Class Notes (837,840)
Canada (510,505)
Psychology (5,220)
PSYCH 2H03 (134)

Ch. 7 - Memory (3).pdf

6 Pages
Unlock Document

Judith Shedden

PNB  2XA3   Chapter  7:  Memory  (3)     Memory  Errors,  Memory  Gaps   • Record-­‐keeping  model   o Searching  a  storehouse  of  records  of  past  events   o Finding  the  memory  is  like  re -­‐experiencing  it   o Not  a  good  explanation   • Constructionist  model   o Recollecting  the  past  is  a  process  of   reconstruction   o Past  is  recreated  or  inferred,  not  re -­‐experienced   § Use  current  info  &  connections   § Make  plausible  guesses   § Active  process   § Use  reconstruction  strategies  to  deduce  our  pasts   • Human  memory  is  designed  to  predict  the  future,  not  recapitulate  the  pas t.     Hypotheses  about  forgetting   • What  do  we  mean  by  ”decay”?   o Passive  decay  vs.  Functional  decay   • Hypothesis  for  functional  relationship  b/w  decay   &  interference  (Altmann  &  Gray,  2002)   • i.e.  Speed  limit  changes  while  driving:  you  didn’t  want  the  interference   to  build  up  monotonically   • Interference  Theory   o Response  competition:  Same  cue  associated  w/  multiple  responses.  Weakening  of  associations .   o Retroactive  interference:  New  interferes  w/  old   o Proactive  interference:  Old  interferes  w/  new   • Cue-­‐dependent  forgetting  –  failure  of  retrieval  cues   o If  we  can’t  reinstate  the  context  that  was  present  at  encoding   o Forgetting  is  the  inability  to  gain  access   o Cues  may  be  inappropriate  or  ineffective  (i.e.  parking  on  narrow  street,  touring  old  Montreal,  cannot  find   narrow  street  w/  car)   • Retrieval  inhibition   o Recalling  part  of  the  story  results  in  poorer  recall  for  the  rest  of  the  story  later  on   o Note  implication  for  police  interviews  of  witnesses,  where  police  know  only  part  of  the  story     Retrieval-­‐induced  Forgetting  (Anderson,  Bjork  &  Bjork,  1994)   • Forgetting  results  from  interference  by  previously   recalled  info   o Task  1:  remember  categorized  lists  of  words   § Apple  pear  banana  orange   o Task  2:  intermediate  cued-­‐recall  test  for  some  of  the  words   § Provided  with:  fruit  ba_  _  _  _   o Task  3:  recall  all  of  the  words   § Memory  is  impaired  for  the  “fruit”  words  that  were  not  tested  in  the  termediate  test   Remembering  Things  that  Never  Took  Place   • Bias  of  prior  knowledge  –  Impose  structure  on  reconstructed  events   • Intrusion  errors  –  Remembering  things  that  often  do  occur  (but  did  not  in  this  case)   • Assumptions  –  Filling  in  the  gaps  (when  part  of  the  experience  was  not  encoded  in  the  first  place)   • Memory  distortion  –  Alter  the  past  to  bring  it  in  line  w/  beliefs     DRM  Procedure  (Deese,  Roediger  &  McDermott)   • Learn  list  of  words:  Craving,  famine,  appetite,  emptiness,  famished,  gluttony,  ravenous,  void,  want,  munchies…   • Recall  the  words:  People  are  likely  to  remember  that  “hunger”  was  on  the  list     Distortions  &  Intrusions   • We  remember  what  fits  w/  our  understanding  (Bartlett’s  “War  of  the  Ghosts”  study)   o Taken  from  folklore  of  First  Nations     o Folklore  that  was  unfamiliar  to  the  British  subjects   o Gist  of  stories  recalled  but  many  errors  made  about  the  details   o Errors  were  systematic,  changing  the  stories  in  ways  to  make   more  sense  in  terms  of  the  subjects’  own   experience   • Retelling  “War  of  Ghosts”   o Omit  what  seems  to  be  illogical   § “something  black  came  out  of  his  mouth”  becomes  “he  foamed  at  the  mouth”   o Add  info  that  helps  explain  incongruous  parts   § One  man  tells  other  he  may  go  &  fight;  retold  as  one  man  refused  to  go  &  the  other  offered  to  go   o Add  info  from  other  familiar  stories   § Wounded  man  died  ‘when  the  sun  rose’  becomes  ‘at  sunset’   o Transform  unfamiliar  terms  to  familiar  ones   § ‘Canoe’  becomes  ‘boat’;  ‘hunting  seals’  becomes  ‘fishing’;  ‘arrows’  become  ‘arms  for  battle’   o Reorder  the  sequence  of  events  to  make  more  sense   § The  wounded  man  died  after  returning  home,  but  in  the  retelling,  he  dies   &  is  then  taken  home.     Distortion  based  on  perspective   • SOAP  OPERA  EFFECT:  Water-­‐skier/Boat  driver  story  (Owens,  Bower  &  Black,  1979)   o Story  intro  designed  to  persuade  them  to  identify  w/  water-­‐skier  or  boat  driver   o Later,  details  were  recalled  ‘in  favour’  of  the  character  w/  whom  the  subjects  identified   § The  water-­‐skier  reached  for  the  handle  of  the  tow  rope  but  it  escaped  him .  Therefore…   • The  water-­‐skier  was  too  slow  and  missed  it   • The  boat  driver  did  not  come  close  enough     Effect  of  Prior  Knowledge   • A  visit  to  the  dentist  (Bower,  Black,  &  Turner ,  1979)   o The  dentist  said  that  Bill  had  a  lot  of  cavities  –  old  sentence   o The  receptionist  took  out  the  coffee  pot   &  filled  it  with  water  –  new  sentence  (unrelated)   o Bill  checked  in  with  the  dentist’s  receptionist   –  new  sentence  (related)   • Prior  knowledge  can  result  in  false  recognition   &  recall   • It’s  a  problem  in  determining  the  source  of  the  info   • Sulin  &  Dooling,  1974   o ½  of  subjects  read  Gerald  Martin  passage   &  ½  read  the  same  passage  w/  name  changed  to  Adolf  Hitler.   o Recognition  test  given  either  5min  or  1  week  later,  consisting  of  14  sentences:  7  from  the  passage,  mixed   w/  7  new  sentences  t hat  were  not  from  the  passage   o Task:  say  OLD  or  NEW  to  each  sentence   o 4/7  new  sentences  were  neutral  (not  at  all  related);  3  were  thematically  related  to  the  passage  in  1/3  ways:   § Low:  He  was  an  intelligent  man  but  had  no  sense  of  human  kindness  (kind  of  related)   § Medium:  He  was  obsessed  by  the  desire  to  conquer  to  world  (a  bit  more  related)   § High:  He  persecuted  the  Jewish  people  (very  related)     à  Those  who  read  Gerald  Martin  made  the  least  mistakes  (high  thematic  was  n ot  in  passage).  Those  who  read  Adolf  H itler   made  the  most  mistakes  (high  thematic  was  in  passage).     Schematic  Knowledge   • Schemata:  A  schema  refers  to  static  knowledge  about  a  place  or  thing   • Scripts:  A  script  refers  to  dynamic  knowledge  about  how  things  unfold   • Connections  b/w  new  info  &  existing  schematic  knowledge   • An  academic  office  (Brewer  &  Treyens,  1981)   o To  show  the  effects  of  people ’s  schemata   o Placed  subjects  in  a  room,  wait   there  for  experiment  to  begin.   o What  objects  do  you  remember  from  the  waiting  room?   o 29/30  recalled  the  desk  and  chair,  8/30  recalled  the  bulletin  board,  9/30  recalled  books  (no  books  in  room).   o Recalled  books  b/c  its  part  of  the  schema  of  what  goes  in  an  academic  office.   o People  are  recreating  their  memory   –  they  can  be  very  confident  in  these  memories.   • False  recognition  based  on  scripts  (Holst  &  Pezdek,  1992)     o Part  1:  Participants  listed  all  events  that  occur  in  a  typical  robbery  of  a  convenience  store,  robbery  of  a   bank,  and  a  mugging  (3  diff  schemas)   o Part  2:  A  subset  of  these  scripted  events  were  included  in  a  tape -­‐recorded  transcript  of  a  mock  trial  in   which  a  prosecutor  questions  an  eyewitness   § Included  in  script:  Pretend  to  be  a  shopper,  got  to  cash  register,  demand  mon ey,  threaten  people   § Not  included  in  script:  Cash  the  store,  pull  out  a  gun,  take  the  money,  drive  away  in  a  getaway  car   o Part  3:  Listen  to  recording  of  trial  &  a  week  later  recall  as  many  actions  as  possible  from  the  testimony   § 31%  of  scripted  events  correctly  recalled   § 15%  of  scripted  events  falsely  recalled  (intrusion;  not  stated  by  the  witness)   • Prior  knowledge  of  what  might  occur  influenced  recall   § 25%  of  scripted  events  falsely  recalled  when  misleading  info  introduced  by  the  attorney   • If  attorney  implied  the  robber  pulled  out  a  gun,  subjects  were  more  likely  o  recall  that  the   robber  had  a  gun  even  though  they  were  instructed  to  recall  only  those  events   mentioned  by  the  witness.     Schematic  Influences  on  Memory   • Source  Confusion  –  info  supplied  by  schema-­‐based  reconstruction   • Schemas  usually  work  well  for  us!   • But  the  same  mechanisms  can  also  lead  to  err or   • If  schema  was  applied  during  encoding,  effect  may  be  irreversible   o Only  one  version  was  ever  recorded   • If  schema  was  applied  during  retrieval,  effect  may  be  reversible   o Change  in  perspective,  discarding  assumptions,  original  record  may  be  recoverable     Estimates  of  Confidence   • Confidence  doesn’t  correlate  w/  accuracy   • How  well  does  memory  accuracy  correlate  w/  confidence  in  those  memories?   • It’s  often  difficult  to  detect  false  memories   o Correlation  b/w  accuracy  and  confidence  is  small   • Conviction  of  your  memories  doesn’t  imply  accuracy   o Yet,  we  often  put  more  confidence  in  the  memories  of  others  when  they  have  conviction  of  them     CBS  60  Minutes  –  Eye  Witness   • Ronald  Cotton  (falsely  accused)   &  Jennifer  Thompson  (the  witness)   • Looking  at  mug  shots:  Not  comparing  faces  w/  memory,  more  like  comparing  the  faces  w/  each  other   –  as  if  the   criminal  if  absolutely  in  the  array  (which  he  wasn’t).   • Should  show  1  picture  at  a  time  so  witness  can  compare  each  individual  face  w/  their  memory.   • When  real  guy  isn’t  there,  witness  will  pick  guy  who  looks  most  like  him  (c ompelling  urge  that  you  have  to  pick  1)     • “You  picked  the  same  person”  =   ↑  confidence   • Not  given  a  good  view  of  crim inal  event;  if  not  told  anything  –  had  a  bad  view,  uncertain  of  criminal  identity;  if  told   that  yes  your  right  after  picking  mug  shot   –  had  a  great  view,  confident  they  picked  the  right  criminal,  confidence   ↑     • The  person  in  charge  of  line-­‐up  should  be  blind  to  who   the  suspects  are     Misleading  Eyewitnesses   • Mechanisms  that  lead  to  memory  error   o Generic  knowledge  produces  errors  –  Expectations,  filling  in  the  gaps   o New  knowledge  produces  errors  –  Contradictory  account,  leading  questions   o Fixing  the  beginning  of  the
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 2H03

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.