.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Do you need support with AQA A Level Psychology? Get tutored by an undergraduate student who was taught and is now mentored by Marie, and achieved an A* in A Level Psychology from just £45 per hour. Click here to find out more.
Coding, capacity, duration
AO1
Coding STM & LTM: Baddeley (1966) Acoutically/ semantically, similar/ disimilar lists, recall of acoustically similar was worst immediately and semantically similar after 20 mins - STM encodes acoustically & LTM semantically
Capacity STM: Jacobs (1887) digit span task, 9.3 numbers, 7.3 letters and Miller's (1956) Magic Number 7+/- 2 items, chunking
Duration: STM Peterson & Peterson (1959) Trigram study 80% recall at 3s / 3% at 18s
LTM Bahrick (1975) Yearbook study, cued recall 70% even after 48 years
AO3
+/- Internal & ecological validity
- Size of the chunk not specified
- Individual differences (age)
- Miller overestimated capacity - closer to 4 (Cowan, 2001)
Forgetting:
Interference
AO1
When two memories disrupt
Proactive - new memories are distorted by the old memories
Retroactive - old memories are distorted by the new memories
Effects of similarity: more similar = more interference
McGeoch & McDonald (1931) - synonym study. Learnt word list to 100%, then learnt 2nd list. 12% recall when 2nd list synonyms and 37% when numbers (retroactive intereference)
Effects of time: shorter time = more interference
AO3
+ Baddeley & Hitch - Rugby study - Interference not time
- Studies lack ecological validity
+ Individual differences - greater WM, less susceptible
- Memories need to be very similar
Eye witness testimony:
Anxiety
AO1
Anxiety: negative effect
Johnson & Scott (1976) Waiting room, pen knife study: 49% low anxiety, 33% high anxiety (weapon focus effect)
Anxiety: positive effect
Yuille & Cutshall (1986) Gun shop shooting in Canada
High anxiety 88%, low anxiety 75%
Yerkes-Dodson (1908) curve: inverted U theory can explain contradictory findings
AO3
+ Pickel (1998) Measuring surprise rather than anxiety?
- Y&C: confounding variables
- Individual differences: stables v neurotics
- U theory is too reductionist in only anxiety = arousal
Multi Store Model
of Memory
AO1
First ever model of memory
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)
Linear, sequential model
Suggests there are 3 separate & distinct memory stores
SS - encodes modality specific, duration less 1/2 second and very large capacity
STM - encodes acoustically, duration 18-30 secs, capacity 7+/-2
LTM - Encodes semantically, potentially infinite duration &, unlimited capacity
SS->STM attention
STM->LTM maintenance rehearsal
AO3
+ HM - more than one store
+ Very influential model
- Over emphasis of rehearsal (elaborative needed)
- KF more than one STM
Forgetting:
Retrieval Failure
AO1
Forgetting due to absence of cues
Tulving's Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP) - cues at encoding and recall need to be the same
Context dependent forgetting
Godden & Baddeley (1975) -
Diver Study: 40% worse recall in non-matching conditions (land and sea)
State dependent forgetting
Carter & Cassaday (1998) -
Antihistamine study: worse recall in non matching conditions
AO3
+ Real world application
- Studies: ecologically validity
- Cannot test ESP as do not know if cue was encoded or not
- Low reliability: Results not replicated for a recognition task
Eye witness testimony:
Cognitive interview
AO1
Fisher & Geiselman (1984)
Report everything - even if irrelevant (cues)
Reinstate context - in mind (context dependent forgetting)
Reverse the order - end to beginning (reduce schemas)
Change perspective - another person at scene (more objective)
Enhanced CI - social elements
AO3
+ Kohnken (1999) meta analysis - 41% more accurate
- Report everything and reinstate context most important
- Time consuming and training
- Individual differences: Wright and Holliday (2007) more effective when respondents are older
Working Memory
Model
AO1
Baddeley & Hitch (1974)
Model to explain STM only
Central executive - supervisory role, pays attention, makes decisions, very limited capacity
Sub components:
PL - phonological store (inner ear) / articulatory loop (inner voice): holds 2 secs worth of info
VSS - visual cache (store) / inner scribe (spatial tasks): 4 objects
Episodic buffer - temporary,
allows for integration, 4 chunks
Dual tasks - can be completed if using different components. Performance impaired if the same component is being used as the store gets overloaded.
AO3
+ Evidence from KF (VSS intact, PL damaged)
+ Dual task studies - Baddeley, 1975
- CE least understood
- Evidence lacks mundane realism
Leading Questions & Post Event Discussion (EWT)
AO1
Leading questions
Loftus & Palmer (1974) contacted 31.8mph, smashed 40.5mph
Response bias or substitution?
Broken glass follow up = substitution more likely
Post event discussion
Gabbert (2003) 71% of the co-witness group reported info not seen & 60% of the ppts who had not seen her steal wrongly accused her of theft
Memory contamination or memory conformity
AO3
+ Real world application to criminal justice system
- Studies: low ecologically validity
- Higher recall in field experiment, Yuille & Cutshall (1986)
- Individual differences - age bias
Contact
Like what you see? Get in touch to learn more.