Revision Theories and studies of Memory Theory of Memory: Multi-store modelAtkinson and Shiffren 1968 said that memory is separated into 3 stores Sensory memory holds information from our senses for the briefest period of time. If we pay attention to it is passes to STM STM holds around 7 items for 1 minute if we rehearse this information is passes to LTM LTM can hold an unlimited amount of information and this lasts a lifetime. We forget either because the information is no longer available to us, or no longer accessible.

Key Study: Murdock 1962Aim: To provide evidence to support the MSM of memoryMethod: Participants (Ppts) were shown a list of words, one at a time for 2 seconds. Ppts then had to recall the words.Results: words at the beginning of the list and end of the list were remembered. Conclusion: Murdock said words at the start of the list were in LTM as they had been rehearsed and words at the end of the list were still in STM

Evaluation:Strength This study is reliable as it has been repeated many times and the same results have been found e.g. Glanzer and Cunitz Weaknesses Remembering a list of words is not an everyday task so the study lacks ecological validity Sometimes we remember things without rehearsal and this study cannot explain why Theory of Memory: Reconstructive MemoryBartlett said that memory is not a complete copy of events but that we change memories to fit in with what we already know. Memory is a reconstruction of events. In this way memory is a distortion of what has actually happened Key Study: Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts Aim: To see if people when remembering would alter the information given to them.Method: Participants were read a Native American Story called The War of the Ghosts. They then had to retell the story several times over the next few weeksResults: The story changed in many ways. It became shorter and some of the facts became distorted. For example canoes became boats.Conclusion: Bartlett said that memory is influenced by our previous experience and what we already know Evaluation:Strength This is a more valid way of testing memory as it is a story, not a list of wordsWeaknesses It is difficult to use a reliable scoring measure to get how accurate the stories are Wyn and Logie showed that memories for events do not change over time so this contradicts Bartletts findingsTheory of Memory: Levels of Processing TheoryCraik and Lockheart, 1972 showed that memory is not about rehearsal, but about how deeply the information has been processed There are 3 levels of processing Structural by what the information looks like Phonetic by what the information sounds like Semantic by what the information means You are more likely to remember information with semantic processingKey Study: Craik and Tulving 1975 Levels of Processing ExperimentAim: To see if the type of question asked about words will affect the number of words recalled Method: Participants had to answer a Yes or No question about words they were presented with. Either was it written in capital letters (structural), does it rhyme with another word (phonetic) or does it fit in with a sentence (semantic)Results: 70% of the semantic words were remembered, 35% of the phonetic and 15% of the structuralConclusion: Deeper processing leads to greater remembrance. Evaluation:Strength The study is reliable as it has been repeated many times and the same results found. Also as it was a lab experiment the variables were controlled so that the only thing different was the type of processing usedWeaknesses The study lacks ecological validity as memorising a list of words is not an everyday task Deeper processing takes longer so it could be the length of time rather than the depth of processing Revision Theories and Studies of ForgettingTheory of Forgetting: Interference TheoryIf you had asked psychologists during the 1930s, 1940s, or 1950s what caused forgetting you would probably have received the answer "Interference". It was assumed that memory can be disrupted or interfered with by what we have previously learned or by what we will learn in the future. This idea suggests that information in long term memory may become confused or combined with other information during encoding thus distorting or disrupting memories.There are two ways in which interference can cause forgetting: 1. Proactive interference (pro=forward) occurs when you cannot learn a new task because of an old task that had been learnt. When what we already know interferes with what we are currently learning where old memories disrupt new memories. 2. Retroactive interference (retro=backward) occurs when you forget a previously learnt task due to the learning of a new task. In other words, later learning interferes with earlier learning - where new memories disrupt old memories.Proactive and retroactive Interference is thought to be more likely to occur where the memories are similar, for example: confusing old and new telephone numbers. Chandler (1989) stated that students who study similar subjects at the same time often experience interference. Key Study: Underwood and Postman (1960)Aim: To investigate how retroactive interference affects learning.Method: A lab experiment was used. Participants were split into two groups. Both groups had to remember a list of paired words e.g. cat - tree, jelly - moss, book - tractor. Group A also had to learn another list of words where the second paired word is different e.g. cat glass, jelly- time, book revolver. Group B were not given the second list. All participants were asked to recall the words on the first list. Results: The recall of the Group B was more accurate than that of Group A.Conclusion: This suggests that learning items in the second list interfered with participants ability to recall the first list.

Evaluation:Strengths The study is it is reliable. Both groups had the same amount of time to learn the word lists. The findings can be used to help students develop better study habits. For example they should not learn two similar subjects on the same night as they may interfere with each other.Weakness It lacks ecological validity. Memorising lists of word pairs is not something we would do in everyday life so the study is not a true reflection of how memory works.Practical application of interference: See second strength above

Theory of Forgetting: Context Dependent ForgettingYou forget information when the context in which you learn and recall is different. The context refers to the environmental cues that are present at the time of encoding and recall. This can be the location, but can also refer to sounds and smells. Key Study: Godden and Baddeley (1975)Aim: To see whether or not people who learn and recall in the same environment will remember more than people who learn and recall in a different environmentMethod: The participants were 18 divers on a diving holiday in Oban, Scotland. They were split into 4 groups and they were all asked to memorise 36 words. Group 1 had to learn and recall the words underwater. Group 2 had to learn the words underwater and recall on the shore. Group 3 had to learn and recall the words on the shore. Group 4 had to learn the words on the shore and recall underwater. Results: Groups 1 and 3 (the ones where they learned and recalled in the same environment) recalled 40% more words than the other groupsConclusion: If the context of learning and recall is the same you will be able to remember more Evaluation:Strength It is reliable because each group learned and recalled their words at the same time of day.

Weaknesses The two environments were so different (land and water) that this does not reflect everyday life so lacks ecological validity The participants had to learn lists of words which again lacks validity as in real life memory is not used in this wayPractical application of context dependent forgetting: You should make your learning environment at home as similar to the place you will be tested. So you should learn at a desk rather than sat on a bed.Brain damage and Forgetting Brain damage can occur from the result of an illness, such as a stroke, brain surgery or a head injury. It can lead to memory loss. Some people suffer from brain damage and are unable to remember information from before the brain damage occurred. This is known as retrograde amnesia. Other people suffer from brain damage and cannot learn any new information. This is known as anterograde amnesia. Case studies of patients with amnesia Miller (1968) reported about a person known as HM who had an operation to remove part of his hippocampus in the hope that it would cure his eplipsy. After the operation he was shown to have anterograde amnesia as he was unable to learn new information. Russell and Nathan (1946) described a 22 year old patient who had retrograde amnesia following a head injury from a motorcycle accident. He could not remember any information from 2 years before the accident. Evaluation The case studies are valid because the participants were studied in depth using a variety of research methods such as questionnaires and experiments It is not possible to generalise from case studies as they are only carried out on one or a small number of people

How accurate are eyewitness testimonies?Two factors effecting EWT:Leading Questions:Name: Loftus and Palmer (1974)Aim: To see if leading questions affect the accuracy of EWTMethod: Ppts were shown films of car accidents and asked questions about it. One question was about the speed of the car. Some were asked How fast was it going when it smashed into the other car? some were asked How fast was it going when it contacted the other car. Results: Ppts with the word smashed guessed higher speeds than those with contactedConclusion: Police should be careful with the questions they ask as this can distort a witnesses memory Evaluation:Strength The study is reliable. Only the word in the question was different and all other variables were controlledWeaknesses It lacks ecological validity. In real life we are not prepared to witness a crash, we are taken by surprise A real life study of a crime where a shooting took place in Canada showed that the participants were not confused by leading questions

ContextName: Geiselman et al (1985)Aim: To see if reinstating the context helps improve EWTMethod: Ppts were shown footage of a violent crime. 2 days later half of the ppts were interviewed about the crime where the context of the crime was recreated, the other half had a standard police interview.Results: The ppts who had the context recreated remembered more accurate facts than the other groupConclusion: Using a cognitive interview improves the quality of EWT

Practical Applications of EWT research: Loftus and Palmer helped police be aware of the questions they ask witnesses to ensure that their testimony is not affected by cues given to them by the police Geiselman et al showed police that the context in which EWT recall affects what they say. Therefore taking witnesses back to the scene of the crime or getting them to imagine the scene of the crime when recallin can be helpful.

8