Cognitive Psychology
PSYA1 Revision
Models of Memory
Nature of Memory
STM
DURATION
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
Nairne et al (1999)
CAPACITY
Miller (1956)
Simon (1974)
ENCODING
Baddeley (1966)
LTM
Bahrick et al (1975)
Baddeley (1966)
Peterson and Peterson presented their 24 participants with nonsense
gaveWRT
ppts or
lists
ofPpts
words
that
were
Baddeley gave
ppts lists
of words
thatBaddeley
were semantically
trigrams
followed
by three
numbers
(e.g.
303).
were
then
Bahrick
et
al
asked
ppts
to
put
names
to the
Miller
claimed
the
magic the
number
is
7±2
(i.e.
in
STM
Nairne
et
al
repeated
study
by
Peterson
and
Peterson
and
semantically
orhad
acoustically
dissimilar.
acoustically similar
dissimilar.
He
that
ppts
difficulty
askedortoMiller
countand
backsaid
in found
3s
from
asize
chosen
number.
Thissimilar
was to48or
prevent
faces
in
their
school
yearbook,
years
after
Simon
criticised
that
the
of
the
youfound
can hold
5-9
‘chunks’
ofduration
information)
and
that
the
STM
could
have
a
of
96
seconds
if
the
nonsense
The
ppts
did
a
task
for
20
minutes.
He
found
with acoustically
similar
in STMthe
(sononsense
STM
encodes
rehearsal.
Theywords
then recalled
trigram
and
%70%
recallaccurate
rates that
leaving
school.
Ppts
were
chunk does
matter
that
theppts
larger
the
chunk,
size
of recorded
theand
chunk
doesn’t
matter
was
same
across
trials.with
had
difficulty
semantically
were trigram
on athe
graph.
Results
showed
duration
of STMsimilar
to be words
acoustically)
the less chunks you remember
in LTM
(so LTM encodes semantically)
about
18 seconds.
Multi-Store Model
Atkinson and Shiffren (1968)
AO1
AO2
Strengths
Maintenance It is the first model and can then be tested
Rehearsal  It gives an account of structure and

Maintenance
Rehearsal
process
 3 stores and attention & rehearsal
 Lots of research evidence:
Long-term
 Sensory memory – Sperling (1960)
Memory
 STM
& LTM – Serial Position Effect
Retrieval
 Clive Wearing shows that STM and LTM
Attention
Short-term
are separate stores Long-term
Retrieval
Environmental
Stimuli
Sensory
Attention
Memory
Environmental
Stimuli
Short-term
Memory
Sensory
Memory
Elaborative
Rehearsal
Information
Retrieval
What is the difference between elaborative
and maintenance rehearsal?
What is the importance of attention?
 Weaknesses
Memory
Memory
Elaborative
 Oversimplified
 ThereRehearsal
is too much reliance on rehearsal
 Focuses too much on structure and too
little on process
Information
 KF
– brain damage due to car accident
Retrieval
and had problems with verbal, but
normal visual…is there more than one
STM?
Working Memory Model
Baddeley and Hitch
AO1
 Strengths
Central
Executive
Phonological
Loop
Visuo-Spatial
Sketchpad
Episodic Buffer
AO2
 Lots of research evidence:
 CE – Bunge et al
 PL – Baddeley (word-length effect)
 VSS – Baddeley (dot of light)
 EB – Baddeley (unrelated words vs.
sentences)
 KF – supports that there is more than
one store for STM
 Does not rely on rehearsal
 Emphasises process more than MSM
 Weaknesses
 The knowledge of the central
LTM
executive is too vague (what is it?!)
 Maybe there is more than one CE
 Difficult to make before and after
comparisons with brain damaged
patients
Memory in Everyday Life
EWT
The role of misleading information
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
45 ppts watched a video of a car crash. They were
then asked “About how fast were the cars going when
they ______ each other?” The IV was the verb used
(smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted). The DV
was the estimate of speed. Results showed that the
leading question influenced memory for the event,
with ‘smashed’ giving the highest speed estimates.
Problems with EWT studies
• Most research into EWT has been conducted in a
lab so has low ecological validity.
• By watching a video people do not become as
emotionally aroused in the way they would for a real
life accident.
• EW reports can often be inaccurate and
contributes to conviction of innocent people
• Small, ethnocentric samples have been used.
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) EWT in real life
13 people witnessed an armed robbery in Canada.
They were interviewed 4 months after the crash and
this included 2 misleading questions. Ppts were able
to give an accurate recall of the event compared to
initial reports. This suggests that post-event
information may not effect memory in real-life
EWT.
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
150 ppts were used to investigate whether post-event information could
alter a ppts memory of an event before it was stored. 3 groups watched a
video of a car crash.
Group 1 was asked “about how fast were the cars going when
they smashed”.
Group 2 was asked the same question, but “hit”.
Group 3 (control group) was asked nothing.
The ppts came back a week later and were asked if they saw any broken
glass (misleading question). Those who thought the cars were travelling
faster were more likely to report seeing broken glass.
EWT
The role of misleading information
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
45 ppts watched a video of a car crash. They were
then asked “About how fast were the cars going when
they ______ each other?” The IV was the verb used
(smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted). The DV
was the estimate of speed. Results showed that the
leading question influenced memory for the event,
with ‘smashed’ giving the highest speed estimates.
Problems with EWT studies
• Most research into EWT has been conducted in a
lab so has low ecological validity.
• By watching a video people do not become as
emotionally aroused in the way they would for a real
life accident.
• EW reports can often be inaccurate and
contributes to conviction of innocent people
• Small, ethnocentric samples have been used.
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) EWT in real life
13 people witnessed an armed robbery in Canada.
They were interviewed 4 months after the crash and
this included 2 misleading questions. Ppts were able
to give an accurate recall of the event compared to
initial reports. This suggests that post-event
information may not effect memory in real-life
EWT.
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
150 ppts were used to investigate whether post-event information could
alter a ppts memory of an event before it was stored. 3 groups watched a
video of a car crash.
Group 1 was asked “about how fast were the cars going when
they smashed”.
Group 2 was asked the same question, but “hit”.
Group 3 (control group) was asked nothing.
The ppts came back a week later and were asked if they saw any broken
glass (misleading question). Those who thought the cars were travelling
faster were more likely to report seeing broken glass.
EWT
The role of misleading information
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
45 ppts watched a video of a car crash. They were
then asked “About how fast were the cars going when
they ______ each other?” The IV was the verb used
(smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted). The DV
was the estimate of speed. Results showed that the
leading question influenced memory for the event,
with ‘smashed’ giving the highest speed estimates.
Problems with EWT studies
• Most research into EWT has been conducted in a
lab so has low ecological validity.
• By watching a video people do not become as
emotionally aroused in the way they would for a real
life accident.
• EW reports can often be inaccurate and
contributes to conviction of innocent people
• Small, ethnocentric samples have been used.
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) EWT in real life
13 people witnessed an armed robbery in Canada.
They were interviewed 4 months after the crash and
this included 2 misleading questions. Ppts were able
to give an accurate recall of the event compared to
initial reports. This suggests that post-event
information may not effect memory in real-life
EWT.
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
150 ppts were used to investigate whether post-event information could
alter a ppts memory of an event before it was stored. 3 groups watched a
video of a car crash.
Group 1 was asked “about how fast were the cars going when
they smashed”.
Group 2 was asked the same question, but “hit”.
Group 3 (control group) was asked nothing.
The ppts came back a week later and were asked if they saw any broken
glass (misleading question). Those who thought the cars were travelling
faster were more likely to report seeing broken glass.
EWT
The role of misleading information
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
45 ppts watched a video of a car crash. They were
then asked “About how fast were the cars going when
they ______ each other?” The IV was the verb used
(smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted). The DV
was the estimate of speed. Results showed that the
leading question influenced memory for the event,
with ‘smashed’ giving the highest speed estimates.
Problems with EWT studies
• Most research into EWT has been conducted in a
lab so has low ecological validity.
• By watching a video people do not become as
emotionally aroused in the way they would for a real
life accident.
• EW reports can often be inaccurate and
contributes to conviction of innocent people
• Small, ethnocentric samples have been used.
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) EWT in real life
13 people witnessed an armed robbery in Canada.
They were interviewed 4 months after the crash and
this included 2 misleading questions. Ppts were able
to give an accurate recall of the event compared to
initial reports. This suggests that post-event
information may not effect memory in real-life
EWT.
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
150 ppts were used to investigate whether post-event information could
alter a ppts memory of an event before it was stored. 3 groups watched a
video of a car crash.
Group 1 was asked “about how fast were the cars going when
they smashed”.
Group 2 was asked the same question, but “hit”.
Group 3 (control group) was asked nothing.
The ppts came back a week later and were asked if they saw any broken
glass (misleading question). Those who thought the cars were travelling
faster were more likely to report seeing broken glass.
Factors that influence EWT
Age
Age differences
Evaluation
 Own-age bias has also been investigated as
 Yarmey (1993)
 651 adults were asked to recall the physical
characteristics of a woman that they had spoken to
for 15 seconds, 2 minutes earlier.
 Young (18-29) and middle-aged (30-44) ppts were
more confident than older (45-65), and there were
significant differences in accuracy of recall (the oldest
were inferior).

 Parker and Carranza
 Showed 48 schools children and 48 college students a
slide sequence of a mock crime.
 This was followed by a target-present or targetabsent photo identification with a no-choice option,
central and peripheral questions related to the crime,
and a second photo identification.
 RESULTS showed that child witnesses were more
likely to choose a photo than adult eyewitnesses (so
children are more likely to respond).
 In the questioning task, adults were more likely to say
'I don't know'.

 Child witnesses were less accurate in line-ups where
the 'target' was absent, but there was no differences
between age groups when the 'target' was present.
part of EWT research. Most research has
shown that older adults are poorer on tests of
eyewitness memory. But this could be due to
the images shown to these adults; often the
pictures are of college-aged students, which
is easier for students of this age group to
identify.
Own-age bias
 Anastasi and Rhodes (2006)
 18-25; 35-45; and 55-78 year olds were shown
24 photos of all three age groups. They were
asked to rate the photos for attractiveness.
 There was a short filler task and then ppts were
then shown 48 photos.
 Recognition rates showed that young and middle
aged ppts were more accurate than older ppts.
But all ages were better at recognising their own
age group.
The differential experience hypothesis (Brigham and
Malpass, 1985) explains own-age and own-race bias. It
suggests that as you have more contact with members of
these groups our memory is better for these individuals.
Factors that influence EWT
Anxiety
Research
 There is no simple relationship explaining anxiety
and EWT. Accuracy is poor at high and low levels
of anxiety, and is best at moderate levels.
 Deffenbacher et al (2004) studied anxiety through
a meta-analysis and said the graph should look like
this:
 Christianson and Hubinette (1993) questioned 58
witnesses of real-life bank robberies in Sweden and
found that those threatened in some way had
improved recall and remembered more details.
This was also true 15 months later. This means
that in real-life anxiety may increase accuracy of
EWT.
 Weapon-focus effect
 Johnson and Scott (1976)
 Ppts heard a discussion in an adjoining room.
Condition 1: a man exited with a pen and greasy
hands. Condition 2: a man exited with a paperknife
and bloody hands. When asked to recall the man from
photos, condition 1 were 49% accurate. Condition 2
were 33% accurate. The weapon distracted the
witness away from the person holding it.
Evaluation
 Loftus et al (1987) found by
following eye movements that the
eyewitness’s eyes are physically
drawn towards the weapon and away
from the face.
 Peters (1988) found that
participants attending a routine
inoculation were able to identify a
researcher easier than a nurse from
photographs. This supports the
weapon focus effect.
 An alternative graph has been
suggested to show the relationship
between anxiety and EWT. This is
called the Yerkes-Dodson Law.
Cognitive Interview
AO1
AO2
 Strengths
Fisher
et al (1987) studied standard
Report
 Fisher and Geiselman
 Köhnken et al (1999) carried out a meta-analysis of
interviews conducted by real officers
reviewed research an
53 studies and found that the CI gained 34% more
Everything
in Florida and found
that
they
were
information than the SI.
found that people make
 Stein and Memon (2006) used female cleaners in
aimed at revealing facts,
and when
weregiven
better EW’s
Brazil to test the accuracy of the CI. They watched a
characterised by: cues.
video of an abduction and it was found that more
Mental
•Brief questions, which yield brief
correct information was obtained from witnesses
through the CI.
Reinstatement
 Components
1&2
responses,
lacking in
detail
 Mello and Fisher (1996) found that when CI and
check for consistency
•Closed questions, yielding
brief of
normal interview techniques were tested on both
recall
older adults’ (72 years) and younger adults’ (22
responses
years) memory, CI was better for both. But the
Change the
•Questions
being out of sequence with
advantage was more significant for the elderly.
 Components 3 & 4
how Order
witnesses remember events
 Weaknesses
retreives information
•Interruptions & distractions,
which
 No longer just one procedure, but many.
through different
routes
 Police do not use all of the components.
break concentration
in memory and is a more
 Kebbell and Wagstaff (1996) found that using the CI
•Not
allowing
to talk
Change
the witnesses
productive
formfreely,
of
takes more time and police use strategies to limit
yielding
information
which
lacks
detail
questioning
EW’s reports to only what they feel is necessary.
Perspective
 Detectives receive only 4 hours of training in the CI.
Strategies for Memory Improvement
Verbal mnemonics

Visual imagery mnemonics
Acronyms
 Method of loci
 ROYGBIV (rainbow colours)

Acrostics
 My Very Easy Method Just Speeds Up Naming Planets

Rhymes
 Peg words
 Narrative Chaining
 Alphabet to the tune of ‘Twinkle Twinkle Little Star’

Chunking
 To remember phone numbers/postcodes
EVALUATION
•Gruneberg (1973) found 30% of psychology students use mnemonics to revise for final exams.
•Glidden et al (1983) found verbal mnemonics were effective with children with learning disabilities.
•Most research has been conducted in labs. Studies in real-life settings (e.g. classrooms) show mixed
results, for example, mnemonics are useful for teaching foreign language vocabulary, but may not be so
effective at actually speaking in a foreign language.
•Mnemonics work through rehearsal and organisation.
•Organisation is also important, this helps the brain find the information more quickly.
•Elaborative rehearsal is the process of giving something a meaning, and strategies such as mind maps
work well for this.