINGTON CA: case studies, lack control, not generalisable
Visuo-spatial sketchpad was fine, but phonological loop damaged, KF in motorcycle accident, trauma could have affected his cognitive
good recall when read digits himself, bad when read to him ability
Dual-task performance studies - BADDELEY CA: low ecological validity
Performance was better when doing visual task and verbal task at
same time (and separately) vs when they were both visual/verbal
tasks - low competition for the separate stores = more efficient at
processing
Central Executive is too vague
BADDELEY: ‘CE is most important but least understood part’
Cognitive psychologists believe it needs to be described as more
than just attention
Some think it has many subcomponents
= damages integrity
