Explanation of forgetting: Eyewitness testimony: misleading info
Working memory model: Baddeley & interference theory Post event discussion: memory contamination
hitch Interference happens when two pieces of and conformity
Central
information are in conflict Loftus and palmer:
executive
Proactive interference – old info interferes - Lab experiment
Phonological loop with the recall of the new info - IV – verb (hit, bumped, contacted,
Visuos Episo collided, smashed)
- Articulatory Retroactive interference – new info interferes
patial dic - DV – speed estimate
control with recall of the old info
sketch buffer - IMD – 45 psych students
system
- Phonological P – lots of research consistently supports the - Video clip of car crash
store effect - 10 questions
E – McGeoh found that when pps were given - 1 critical ‘how fast…’
word list to remember, and had to look at - Contacted = 31.8mph, smashed =
Long term memory another word list in-between (similar or very 40.5mph
different) they remembered less of original Gabbert:
words if they had similar words in between - Paired pps
CE: attentional process, limited storage, - Video of crime, different angles
E – this is because the similar words interfered
allocates - Discussion after
more with original list than dissimilar
PL: sound based - Control group – no discussion
L – supporting idea that interference can lead
- ACP - maintenance rehearsal - 71% errors caused by discussion group
to forgetting
- PS – words you hear cross-over with partner (claimed they
VSS: visual data saw things that they didn’t)
P – however, research into this theory used
- VC – stores visual data Explanation of forgetting: retrieval - 0% errors control group
- IS – records arrangement of objects theory
EB: temporary storage, integrates & links LTM Encoding specifity principle Tulving: cues
present when info is first stored need to be P – real life applications
P – supporting evidence present when trying to recall ‘tip of the tongue’ E – police now know not to use leading
E – Shallice and Warrington, KF – could not use Context dependant forgetting: questions where interviewing EW, and also, to
STM for auditory task but visual STM fine external/environmental cue needed try stop EW talking to each other after the
E – must be separate STMs as damage to one State dependant forgetting: internal cue/state crime has happened to stop post event
does not damage the other which shows they of mind cue needed discussion
are independent Godden and Baddeley: scuba divers, word list E – could help to produce more reliable EWT,
L – valid assumption of the WMM - Land/ land, land/sea, sea/sea, sea/land can prevent wrong person being caught, and
- Recall 40% lower when cues don’t match guilty culprit staying free
P – some ‘normal’ population used L – topic useful
E – Baddeley and hitch dual task models P – supporting evidence
E – shows that even in non-clinical population, E – Baddeley and Godden Scuba diver study. P – research artificial
there are separate STM stores Better recall when settings matched E – watching a car crash or crime on video is
L – helps to strengthen the model E – supports context dependent forgetting, pps not same as seeing it real life, pps would be
forgot more when context cue was not present more anxious and alert perhaps
P – however, not much is known about the CE when recalling E – could mean misleading info might not be as
E – key part of model, but misunderstood L – could be valid explanation of forgetting powerful in real life, maybe the pp would be
E – Baddeley stated that more needs to be more certain on what they saw and less easily
known about its function – most important. But P – however, thus theory only seems to work in
least understood limited situations
L – model currently incomplete without E – Baddeley repeated study using recognition
Working memory model: Baddeley & interference theory Post event discussion: memory contamination
hitch Interference happens when two pieces of and conformity
Central
information are in conflict Loftus and palmer:
executive
Proactive interference – old info interferes - Lab experiment
Phonological loop with the recall of the new info - IV – verb (hit, bumped, contacted,
Visuos Episo collided, smashed)
- Articulatory Retroactive interference – new info interferes
patial dic - DV – speed estimate
control with recall of the old info
sketch buffer - IMD – 45 psych students
system
- Phonological P – lots of research consistently supports the - Video clip of car crash
store effect - 10 questions
E – McGeoh found that when pps were given - 1 critical ‘how fast…’
word list to remember, and had to look at - Contacted = 31.8mph, smashed =
Long term memory another word list in-between (similar or very 40.5mph
different) they remembered less of original Gabbert:
words if they had similar words in between - Paired pps
CE: attentional process, limited storage, - Video of crime, different angles
E – this is because the similar words interfered
allocates - Discussion after
more with original list than dissimilar
PL: sound based - Control group – no discussion
L – supporting idea that interference can lead
- ACP - maintenance rehearsal - 71% errors caused by discussion group
to forgetting
- PS – words you hear cross-over with partner (claimed they
VSS: visual data saw things that they didn’t)
P – however, research into this theory used
- VC – stores visual data Explanation of forgetting: retrieval - 0% errors control group
- IS – records arrangement of objects theory
EB: temporary storage, integrates & links LTM Encoding specifity principle Tulving: cues
present when info is first stored need to be P – real life applications
P – supporting evidence present when trying to recall ‘tip of the tongue’ E – police now know not to use leading
E – Shallice and Warrington, KF – could not use Context dependant forgetting: questions where interviewing EW, and also, to
STM for auditory task but visual STM fine external/environmental cue needed try stop EW talking to each other after the
E – must be separate STMs as damage to one State dependant forgetting: internal cue/state crime has happened to stop post event
does not damage the other which shows they of mind cue needed discussion
are independent Godden and Baddeley: scuba divers, word list E – could help to produce more reliable EWT,
L – valid assumption of the WMM - Land/ land, land/sea, sea/sea, sea/land can prevent wrong person being caught, and
- Recall 40% lower when cues don’t match guilty culprit staying free
P – some ‘normal’ population used L – topic useful
E – Baddeley and hitch dual task models P – supporting evidence
E – shows that even in non-clinical population, E – Baddeley and Godden Scuba diver study. P – research artificial
there are separate STM stores Better recall when settings matched E – watching a car crash or crime on video is
L – helps to strengthen the model E – supports context dependent forgetting, pps not same as seeing it real life, pps would be
forgot more when context cue was not present more anxious and alert perhaps
P – however, not much is known about the CE when recalling E – could mean misleading info might not be as
E – key part of model, but misunderstood L – could be valid explanation of forgetting powerful in real life, maybe the pp would be
E – Baddeley stated that more needs to be more certain on what they saw and less easily
known about its function – most important. But P – however, thus theory only seems to work in
least understood limited situations
L – model currently incomplete without E – Baddeley repeated study using recognition
