PAPER 1
MEMORY
Coding, Capacity and Duration:
AO1-
Coding: the format or type of information stored in each memory store, in the
STM this is acoustic and LTM this is semantic (Baddeley 1966)
LTM this is unlimited
Duration: the amount of time this information can be held in each memory
store, duration of STM 18-30s (Peterson & Peterson), LTM unlimited (Bahrick)
AO3-
Bahrick good ecological validity
Peterson and Miller have low mundane realism
More recent evidence suggest that 7+-2 is an overestimation
High internal validity
Multi-store model of memory:
AO1-
Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968
Sensory Register: receives information from our senses, can be broken down
into echoic and ionic sub stores as well as 3 others, has a large capacity but
duration of less than one second, this moves information into STM through
attention
STM: acoustically coded, 7+-2 items, 18-30s, maintenance rehearsal allow
information to stay in STM, information move to LTM via elaborative rehearsal or
prolonged maintenance rehearsal, information can be lost via memory decay
LTM: semantically coded, unlimited capacity, very long duration, to remember
retrieval must occur back into STM
AO3-
Studies lack ecological validity
May be more than 1 STM store according to Shallice and Warrington
Supportive evidence that STM and LTM are different- HM
Different types of LTM proposed by Tulving
Machine reductionism
Types of LTM:
AO1-
3 Types: Episodic, Semantic, and Procedural
Episodic: consciously recalled, personal, time stamped, like a diary
Semantic: consciously recalled, world and knowledge, like facts
Procedural: unconsciously recalled, memories of learned skills
AO3-
Opposing model- Cohen and Squire believed procedural is separate but episodic
and semantic are together
Clinical evidence: Clive Wearing could play piano but not remember anything
Neuroimaging evidence: episodic is right prefrontal cortex and semantic is left
, HM couldn't make new semantic or episodic memories but could make
procedural
Other types of LTM have been suggested
Working memory model:
AO1-
STM made up of central executive, phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad
and episodic buffer
Central Executive: limited capacity, role to allocate tasks to the 3 slave systems
Phonological Loop: processes auditory information and is made up of the
articulatory process and the phonological loop
Visuo-spatial Sketchpad: combines visual and spatial information, capacity 4-5
chunks, made up of the inner scribe and the visual cache
Episodic Buffer: integrates all types of info processed by other stores and links
the STM to the LTM
AO3-
Clinical evidence: Shallice and Warrington's KF study
Dual task performance supports it
Role of central executive is too vague
Braver et al positive correlation between increasing cognitive load of central
executive and increasing levels of activation in the prefrontal cortex
Use of tumour or brain damaged evidence is criticised as the brain damage
could cause cognitive changes
Interference:
AO1-
Interference is when the recall of one memory blocks the recall of another
causing the forgetting of one or both pieces of information
Retroactive Interference is when new memories block the recollection of old
Proactive Interference is when old memories block the recollection of new
Baddeley and Hitch rugby players retroactive interference- the more games
they played the more likely they would forget older games
AO3-
Research lacks mundane realism
Interference consistently found in studies
McGeoch and McDonald
Retrieval failure:
AO1-
Retrieval failure suggests that forgetting occurs when the ‘cues’ present at the
time of encoding are not present at recall, this is called by Tulving the encoding
specificity principle
Two types of forgetting: context dependant and state dependant
Context Dependant: external cues don't match those present at recall e.g.
Godden and Baddeley with water vs on land
, State Dependant: internal cues at time of encoding don’t match time of recall
e.g. Carter and Cassaday antihistamines 40% higher recall in matching
conditions
Eysenck retrieval failure one of main reasons we forget from LTM
AO3-
Context cues have real life application
Supporting evidence for state dependent forgetting
Context cues must be very different e.g. in sea or on land
Effects of context may depend on type of memory being tested- Godden and
Baddeley repeated their experiment using recognition not recall and found
performance was the same
Lack ecological validity
Encoding specificity principle suffers from cyclical reasoning
Misleading Information Leading Questions:
AO1-
Investigated by Loftus and Palmer, ppts watched a clip of a car crash and asked
to estimate the speed of the cars
‘About how fast were the cars going when they X into each other?’ Verbs
included; smashed, collided, bumped, hit and contacted
Response Bias- questions influence ppts to give certain answer
Substitution- leading questions change the memory of the crime
AO3-
Artificial tasks- watching clip not the same as watching a real-life event
These studies have led to DNA evidence being held in higher regard than
witness testimonies
Police officers that are aware of leading questions can avoid them leading to
practical application
Misleading Information Post Event Discussion:
AO1-
Are the discussions that take place between co-witnesses after the crime takes
place
Gabbert et al 2003 using a matched pairs design showed ppts a film clip of the
same crime scene but with different details. 0% inaccurate information when
alone in co-witness group 71% recalled information they hadn’t seen
Memory conformity- belief that they are wrong, and other person is right
(informational social influence)
Memory contamination- the new information leads to their memory of the crime
changing
AO3-
Older demographics more likely to be influenced by post event discussion
Demand characteristics
Artificial tasks
DNA evidence used more readily
Effect of Anxiety on the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies:
MEMORY
Coding, Capacity and Duration:
AO1-
Coding: the format or type of information stored in each memory store, in the
STM this is acoustic and LTM this is semantic (Baddeley 1966)
LTM this is unlimited
Duration: the amount of time this information can be held in each memory
store, duration of STM 18-30s (Peterson & Peterson), LTM unlimited (Bahrick)
AO3-
Bahrick good ecological validity
Peterson and Miller have low mundane realism
More recent evidence suggest that 7+-2 is an overestimation
High internal validity
Multi-store model of memory:
AO1-
Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968
Sensory Register: receives information from our senses, can be broken down
into echoic and ionic sub stores as well as 3 others, has a large capacity but
duration of less than one second, this moves information into STM through
attention
STM: acoustically coded, 7+-2 items, 18-30s, maintenance rehearsal allow
information to stay in STM, information move to LTM via elaborative rehearsal or
prolonged maintenance rehearsal, information can be lost via memory decay
LTM: semantically coded, unlimited capacity, very long duration, to remember
retrieval must occur back into STM
AO3-
Studies lack ecological validity
May be more than 1 STM store according to Shallice and Warrington
Supportive evidence that STM and LTM are different- HM
Different types of LTM proposed by Tulving
Machine reductionism
Types of LTM:
AO1-
3 Types: Episodic, Semantic, and Procedural
Episodic: consciously recalled, personal, time stamped, like a diary
Semantic: consciously recalled, world and knowledge, like facts
Procedural: unconsciously recalled, memories of learned skills
AO3-
Opposing model- Cohen and Squire believed procedural is separate but episodic
and semantic are together
Clinical evidence: Clive Wearing could play piano but not remember anything
Neuroimaging evidence: episodic is right prefrontal cortex and semantic is left
, HM couldn't make new semantic or episodic memories but could make
procedural
Other types of LTM have been suggested
Working memory model:
AO1-
STM made up of central executive, phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad
and episodic buffer
Central Executive: limited capacity, role to allocate tasks to the 3 slave systems
Phonological Loop: processes auditory information and is made up of the
articulatory process and the phonological loop
Visuo-spatial Sketchpad: combines visual and spatial information, capacity 4-5
chunks, made up of the inner scribe and the visual cache
Episodic Buffer: integrates all types of info processed by other stores and links
the STM to the LTM
AO3-
Clinical evidence: Shallice and Warrington's KF study
Dual task performance supports it
Role of central executive is too vague
Braver et al positive correlation between increasing cognitive load of central
executive and increasing levels of activation in the prefrontal cortex
Use of tumour or brain damaged evidence is criticised as the brain damage
could cause cognitive changes
Interference:
AO1-
Interference is when the recall of one memory blocks the recall of another
causing the forgetting of one or both pieces of information
Retroactive Interference is when new memories block the recollection of old
Proactive Interference is when old memories block the recollection of new
Baddeley and Hitch rugby players retroactive interference- the more games
they played the more likely they would forget older games
AO3-
Research lacks mundane realism
Interference consistently found in studies
McGeoch and McDonald
Retrieval failure:
AO1-
Retrieval failure suggests that forgetting occurs when the ‘cues’ present at the
time of encoding are not present at recall, this is called by Tulving the encoding
specificity principle
Two types of forgetting: context dependant and state dependant
Context Dependant: external cues don't match those present at recall e.g.
Godden and Baddeley with water vs on land
, State Dependant: internal cues at time of encoding don’t match time of recall
e.g. Carter and Cassaday antihistamines 40% higher recall in matching
conditions
Eysenck retrieval failure one of main reasons we forget from LTM
AO3-
Context cues have real life application
Supporting evidence for state dependent forgetting
Context cues must be very different e.g. in sea or on land
Effects of context may depend on type of memory being tested- Godden and
Baddeley repeated their experiment using recognition not recall and found
performance was the same
Lack ecological validity
Encoding specificity principle suffers from cyclical reasoning
Misleading Information Leading Questions:
AO1-
Investigated by Loftus and Palmer, ppts watched a clip of a car crash and asked
to estimate the speed of the cars
‘About how fast were the cars going when they X into each other?’ Verbs
included; smashed, collided, bumped, hit and contacted
Response Bias- questions influence ppts to give certain answer
Substitution- leading questions change the memory of the crime
AO3-
Artificial tasks- watching clip not the same as watching a real-life event
These studies have led to DNA evidence being held in higher regard than
witness testimonies
Police officers that are aware of leading questions can avoid them leading to
practical application
Misleading Information Post Event Discussion:
AO1-
Are the discussions that take place between co-witnesses after the crime takes
place
Gabbert et al 2003 using a matched pairs design showed ppts a film clip of the
same crime scene but with different details. 0% inaccurate information when
alone in co-witness group 71% recalled information they hadn’t seen
Memory conformity- belief that they are wrong, and other person is right
(informational social influence)
Memory contamination- the new information leads to their memory of the crime
changing
AO3-
Older demographics more likely to be influenced by post event discussion
Demand characteristics
Artificial tasks
DNA evidence used more readily
Effect of Anxiety on the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies:
