concepts info evaluation | ||
Key terms | Input – when info from environment enters brain via senses
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 |
|
tkinson and Shiffrin’s MSM model | Sensory store/ register
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
If info rehearsed elaboratively, passed on to Long term memory Capacity – unlimited Duration – almost a lifetime Encoding – semantic |
Strengths
Weaknesses
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) |
Amnesia | Anterograde amnesia
Retrograde amnesia
|
|
Barlett’s theory of reconstructive memory | Suggests memories aren’t exact copies of events but are actually interpretation influenced by schemas
Omission – leaving out details Transformation – changing details Rationalisation – adding details So it makes more sense according to schemas |
Strengths
Weaknesses Findings are subjective – people’s recall of memories and accuracy was interpreted by Barlett himself, could be interpreted completely differently be another researcher. |
Key Studies | ||
Peterson & Peterson
Sample size
|
part 1 – interference during recall intervals
Results
Conclusions
part 2 – vocal or silent rehearsal Results
Conclusions Only when recall was vocal and controlled did accuracy of recall improve |
Strengths
Weakness
|
Barlett – War of the ghosts
Sample size – 20 – 7 men and 13 women, all British Serial and repeated reproductions |
Results
Common omissions –
Common transformations –
conclusions
|
Strengths
weaknesses
|
I S S U E S + D E B A T E S – H O L I S M V S R E D U C T I O N I S M | ||
A01
Holism
Reductionism
|
A03
Holism
Reductionism
|
|
E X A M P L E A N S W E R
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. |