1. Memory:

2. Key:
= Baddiel + Bradley
(bear) =
Baddeley
= Positive impacts
of anxiety & EWT,
= H.M Christianson
(Study by &Hubinette (1993)
Milner 1966)
= Negative impacts
of Anxiety &
EWT, Loftus 1979
= Duration of LTM by
Bahrick et al 1975 = Eye witness
testimonies – L(1979),
Y/C, C/H(1993)
= Baddeley and
= Miller’s
Hitch 1974 Working
magic no. 7
Memory Model
(1956)

3. Multi-store model – Atkinson and
Shiffrin (1968):

4. Multi-store model of memory
evaluation:
• Distinguishes a • Simplistic – explains
difference between the something complex in a
capacity and duration of very simple manner.
STM and LTM. • Focuses too much on
the structure of the
model as opposed to
the processes involved.
• ‘rehearsal’ is deemed
the only way to move
information from STM
to LTM – maybe there’s
another way.

5. Milner (1966) – H.M.
• Supports the MSM – as it shows that the LTM
and STM are stored differently.
• Had brain surgery, which left him unable to
recall things that had just happened.
• It was concluded that he couldn’t move
memories into his long term memory.

6. Short Term memory…

7. Capacity of STM by
Baddeley et al (1975):
Aim: To see if more people could remember more short words than long
words in a serial recall test. So demonstrating that pronunciation times
rather than the no. of items to be recalled determines the capacity of
STM.
Procedure:
- reading speed of ppt was measured
- given 5 words on a screen
- One set one-syllable words, one set multi-syllable words
- Ppts were asked to write down 5 words in order immediately after
presentation
Findings:
- More short words were recalled than long words
- Able to recall as many words as they could say in 2seconds
- Strong + correlation between reading speed & memory span
Conclusion: Immediate memory span represents the no. of items of whatever
length can be articulated in 2 seconds.

8. Duration of STM: Peterson
& Peterson (1959)
Aim: To see how long STM lasts when rehearsal is prevented
Procedure:
- Ppts were briefly showed 3 letters (trigram)
- Ppts were asked to count backwards to stop them
rehearsing the letters
- After 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 seconds, they were asked to
recall the original 3 letters (in order)
Findings:
- 80% of trigrams (3 letters) were recalled after 3s
- By 18s, less than 10% of trigrams could be recalled
Conclusion:
When rehearsal is prevented, short term memory doesn’t last
long

9. Encoding in STM: Baddeley
(1966)
Aim: To explore the effects of acoustic & semantic encoding in STM
Procedure: ppts divided into 4 groups, ones that heard:
1. Acoustically similar words (map/mad/man)
2. Acoustically dissimilar words (pen/day/few)
3. Semantically similar words (big/large/grand)
4. Semantically dissimilar words (hot/old/late)
Findings:
- 55% A.S. words were recalled
- 75% of A.D words were recalled
- Semantics (meaning) were similar
Conclusion:
STM relies more on acoustics than their meaning

10. Long term memory…

11. Duration of LTM:
Bahricket al (1975):
Aim: To establish the existence of very LTM, seeing whether there’s a
difference between recognition and recall.
Procedure:
- investigators found old high school grads. Over 50-year period. IN
AMERICA.
- 392 grads. Were shown yearbook photos
- 1 group – recalled names from memory (recall)
- 2nd group – matched names to faces (recog.)
Findings:
- Recall group: After 47 years, less than 20% accuracy
- Recog. Group: After 47 years, accuracy @ 60%
Conclusion:
- People can remember certain types of info. For almost a lifetime
- Long term memory is better in recog. than recall.

12. Encoding in LTM: Baddeley
(1966)
Aim: To explore the effects of acoustic & semantic coding on LTM
Procedure: ppts divided into 4 groups…
1. Acoustically similar words (map/mad/man)
2. Acoustically dissimilar words (pen/day/few)
3. Semantically similar words (big/large/grand)
4. Semantically dissimilar words (hot/old/late)
- After 20 minutes, they were given another task to do, before having
to recall the words.
Findings:
- Recall 55% accuracy for S.S words
- Recall 85% accuracy for S.D words
- Recall was same for A.S and A.D
Conclusion:
LTM is primarily semantically coded (opposite to STM!)

13. Miller’s magic
number 7 (1956):
Miller found that people had a digit span of 7±2

14. Working Memory Model:
Baddeley and Hitch
(1974)
Visual Episodic Language
Long term memory

15. Working Memory
Model: Baddeley and
Hitch (1974)
Central executive:
Most important. Involved in decision making, and
problem solving.
Flexible, and can process lots of information
Limited storage capacity
Phonological loop:
‘Inner ear’ – holds acoustic info. and ‘inner voice’ –
allows sub vocal repetition (by getting a ppt to
say ‘the the the’ during a memory task prevents
the phonological loop from working)

16. Working Memory
Model: Baddeley and
Hitch (1974)
Visuo-spatial scratch pad:
‘inner eye’, stores visual and spatial info.
Sets up and manipulates mental images.
Limited capacity
Limits of the systems are independent
(added in 2000) Episodic Buffer:
Integrates information from different sources
Limited capacity

17. Working Memory
Model: Baddeley and
Hitch (1974)
• Evidence to support • Not much is known about
phonological loop the central executive
(Baddeley 1975 –
investigating the ‘word-
length effect’)
• Evidence to support
visuo-spatial scratch pad
(Baddeley 1973 – ppts
had to do a tracking task
along side a letter
imagery task, which they
found difficult, proving
the visuo-spatial is
processed separately)

18. Eye-witness testimony
(EWT):
‘An area of memory that investigates the
accuracy of memory following an incident,
and the type of errors that are commonly
made in that situation’

19. Negative impacts of Anxiety
and EWT: Loftus (1979)
Aim: To find out if anxiety during a witnessed incident affects the
accuracy of later identification.
Procedure: Ppts were split into 2 groups:
1. A low key discussion was overheard followed by a person coming
out of the lab with a pen, and grease on their hands.
2. A noisy hostile exchange was overheard followed by a person
emerging from the lab with a paper knife covered in blood.
Ppts in each situation were asked to identify the person who had
emerged from a line-up of 50 people.
Findings:
1) The group that had sit. 1) were accurate 49% of the time
2) The group that had sit. 2) were accurate 33% of the time
Conclusion:
Ppts were too focused on the weapon to notice the person’s face.

20. Positive impacts of Anxiety
and EWT:Yuille and Cutshall
• Interviewed 13 real-life witnesses, who’d seen a
shooting
• Some witnesses were closer than others
Interviews showed that:
- Witnesses gave accurate accounts several months
later
- Those closest to the shooting provided the most
detail
- Misleading questions had no effect on accuracy
- Those who were most stressed provided the most
detailed accounts

21. Positive impacts of Anxiety
and EWT: Christianson and
Hubinette (1993)
• Questioned 110 witnesses, who had (between
them) witnessed 22 genuine bank robberies.
• Witnesses who were more accurate, were
bystanders (not threatened themselves)
• Their recall continued to be better, even after
a 15 month period.

22. Children and EWT
Ceci&Bruck (1993):
Repeated questions – Young children are more
likely to change their answers when asked a
second time.
Encouragement to imagine – Young children are
more likely to make up details.
Peer pressure – If a child feels pressured, it may
affect their answers
Authority figures – Children may be more
susceptible to misleading info. due to desire to
please authority figures.

23. Leading questions:
‘Questions which are worded in such a way that
they might make someone answer in a
particular way’
- They’ve been found to affect EWT as they
cause a bias in the answers.

24. Leading questions –
Loftus (1974)
Aim: Seeing if leading questions distorted the accuracy of
EWT.
Procedure: 45 students watched a series of short traffic
accidents, and given a questionnaire after each one. Within
each questionnaire, there was one ‘critical question’, which
was ‘How fast were the cars going when they ____
eachother?’
Findings: Verb Average estimated speed
Smashed 41
Collided 40
Bumped 38
Hit 34
Contacted 31

25. Misleading info.:
Misleading info: The investigator slipping in
words that wrongly implicate that something
happened, when it didn’t.
Often, it makes a change in the ppts memory.

26. Misleading information
– Loftus (1975) Barn
• 150 ppts a car accident
• Divided into two groups
• 1st group: Asked 10 questions that were consistent with the
film.
• 2nd group: Asked 9 questions that were consistent, and one
question that was misleading: ‘How was was the sports car
going when it went past the barn’ (there was no barn!)
• One week later… Ppts were asked ‘did you see a barn?’
• 1st group: 2.7% said yes
• 2nd group: 17.3% said yes
• Loftus concluded that the barn was added to their memories
from due to the information from the misleading questions.

27. Cognitive Interviews – Geiselman et al
(1985):
• 4 techniques:
1. Context reinstatement – weather, smells.
2. Reverse order.
3. Detail – report everything.
4. Change of perspective.
• Good search to support it (Geiselman 1988)
• Officers would have to be re-trained which
would be time consuming and costly.

28. Cog. Interview – Geiselman (1988)
‘effectiveness of CIT in lab setting’
• 89 students shown crime video.
• Some interviewed with Standard Interview, some
by CIT.
• Those interviewed by CIT showed higher recall
than those interviewed with Standard Interview.
• Lab study
• Ecological validity – low, due to being shown a
video of a crime. Wouldn’t necessarily work IRL
settings.
• All the people shown were students. Therefore
not representative of the whole popualation.

29. Cog. Interview – Fisher et al
(1989)
‘effectiveness of CIT in real-life
setting’
• Detectives, Florida, USA, trained in CIT.
• 47% increase in info. Produced by witnesses
compared to pre-training.
• CIT produces more information than Standard
Interview.
• Ecologically valid – uses real life settings.
• Ethnocentric – All from Florida.

30. Improving memory:
1. Organisation hierarchies
2. Encoding specificity principle
3. Using mnemonics
- inc. Method of Loci.

31. Organisation hierarchies:
I’m in my HOUSE
– which is in NORWICH
– Which is in ENGLAND
– which is part of GREAT BRITAIN
Evidence:
Bower et al (1969)
-Learnt words
-1st group used hierarchy technique = 65% of words correct
-2nd group didn’t use hierarchy technique = 19% words correct
Internally valid – extraneous variables were controlled as it was a LAB STUDY
Not real life situation – may lack ecological validity

32. Encoding Specificity Principle –
Tulvingand Thompson (1973):
• When we learn things, we encode them with
links to the context in which we learnt them.
• The context is classed as a ‘retrieval cue’
which helps to recall information stored in
LTM.
• This may explain why our recognition is better
than our recall memory

33. Using mnemonics:
‘Techniques for improving memory based on
encoding information in special ways so that a
strong memory trace is established along with
effective cues’
E.g. ‘Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain’
‘Dear Keith Please Could Our Family Go
Somewhere’

34. Method of loci:
• Assigns aspects of info. to familiar images in a
sequence.
Evidence:Paivio 1971
- He suggested that words & images were
processed separately.
- Meaning they are ‘double
encoded’, therefore deeper level of processing

35. Learning and retrieval –
Godden and Baddeley
Aim: To investigate the relationship between
learning and retrieval environments
Procedure: Divers were given 40 unrelated words,
either on land, or 15 feet under water.
Half of the divers switched environments before
they tried to recall the words
Findings: The divers that learned and recalled in the
same situation remembered the most words
Conclusion: The divers benefitted from recalling in
the same environment as it held ‘retrieval cues’