|
Encoding in STM |
Conrad – acoustic coding; Bs and Ps confused often Posner – some visual Aa
Shulman – cue/probe words both homonyms and synonyms; same numbers of recall: some semantic encoding |
|
Capacity in STM |
Miller – span tests 7±2 chunking increases sentences that made sense were easier to recall – help from implicit LTM to organise into chunks semantically Glanzer + Cunitz – primacy effect, recency effect; rehearsal to LTM, only remembered last 2/3 items |
|
Duration in STM |
Peterson, Peterson and Brown – maintenance rehearsal increases recall of trigrams, intereference tasks prevent this; 10% after 18 seconds |
|
Forgetting in STM |
Peterson and Peterson – trace decay (serial probe technique, Waugh et al - )
Reitman – displacement due to limited capacity (Miller) |
|
Encoding in LTM |
Tulving – Explicit and Implicit (lasts longer), Declarative and Procedural
Baddeley – confused semantically similar words |
|
Duration in LTM |
Bahrick et al – 90% faces recalled 34 years after graduation
Shephard – perfect after 2 hrs, 50% 120 days |
|
Capacity in LTM |
Solso – theorised apparently limitless |
|
Forgetting in LTM |
context-dependent retrieval – Goddon + Baddeley – divers’ recall easier if in same context as encoding
cue-dependent retrieval – Tulving et al.
proactive/retroactive intereference - !!!
also repression – Freud – predominantly case studies |
|
Working Memory Model
Baddeley + Hitch |
visuo-spatial sketchpad (inner eye) – central executive (attention) – articulatory/phonological loop (speech based)
evidence: Shallice + Warrington – case study, specialised systems of STM, rehearsal is optional, STm has more functions that MM suggested Baddeley et al. – we cannot use the C/E for two things at once, verbal reasoning and random numbers
criticism: no account for LTM |
|
Multistore Model
Atkinson and Shiffrin |
sensory register – attention – STM – rehearsal – LTM
evidence: Brown-Peterson interference, primacy/recency effect, Korsakoff’s Syndrome amnesiacs have good STM but no LTM
criticism: flashbulb – no rehearsal for transference to LTM, over simplification (no difference between types of LTM) |
|
Levels of Processing Model
Craik + Lockhart |
physical, acoustic and semantic processing
evidence: distinguishes between levels of LTM,
“elaborate semantic processing”, common sense – comprehension equals better recall
criticism: no objective way of measuring depth |
|
Flashbulb |
Brown and Kulik – 75% blacks had FM of assassination of Martin L King, only 33% whites
Rubin and Kozin – personal events more easily remembered e.g love at first sight
criticisms: McCloskey – crash of Challenger – day after and three years after – 1/3 completely inaccurate, repression contradicts whole theory
Linton – participant “remembered” friend telling her about Kennedy assassination when was in fact in different state! |
|
Repression |
Freud – defence mechanism to protect sanity
Williams – 17 years after girls had been treated for sexual abuse, 38% could not recall it
Levinger + Clark – emotional words prompted higher response latency and GSR
Hunter – Irene; TB; couldn’t remember
criticisms: “false memory syndrome”, and flashbulb memories, generally case studies (L+C study, emotional words remembered better after longer period of time) |
|
Reconstructive |
Bartlett – War of the Ghosts; altered to fit culture, omitted things which we don’t understand e.g ghosts, “something black”, called rationalisation.
Schema theory – Brewer et al. office schema – recalled books (not present) but not picnic basket (was present).
Stereotype – Buckhout – 50% participants “recalled” black man holding razor, Duncan – more people classified shove as “violent behaviour” if done by black – even more so if black shoved white |
|
Leading Questions |
Loftus – asked participants to estimate speed of car when they “smashed”, “collided”, “bumped” or “contacted”. The estimates decreased when weaker verbs were used. “Did you see the/any broken glass?” also caused inconsistencies; a week after the first questioning those who had replied to “smashed” question were more likely to say yes.
criticisms: lacked ecological validity, unethical (deceit), everyone would react differently to the film |
|
Face Recognition |
Cohen – perceived through schema and social norms, “cross-race identification bias”, contextual differences inhibit recognition Standing – 10,000 faces 5 days, 98% recognition out of pairs. Roberts and Bruce – area around eyes most important. Young et al – “composite technique”; halves separately easily identified, but when fitted together = unrecognisable Tanaka and Farah – identifying features from learnt faces – easier in context of face
“inversion of the whole face interferes with our sensitivity towards arrangement of features” Valentine and Bruce – distinctive faces; we may store faces relative to an average Rhodes et al – exaggerating distinctiveness facilitates recognition (caricatures) Evofit better than Photofit because has holistic approach.
|
|
Cognitive Interviews |
Geiselman et al – encoding specificity principle (cues), police reconstructions, asking questions about mood, senses, looking at event from others’ perspective. Increases correct statements from 29.4 to 41.1% Fisher et al – minimise distractions, tailor language to witness, avoid personal comment and judgement |
|
General EWT |
Young – 22 participants over 8 weeks, 314 cases of mistaking stranger for non-stranger because of dress/build
Well – witness ASSUMES criminal to be present at identity parade; want to please court and victims etc. different circumstances affect recall e.g movement, mood etc. Davies and Thasen – identifying target from 12 mugshots after long CCTV film with brief moment showing target. 60% false identification, only 15% correct. when still frame shown, only rose to 29%. Expert witnesses like Loftus tell juries about the advantages and pitfalls of EWT.
Eyewitness testimony is not sufficient evidence to have suspects convicted! |
|
Possible evaluations |
Ø ecological validity
Ø case studies not general
Ø individual differences
Ø unethical
Ø objectivity
Ø peripheral information?
Ø practise effect?
|
Back
|