Memory

Output – when info from memories are used in some way

Processing – operations we perform on sensory info in brain

Encoding – how we process and store info in our brain – converting them to electrochemical traces (format – acoustic, visual, semantic etc)

Storage – holding of memories in STM or LTM

Retrieval – recall of stored memories

Capacity – unlimited or very large

Duration – a split second

Encoding – modality specific

If info is paid attention to – passes on to

Short term memory

Capacity – 7+/- 2 items

Duration – 18-30 seconds

Encoding – mainly acoustic

• Maintained rehearsal keeps info fresh in STM
• Info decays quickly or lost by displacement if capacity of STM is exceeded

If info rehearsed elaboratively, passed on to

Long term memory

Capacity – unlimited

Duration – almost a lifetime

Encoding – semantic

• Evidence supporting
• Peterson & Peterson supports idea that STM has duration of about 18 seconds and that lack of rehearsal can cause info to decay
• Murdock’s primacy-recency test findings provide clear evidence for separate STM and LTM store

Weaknesses

• Overstates importance of rehearsal – suggests info must be elaboratively rehearsed to store in LTM but we have vivid memory of historical events without rehearsing info

Too simplistic – case studies of people with amnesia suggest we have multiple types of LTM stores (Clive Wearing couldn’t remember going to university but retained ability to play piano)

• Struggling to remember events after brain damage
• Ability to form new, long term memories damaged
• Ability to transfer info from STM and LTM is damaged
• STM still intact – can process sensory info

Retrograde amnesia

• Unable to remember info and events before brain damage
• Forgetting can be limited to specific time frame or event
• Can forget who they are and where they come from
• Possible to regain some or all lost memories

Omission – leaving out details

Transformation – changing details

Rationalisation – adding details

So it makes more sense according to schemas

• Practical applications – helps judicial system become aware of inaccuracy in eyewitness testimonies and prevent/avoid people omitting, transforming or rationalising details based on schemas through improving interview techniques
• Mundane realism – Barlett told people stories and asked them to recall details – which is normal everyday task – linking to how memory works in real life

Weaknesses

Findings are subjective – people’s recall of memories and accuracy was interpreted by Barlett himself, could be interpreted completely differently be another researcher.

Sample size

1. 24 American psychology undergrad students
2. 48

Results

• Significant difference in accurate recall between shorter and longer intervals
• Within 3 second interval – just over 50% of trigrams recalled accurately
• Within 15 second interval – less then 10% of trigrams recalled accurately

Conclusions

• STM has limited duration of approximately 18 seconds – due to little accuracy in recall in 15 second and 18 second interval trials
• Info decays rapidly from STM

part 2 – vocal or silent rehearsal

Results

• Participant recall in vocal group improved with repetition, longer repetition leading to more accurate recall
• Participant recall in silent group did not improve with longer repetition

Conclusions

Only when recall was vocal and controlled did accuracy of recall improve

• Practical applications in schools and education – shows importance of minimising distraction during recall, can prevent rehearsal and learning new information
• High internal validity – conducted in lab settings, with high control of extraneous variables , eliminating distractions so sure that differences in recall are only due to change in intervals or vocal/silent recall (establishing stronger cause and effect relationship)

Weakness

• Lacks mundane realism – participants asked to memorise nonsense trigrams, not everyday activity so may not reflect how memory works in real life (e.g. Memorising a shopping list)
• Lacks population validity – only used American psychology undergrad students, sample not representative of target population, so findings not generalisable to wider population

Sample size – 20 – 7 men and 13 women, all British

Serial and repeated reproductions

Common omissions –

• 7/20 omitted the title

Common transformations –

• transforming title to ‘War-Ghost Story’
• changing names of characters
• changing ‘canoes’ to ‘boats’

conclusions

• results interpreted as evidence for reconstructive memory
• participants didn’t recall story accurately; recall influenced by schemas

• high mundane realism – participants asked to recall story, something they might do in real life

weaknesses

• findings are subjective – Barlett himself analysed and judged whether recall influenced by schemas or not, could’ve been interpreted completely differently by another researcher
• unusual story – may not accurately tell us how memory works in real life

Holism

• the theory of understanding a behaviour as a whole, rather than reducing it to its basic parts.
• Explores multiple factors and how they all simultaneously contribute to the causation of a behaviour, using qualitative methods to gain a greater insight

Reductionism

• Theory of breaking down aspects of behaviour to basic parts, or simplest explanation
• Individual variables can be tested under controlled conditions, using laboratory experiments, in order to establish direct cause and effect relationship

Holism

• Avoids ignoring other important variables that could’ve helped cause a behaviour, providing fuller, complete understanding unlike reductionism – allows multiple factors to be explored rather than reducing behaviour to overly simplistic, inadequate explanation.
• Harder to create simpler practical applications, due to sheer amount and complexity of information gathered, so sometimes harder to gain full understanding

Reductionism

• Establishing direct cause and effect relationship, by studying individual variables and reducing it to its basic parts (surer that one causes another), easier to create practical applications
• Overly simplistic explanation – could ignore other important factors

Reductionism is the theory of breaking a behaviour down to its basic parts or the simplest explanation. Individual variables are tested under controlled conditions (using quantitative methods, such as lab studies or experiments), in order to establish a direct cause and effect relationship. On the other hand, holism is the theory of understanding the behaviour as a whole, rather than breaking it up. It considers multiple variables and how they each simultaneously contribute to the causation of a behaviour, using qualitative methods such as interviews and observations, to gain a greater insight.

Here, Adelyn is demonstrating reductionism as she is researching only one variable (the role of interference in short-term memory recall) to establish a direct cause and effect relationship between interference time and recall accuracy. She also uses laboratory experiment, where she collects quantitative data, which is number of words recalled, similar to the Peterson and Peterson study, where they found that the short-term memory has a limited capacity of 18 seconds and that information decay rapidly without rehearsal. She also has two separate groups (one where the independent variable is being manipulated and one where it is not changed) so that any differences in results are due to the manipulation of the independent variable (interference time).

One strength of reductionism is that by breaking up the behaviour, a cause and effect relationship can be formed – so interference causes recall to worsen as it prevents transfer of information to the long-term memory (from STM). Through this, it has practical applications – especially in schools – as it shows that distraction should be minimised when retaining of rehearsal information.

A weakness is that there is the possibility of ignoring other factors that may contribute to the behaviour – so full understanding is not developed, resulting in an overly simplistic explanation.

Unlike reductionism, taking a holistic approach might be better as it provides a whole, fuller understanding that can be developed as multiple variables are explored; however, a weakness of holism is that creating practical applications can be difficult as the sheer amount and complexity of the information gathered may be hard to interpret, to form a simple cause and effect relationship. So, in some ways, taking a reductionist approach is better.