Slides

PsychExchange.co.uk Shared Resource

Description
1. MEMORY AND ATTACHMENT Unit 1 revision. Memory, Attachment and Research methods [Type the document subtitle] [Year]Memory Attachment:Multi store model Learning Theory…
Categories
Published
of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  • 1. MEMORY AND ATTACHMENT Unit 1 revision. Memory, Attachment and Research methods [Type the document subtitle] [Year]Memory Attachment:Multi store model Learning Theory Impact of daycareWorking memory model Bowlby theory ImplicationsAnxiety and EWT Types of attachmentAge and EWT Culture and attachmentLeading Questions Disruption of attachmentCognitive interview Privation and institutionalisationStrategies to improve memory [TYPE THE COMPANY ADDRESS]
  • 2. AssumptionsThe multi store model of memory was proposed by Atkinson and Shiffren and attempts to explain howmemory processes work. According to this model our memory consists of three stores, the first storeinformation enters is known as the sensory store. This store receives information from our senses, mostof which is ignored, however if information is paid attention to, it will transfer onto the short termmemory store.Information in the short term store is held there in a fragile state and will quickly decay if theinformation is not rehearsed so the duration of the stm is very limited. The short term memory storealso has limited capacity around 7 plus or minus two items and has a duration of 3-18 seconds.Information in the long term is encoded acoustically, that means information is processed based on itssound. When information has been sufficiently rehearsed it moves on to the long term store. Atkinsonand Shiffren argue information must proceed in this order and that the more information is rehearsedthe more likely it is to stay in the long term store. The ltm is said to have unlimited capacity andduration information is encoded semantically.Evidence for MSM 1. Evidence for the MSM comes from Glanzer and Cunitz. They presented participants with a word list and then asked them to free recall as many words as they could. They found participants recalled the first few words and the last few words. The first few words were likely to have been rehearsed hence why they were recalled this is known as the primacy effect and supports the notion that rehearsal leads to long term memory. The last few words were likely to still be in the stm, this is known as the recency effect and supports the idea that stm has limited duration. 2. Other evidence comes from PET scans that show different areas of the brain are active when using the STM and LTM suggesting the stores are indeed separate. 3. Finally Paterson and Lloyd presented participants with three consonants the participants then had to count backwards from a certain number to prevent rehearsal. They found duration of stm is limited to between 3-18 seconds. This supports the assumption that the short term store has limited duration.
  • 3. Criticisms 1. The MSM has been criticized for being oversimplified. It fails to take into account that the stm and ltm stores may have separate sub components. For instance the long term memory is divided into procedural memory (how to) declarative (what is ) episodic (what happened) etc. as a result we cannot assume that there is one ltm and one stm as many patients suffering from brain damage tend to lose episodic memory yet retain their procedural memory so they might forget peoples names but reemember how to brush their hair and walk. This shows that long term memory has many parts to it. 2. Another criticism of the MSM is that the evidence used to support its assumptions tends to be from lab experiments. These tend to be constructed in an artificial environment as all extraneous variables are controlled this may encourage demand characteristics. As a result the findings may lack internal validity as participants are behaving in a way that they feel is expected of them by the experimenter. Therefore the results lack ecological validity as they do not apply to real life situations. In addition the samples tend to be young college students, these students may have stronger or weaker memory than the normal population so the findings may not be generalisable. 3. Finally the MSM argues that information must be rehearsed into to transfer from the STM to LTM. Craik and Tulving argued that shallow rehearsal may not lead to formulation of LTM. They found that semantic processing of information leads to deeper and more long lasting memory than simply repeating. What this means is thinking about the meaning of the word can create more enduring memories than simply repeating it.
  • 4. Working memory modelAssumptions - Baddeley and Hitch were the first people to explore the idea that the short term memory is made up of several stores. They concluded that short term memory is a very complex system which consists of a central control system and a number of sub components. - The central executive is considered the most important part of working memory, because it controls attention and coordinates the actions of the other components, it can briefly store information, but has a limited capacity. - The phonological loop consists of two parts, the articulatory control system and the phonological store: Articulatory Control System is The Inner Voice and rehearses information its capacity is 2 seconds. Phonological Store is The Inner Ear . The phonological store receives its input either directly from the ears or from long term memory. - The visuospatial sketchpad stores visual information, input is from the eyes and the relationship between the input. - The episodic buffer binds together all of the information from the other components of working memory with information from the long term memory. - These components can work independently from each other, so two simultaneous tasks using different components shall not cause any interference however tasks using the same component will cause interference. Evidence 1. Word length effect- Baddeley et al found that participants can only remember words that take less than two seconds to say, this is because the articulatory loop can not rehearse long words as the capacity of the articularory loop is limited. We can only fit words that take less than two seconds to say, so long words are forgotten. 2. Dual tasks experiments, Baddeley et al found that participants can track a visual light whilst doing a verbal task, yet can not do the task whilst analysing the angles of the letter F. this is because the latter both use the visual spatial sketchpad causing interference. 3. Episodic buffer- participants remember familiar sentences better than unfamiliar words. This is because these sentences are in the Long term memory and this is accessed in the short term. This shows that LTM and STM are interactive.
  • 5. Criticisms of working memory model 1. The most important weakness of the working memory model is that the functions of the central executive are vague and difficult to test. Evidence from brain damaged patients sugest the Central Executive can be divided into subsystems; however they have not yet been identified by the WMM. 2. Secondly all the research evidence for the WMM has been gained from lab experiments, these tend to be artificial settings which thus reduces the ecological validity of the findings. Finally the model does not explain the long term memory in any depth, thus giving a limited account of memory as a whole.
  • 6. A leading question is one that by its content or format has the answer embedded within it. This hasbeen found to influence the eye witness account of an event. This was studied by Loftus andPalmer. The procedures involved 45 students being shown 7 films of different traffic accidents.After each film the participants were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe theaccident and then answer a series of specific questions about it. There was one critical question:“About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”. One group of participants wasgiven this question. The other four groups were given the verbs „smashed‟, „collided‟, „bumped‟ or„contacted‟ in place of the word „hit‟.  The mean speed estimate was calculated for each group, as shown in the table. The group given the word „smashed‟ estimated a higher speed than the other groups (about 41mph). The group given the word „contacted‟ estimated the lowest speed (about 32mph).  Loftus and Palmer concluded that the form of question can have a significant effect on a witness‟s answer. In other words, leading questions can affect the accuracy of memory. Such leading questions are an example of what psychologists call post-event information – information given after the event which may alter memory. It is possible that such post- event information causes the information to be altered before it is stored so that memory is permanently affected. A second possible explanation is that the form of the question actually alters the participant‟s memory representation of the accident, which leads them to produce a higher or lower estimate.  Loftus and Palmer conducted a second experiment to see if memory was altered by post- event information. A new set of participants was divided into three groups and shown a film of a car accident. Group 1 was given the verb „smashed‟, group 2 the verb „hit‟, and group 3 (the control group) was not given any question about the speed of the vehicles. The participants returned one week later and were asked 10 questions about the accident, including another critical question: „Did you see any broken glass?‟ There was no broken glass in the film. 17% of participants in the smashed condition said that they had seen broken glass. This compared to 7% in the hit condition. Participants gave higher speed estimates in the „smashed‟ condition, as before. They were also more likely to think they saw broken glass. This shows a significant effect of post-event information on later recall of events.
  • 7. Criticisms 1. A laboratory experiment may not represent real life because people don‟t take the experiment seriously and/or they are not emotionally aroused as they would be in a real accident. Foster et al (1994) found that if participants thought they were watching a real-life robbery and that their responses would influence the trial, their identification of the robber was more accurate. 2. Emotional arousal may actually enhance the accuracy of memory, as Yullie and Cutshall Researched a real life crime 13 people who witnessed a robbery in a gun shop in Canada gave initial statements to police. Participants were asked two misleading questions four months later. They found that witnesses still provided accurate recall of the events that matched their initial detailed reports
  • 8. Reliability of eyewitness recall can be influenced by the level of anxiety the victim or bystanderis experiencing.Evidence 1. Defffenbacher et al carried out meta-analyses on 21 studies of the effects of heightened stress on eyewitness recall. They found considerable support for the hypothesis that high levels of stress have a negative impact on eyewitness memory recall. However these studies are lab experiments which tend to lack ecological validity as participants are aware they are in an artificial setting and may display demand characteristics, there are also ethical issues such as protection from harm that need to be considered when creating anxiety in participants. 2. Christianson and Hubinette Investigated real life incidents (naturalistic experiment) involving high levels of stress and the accuracy of memory is recall. They Carried out a survey of 110 people, who had been a witnessed or directly involved to 22 genuine bank robberies and Found the direct victim’s memory recall of the robbers was more accurate and in greater detail than the bystander, even fifteen months later. This Suggests that anxiety does not effect memory recall of events. As this is a naturalistic study we can assume it is more realistic so we can generalise from the findings, however confounding variables can not be controlled so cause and effect can not be established. 3. The presence of a weapon may effect the reliability of memory recall. Loftus (1979) identified this as “weapon focus-effect”. She conducted a laboratory experiment in which participants witnessed a man holding a greasy pen or a knife covered in blood. She found that in the knife condition identification was not as strong as partipants focused on the weapon on not the facial details of the culprit 4. Yerkes and Dodson proposed inverted U-form relationship between these two variables (stress and memory recall).Memory recall is at its highest when there is a moderate level of anxiety. Memory recall declines if there is too high or too low levels of anxiety.
  • 9. A factor that can influence the eyewitness testimony isthe age of the witness, especially young children.Evidence 1. Ceci et al reviewed the literature on children eyewitness testimony and found that Children of pre-school age are much more susceptible to leading questions, Children are more likely to change their story if the same question is repeated to them. Finally Children recall information that others have observed and believe that they have observed it. - This was demonstrated in the Sam stone study. A stranger name Sam Stone played a game similar to "Simon Says" with the children in pre-school. - After he left children were told he soiled a teddy, and ripped some books. They found that 70% of children claimed they saw him do this and 22% stuck to this story even when questioned later. This suggests ewt of children may be unreliable. 2. Memory tends to decline in aging. Cohen et al showed a Kidnapping video to middle-age and elderly participants. After a brief delay all the participants had to read a script of the view, this script contained deliberate errors for example if the video showed a dark haired man holding a gun, the script would say a blonde man held the gun. They then had to answer questions about the film. Cohen et al found that that old people were more like to get confused and say what they read rather than what they saw. Criticisms
  • 10. - However Mermon et al found that differences in recall between old and young participants only occur when the delay between the time of incident and recall is delayed for over a week. - In addition the evidence has been criticized for not taking into account the own ae bias. We have a tendency to recognize people of the same age group. As a result the studies are bias as the videos use young actors. Anastasi and Rhodes found that though younger participants are better at identifying pictures, old participants can correctly identify pictures of people from the same age group. - Finally the studies lack ecological validity as they use video clips. These clips fail to create any arousal and thus may reduce reliability of the culprits as a whole.Assumptions - Fisher and Geiselman Reviewed memory literature – people remember things better if they are provided with retrieval cues. They then developed the cognitive interview, this technique has 4 components. 1. Report everything (report every single detail of the event). 2. Mental reinstatement of original context – recreate the internal and external environment ie what mood were you in? what was the weather like? Etc 3. Changing the order (try alternative ways through timeline of incident) as it is productive to vary the different ‘routes’ into an individual’s memory. 4. Changing the perspective (imagining how it would appear from another witnesses’ point of view
  • 11. Evidence - Kohnken et al conducted a meta-analysis of 53 studies and found on average a 34% increase in amount of correct information generated in CI. However most of the samples were student volunteers, as a result we can not generalise the findings to different groups, also such lab experiments tend to lack external validity as they are artificial and real emotion can not be created. - However, Milne and Bull (2002) Found that when they used a combination of “report everything” and “mental reinstatement”, participants’ recall was significantly higher. This suggests the CI is relatively effective in increasing recall. - Moreover, Stein and Memon compared normal interviewing technique and CI in Brazil. CI increased the amount of correct information obtained and the richness (detail) of information.Criticisms - Firstly It is time consuming to train inexperienced staff and therefore costly. - Mermon et al found that that experienced detectives improved recall of interviewees after just 4 hours training. This suggests that training may not increase usefulness as the success of CI appears to depend on the skills of the interviewer. - Finally it is Hard to evaluate the CI as many versions of this technique making it difficult to draw definite conclusions as to which part of the CI is the most useful. - Mnemonics involves creating a familiar word or sentence that is already in the Long term memory to act as a retrieval cue for the to be remembered information. For instance news stands for north east south west Mnemonics can take two forms: acrostics- making a new sentence or acronyms making a new word. - Another strategy is method of loci. This was a method used by the greeks and involves assigning places to the to be remembered information. For instance you would remember a shopping list by placing the milk on the
  • 12. worktop, eggs byt the toaster, vegetables on the sofa. Then you mentallygo through your home and remember the information
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks