Memory

Paper 1 – Revision notes


STM + LTM




Capacity
Info - mind - limited time
- amount - info - held
- digit span - jacobs
- 9.3 items - 7 numbers
- reviewed Miller 7 +- 2




Evaluation


1) Cowen
- chinking - 4 chunks
- 4+ = forgotten
- not extensive


2) individual differences
- adults - 8 numbers
- children - 6 numbers


3) early research - not valid
- not as controlled
- extraneous variables


Duration
length time - info - held
Peterson
- nonsense syllables
- 3 numbers - count back - 3
- recall trigram
- duration = 3-18 seconds


Evaluation


1) artificial test
- trigram not everyday use
- ecological validity


2) tested capacity not duration
- syllable displaced than decayed
- lack validity

3) LTM = unlimited
yearbook - 15yr - 90%, 47yrs - fair amount
= unlimited

Coding
way - info - transformed - remember
beddeley
- list of acoustically/semantically word
- acoustic similar - STM error
- semantic similar - LTM error
= STM - acoustic
= LTM - semantic


Evaluation

1) LTM operationalized - 20m
- inaccurate
- Lasts longer

2) Acoustic not exclusive to STM
- LTM relys on acoustic




Types of LTM

LTM - 2 subsections
1- Explicit - conscious effort
2- Implicit - no active recall

Episodic
- personal memory
- specific to individual
Procedural
- how to perform activities, eg swimming
- implicit
- explicit - inhibits ability
Semantic
knowing information
e.g. - capitals of countries
explicit


Evaluations

1) Brains scans - support
episodic - hippocampus, temporal+frontal
procedural - cerebellum
semantic - temporal lobes

2) case study - HM
- damaged hippocampus
- no new episodic/semantic
- can develop procedural
- brain - different parts of memory

3) X case studies
- small samples
- X generalise
- X representative
- memory prior to damage - unknown



Multi-store model

Atkinson+shifren - 3 separate stores
linear direction

Sensory
- receives info - 5 senses
- bombarded w/ info
- recall - pay attention
- encodes - echoic + iconic
- duration - 2 seconds
- capacity - large

STM
- encodes - acoustically - baddeley
- duration - 3-18 sec - peterson
- capacity - 7 +- 2 - miller
- held - fragile state
- maintenance rehearsal - LTM
- decay/displaced

LTM
- encodes - semantically - baddeley
- capacity - unlimited
- duration - lifetime - birbeck
remains until recalled


Evaluation

1) Peterson research support theory
= stm limited
X - lab experiment
- lack ecological validity
- low mundane realism
- lack external validity
- cant generalise

2) KF - Amnesia
- read digits to him - poor recall
- read himself - good recall
visual - good
auditory - weak
stm - not unitary store

3) theory - LTM - unitary store
Amnesia
- forget episodic
- Retain semantic + procedural



Working memory model


- MSM = oversimplifies STM - not unitary
- 4 components
- 2 task - same component - interference
- 2 task - different component - successful

Central executive
- limited capacity
- modality free
- allocates tasks + attention
- monitors info

Phonological store
- inner ear
1- phonological loop - hear
2- Auticulatory process - speech
=can listen + speak - same time

Visio-spatial sketchpad
- inner eye
Visual cache - objects seen
Inner scribe - relationship between object

Episodic buffer
Temporary storage system
- interrogates info - all stores
- combines with LTM


Evaluations

1) Further evidence
baddeley
angles of letter F
same component - tracking lazer X
different component - saying 'the'
- cant do taks - same component

2) word length effect
Baddeley
short word - easy recall
long words - difficult
= P.L. - limited capacity

3) Methodology
- lab = artificial = ecological validity
- ignores real life examples
- lack external validity



Explanations for forgetting: Interference

forgetting - not accessing info in LTM
interference - new/old info


Proactive
old interferes new
Underwood
- 1 and 10 - list of words
- recall 24h later
1 list - 70% recall
10 list - 20% recall


Retroactive
new interferes old
muller
- word list - learn
- 20m interval
G1 - nothing, G2 - interference task
- interference task - performed worse
- not about time lapsed, about interferences

Similarity
McGough
- word list - learn
- 2nd word list learn - varied
- synonym list - performed worse
= greater interference


Evaluation

1) Methodology
- lab - controlled - no extraneous
X - ecological validity
- nonsense syllables not same as faces

2) Limited explanation
- interference - not often occurs
- memories need to be similar
- doesn't explain forgetting completely

3) Accessiblity vs Availabilty
- memory tested - 24hr later
- spontaneous recognition
- same recall
temporarily not accessible rather than lost



Explanation for forgetting: Retrieval failure


forgetting - lack of cues - retrieval failure

encoding specificity principle
- cue present at encoding and retrival - useful
- cues link to the memory
- other cues - learning - not meaningful C-DF, S-DF

Context-dependant forgetting
godden+baddeleyC
- learn words in environmental conditions that
matched and didn't match (land, underwater)
- recall - 40% lower and non-matching conditions
cues different = retrieval failure

State-dependant forgetting
Carter+casseday
- recall words in different internal staes
(hayfever drugs/ not)
- mismatch of internal state when recall
= forgetting


Evaluation

1) research to support
- lab, field, natural + anecdotal evidence
  = relevant to real life

2) Application
- exam - improve recall
- revise in room exam I held
- even imagining - effective
and cognitive interviews

3) Doesn't always work
- studying - complicated associations
- cues are less effective in presence of
better cues
= retrieval cues - relevant but doesn't
explain all



EWT: misleading information

leading questions
*loftus/palmer
Procedure
- traffic accidents
- questionnaire - "how fast was the car going
when the hit each other"
- (smashed, collided, bumped)
Findings
leading questions affect response
Procedure 2
"did you see broken glass"
- no broken glass
Findings
leading question changed actual memory

Post-event Discussion
Conformity effect
- co-witness - consensus view of incident
- watch same incident, different video
71% - discussed event - mistakenly recall event
Repeating interview
- use leading questions
- alter memory
- especially for children


Evaluation

1) supporting evidence
- bugs bunny - not Disney
- ppts evaluate bugs bunny ads
findings - report shaking hands - bugs bunny
= inaccurate memory

2) individual differences
- Age
- young remember better than old
= prone to misleading info

3) Applications
- criminal justice system
of problems w/ EWT
- large factor - convicting innocent ppl



EWT: Anxiety

Anxiety - negative emotion

*Johnson/scott
weapon affects EWT
procedure/Findings
- waiting room - argument
- greasy pen - 49% recall (low anxiety)
- bloody knife - 33% recall (high anxiety)
Weapon focus effect
- focus on weapon
- than key features
= reduces EWT

*Christian/hubinette
procedure
- real life bank robbery
- naturalistic
- high/low anxiety
asked 4-15months later
findings
victims 73% better recall than bystanders
= Enhances EWT

*Daffenbacher
review studies
10 - high anxiety - better recall
11 - high anxiety - poor recall
= yerks Dodson
   - moderate anxiety = high recall


Evaluation

1) pickle - surprise not anxiety
- reduces recall
hairdressers
- handgun, wallet, raw chicken, scissors
- raw chicken - high surprise = low accuracy

2) Individual differences
- emotionally sensitive/unstable
- more negatively affected

3) real life vs lab
- real - context of crime
- lab - not create real anxiety
eg of lab - reduce accuracy
real life - greater loss of accuracy



Cognitive interview

- improve standard interviews
- forgetting - lack of retrieval cue

1) Recall everything
- irrelevant - trigger

2) Change order
- reverse - prevent expectations

3) Reinstate context
- Recreate internal/external
environment

4) Change perspective
- pick up details - forgotten


Evaluations


1) time consuming than standard interview
- rush through answers without thinking

2) Fisher et.al
- report in greater detail
American detective - use technique


3) Koenken et.al
-witness - recall incorrect info
- more info - more mistakes

Social Influence

Paper 1 - Revision notes


Types of conformity and explanations for conformity


Types


Compliance
- Go along with majority to avoid rejection
- Adjust actions to fit in (desirable) - public approval


Internalisation
- Deepest level of conformity (permanent)
- changes public and private beliefs
- examine own behaviour to see if its right - trustworthy group leads to change.


Identification
- accept influence -> associated with group
- mix of compliance and internalisation
- accept views = I / to be accepted = C   e.g. Smoking


Explanations


Normative social influence
- compliance
- fear of rejection
- works if under surveillance


Informational social influence
- accept info as evidence of reality
- humans- need to be confident of their perception
- rely on expert opinions in ambiguous situations
- form of internalisations - comply and change.


Evaluations


1) Difficult to distinguish compliance and internalisation.
C - occurred publicly but dissipates later - forgotten info/received new info
I - comply publicly but self perceptions = acceptance of views later.


2) research support for normative Social Influence.
There is a relationship between normative beliefs and smoking
- adolescents exposed to message of peers not smoking = likelihood to not smoke
(manipulates people)
supports idea that people shape their behaviour in order to fit in.


3) Research support Informational Influence
The exposure to other peoples beliefs has influence on social stereotypes.
- People exposed to negative stereotypes about African Americans were later reported to have more negative opinions about black individuals
Therefore supporting the idea that people rely on information given to them in order to change their beliefs.




Variables affecting Conformity


Key Study - ASCH
Aim
- to see how the lone participant would react to behaviour of the confederates. whether they would stick to what they believe.
Procedure
- 123 male - student volunteers
- three lines of different length - which was the same as standard line.
Findings
- 12 critical trials - conformity was 33% (a third)
- 1/4 ppts never conformed
- 1/2 conformed on 6 or more of critical trials.
- one conformed in all 12 critical trials
Interviews - they conformed publicly, privately believed in own perceptions, avoid disapproval. (compliance)


Group size
1-2 = little conformity
3+ = increase conformity up to 30% (but no more)
however - group size may have different effect depending on the type of judgement made


Unanimity of the majority
participants given support - confederate/real ppts - conformity dropped 33% - 5.5%
Breaking the groups unanimous position plays a major factor in conformity in reduction.


Difficulty of the task
asch - line difference smaller(correct answer less obvious)
= conformity increased
self efficacy
high self efficacy - less conformity
low self efficacy - higher conformity
situational differences and individual differences


Evaluations


1) Asch's research may be a 'child of its time'
findings unique - period of time when conformity was high
scared to go against majority
Study repeated 
1- engineer students - one conforming response
2- youth on probation + probation officers -similar results as Asch
= conformity is more likely when the costs of not conforming high


2) Problems with determining the effects of group size
Bond suggested - limited group size used.
- quick to accept Asch's conclusion
- Asch only exp that tested groups with 9+
Little is known of the effects of larger groups


3) Independent behaviour rather than conformity
1/3 - conforming response
2/3 - stuck to own judgement despite the majority
demonstrated independent behaviour than conformity


4) Cultural differences in conformity
average conformity over different cultures - 31.2%
individualist - 25%
collectivist - 37%
conformity is more favours in collectivist - social glue for communities.

Conformity to social roles

Social roles - behaviour expected of a person who holds a certain position or status

Key study - Stanford Prison Experiment (hanley et al)
Procedure
- 24 stable male student volunteers - prisoners/guards
Prisoners - arrested, stripped of rights except for meals, trips and visitors.
- Was supposed to last 2 weeks.
Findings
first few days
Guards - tyrannical, abusive + degrading activities
Ppt - forgot it was a study, unawer of observations, ask for parole instead of withdraw
Terminated after 6 days
guards and prisoners conformed to roles
guards - cruel sadistic
Prisoners - passive and accepting


Other Research - BBC Prison Study
Procedure
15 male participants
5 groups of 3 - one guard. two prisoners
matched on personality

Findings
didn't conform automatically
prisoners identified as group - worked collectively
guards reluctant to impose authority
Shift of power. collapse of guard-prisoner system



Evaluation


1) Conformity to roles is not automatic
Zimbardo - guards conform automatically
SPE - guards behaviour varied
good guards - X abuse/harass - did favours
their is a choice and not blindly conforming.


2) The problem with demand characteristics
researchers exposed some details of experiment to large sample of student who haven't heard of experiment. - correctly guessed aim
predicted the findings.


3)Were these studies ethical?
Zimbardo - ethical to Stanford guidelines
- no deception
- debriefed for several years - no lasting effects





Situational variables affecting obedience


Key study - Milgram
Procedure
- 40 participants - different conditions
- false aim - 2 confederate = experimenter, learner
- ppts - teacher, give shock (fake)
prods were given if ppts asked to stop

Findings
Milgram asked for predictions to when they will stop
predicted - up to 150v
1 in 1000 - 450v
reality
65% - 450v
100% - 300v



Situational factors in obedience
Proximity
- teacher+learner in same room
= obedience - fell 40%

- Experimenter absent
= 21% - continue to 450v
Location
location = confidence
laboratory = increase obedience
run-down = slight drop obedience - 48% - 450v
The power of uniform
bushman
female - change for parking meter - officer(72%), business executive(48%), beggar(58%)
- obeyed bc appeared to have authority.


Evaluation


1) Ethical Issues
- lack concern for well-being
- deceived ppt
- difficult to withdraw - prods given


2) Internal validity: a lack of realism
- ppts distrust experiment
- know aim is disguised
- experimenter remained calm - suspicious
- no real harm conflicted


3) Individual difference: the influence of gender
- individual differences - underestimated
- assumed -  females more susceptible to social influence
found self reported tension - higher
- obedience level same as men

Agentic state and Legitimacy of authority


The agentic state
- not responsible for own actions
- Agentic shift - autonomous-agentic
- Self image - maintain positive image, not responsible = no bad image
- binding factors - breaking commitment deemed bad. remain in agentic state


Legitimacy of authority
- Someone who is perceived to be in position of social control.
- expect authority figure - milgram exp - researcher
- definition of situation - suffering - stop, experimenter prod - continue
- require institution - legitimate - institutional structure
Milgram = Yale - run-down building.


Evaluations

1) Agentic state explanation and real-life obedience- milgram - rapid agentic shift
- gradual + irreversible shift - german - vile + lethal exp on prisoners
- not agentic shift, evil experience over time.
2) Agentic state or plain cruel
- miglram - detected signs of cruely
- brought out sadistic impulses
- no authority figure saying so
- unflattering human nature.


3) Legitimate authority explanation and real-life obedience. 

-  legitimacy - basis for harming others ,

= morals aren't relevant - not to blame - historic examples

The authoritarian Personality

- dispositional explanation for obedience- f-scale - agree w/ statement = AP
= rigid thinkers, obeyed authority,
raised by authoritarian style - assume expected norm.
imitation + learning - develop authoritarian personality


Right-wing Authoritarianism
high RWA:
Conventionalism - stick to norm + values
Authoritarian aggression - aggressive->violation of norms
Authoritarian submission - to legitimate authority




Key study - Elms + Milgram

Procedure
- follow up study
- 20 obedient/20 disobedient ppts
- mmpi scale + f-scale + open ended question
Findings
- obedient, disobedient - MMPI scale = little difference
- obedient = higher authoritarianism
=> less likely to describe father positively

Evaluations


1) The social context is more important
specific social situations = obey/resist - not personality.
= milgram - proximity, location etc)

2) Education may determine authoritarianism and obedience
less educated = more authoritarianism
milgram - ppts ^


3) differences between authoritarian and obedient participants.
- important characteristics
- obedient - good relations with parents
- authoritarians - strict parenting


Resistance to social influence

Social support
resisting conformity
Asch - breaking unanimity 33% - 5.5%
presence allows independent assessment
resisting obedience
Milgram - ally = 10% - 450v
disobedience = confidence.

Locus of control
- personal perception, personal control - own behaviour
- internality - rely les on others, resist social influence
- externality - passive, fatalistic attitude - accept social influence
internality and resistance to social influence
1. active seekers of info
- wont rely on others opinion
2. achievement orientated
- likely to become leaders- prisoner-war - resist interrogation

3. resist coercion from others.
- prisoner/war -resist interrogation

Evaluations

1) social support: may not have to be valid for a response
acsh - visual discrimination
glasses - (invalid) had slight impact
no glasses - (valid) more impact - more effective if valid


2) Locus of control related to normative but not informational
external conform - normative
no correlation - informational


3) locus of control: ppl more external than past
- meta analysis
young American - more external (1960 - 2002)
= alienation and misfortune experienced - young people

Minority Influence


-a form of social influence - minority persuade the majority to change view


Consistency
- others re-assess situation carefully
- (meta analysis) consistent minority - more influential
Commitment
- suggest - courage, confidence
- minority - greater cost
- taken seriously
Flexibility
- negotiate postition
- rigid minority = dogmatic
- too flexible = inconsistent
some degree - effective


Key study - Moscovici et.al
Procedure
4 naïve - 2 confederates
- blue - green
1- confederates consistently - green
2- confederates inconsistently - greem
3- control - no confederates
Findings
consistent - influence minority
inconsistent - little influence




Evaluation


1) Research support flexibility
jury situation -compensation ski lift accident
- rigid alternative - no effect on group
- compromising alternative - some influence
late shift (flexibility) = influence
early shift (cave in) = little influence


2) The real value of minority influence
dissent opens mind - ppl search for info. = more creative = improved decision quality - exposed to minority perspective.

3) Do we really process minority's message more.
minority X greater processing
majority = greater processing
majority = similar views

when views change = we question why
waste time on minority view - less influential




Social influence processes in social change


Social change through minority influence
1. Drawing attention to an issue
creates conflict
suffragettes = educational, militant tactics
2. Cognitive conflict
conflict = majority to think deeply
moved towards position advocated - suffragettes
3. Consistency of position
consistency = influential
suffragettes - protest for years
4. The augmentation principle
willing to suffer - committed
suffragettes - imprisonment, death by hunger
5. the snowball effect
spreads - more consider
universal suffrage - voting rights

Social Change through Minority influence (conformity)

- behaviour based on what people think or believe others do
- correcting misperceptions (gap between perceived norm + actual norm

Social norms interventions
- identify misperception
- perception correction strategies (ads - most of us don't drink and drive)
- moderate own behaviour