Unit 1 – Cognitive Revision

Cognitive Psychologists are concerned with internal operations in the mind. These are collectively called cognitive
processes (or cognition). This includes perception, memory and thinking.

Theories
The Levels of Processing Approach (LoP)
Craik and Lockhart (1972) wanted to explain how memory operates. They said how well something is
remembered is due to its processes.
Craik (1973) defined depth of processing as the amount of meaning that was extracted from the information.
Information that is deeply processed is likely to be remembered. Craik and Lockhart (1972) suggested three
levels of how well information is processed:
Structural Processing What things look like
Phonetic Processing What something sounds like
Semantic Processing The meaning of the word
Semantic processing is the deepest form and is most likely to be remembered. Craik and Tulving tested this
theory in 1975.

Craik & Tulving (1975)

Aim To see whether words processed semantically would be better remembered
Procedure 20 students were given a reading list of 10 1-2 syllable words. Asked whether it was
in capitals, rhymed with another or whether it fitted into the sentence. Questions
and words were rotated for a different combination – counterbalancing. Later
participants were tested on recall from a list.
Results Words remembered best when processed semantically. 96% semantically
processed recalled from a list whereas only 18% of structurally processed words
were recalled
Conclusion Depth of processing affects how well words are recalled – semantic processing is
best
There is support from Nyberg (2002). He examined brain-scanning studies looking at information processing and
memory. Found activity in frontal and temporal lobes is greater when semantically processed.
Priming The involuntary recall of words where words are linked through meaning. Ramponi
et al (2004) did a study on this: Investigated the extent of deep processing and age
influences how well words are recalled under voluntary and involuntary conditions.
48 adults and 48 students. Participants encountered priming words. Semantically
processed words were best recalled and young people were better at recall. The
association of words was strong and involuntary. They concluded: words can be
involuntary recalled regardless of process at the time.

For and Against Levels of Processing

For Against
Experimental support – Craik and Tulving 1975. This Other factors play a part e.g. Reber et al (2004)
showed semantic words best recalled especially words of emotional significance. Thus LoP is
It has proved extremely helpful in helping us not a complete explanation to how memory works
understand memory although the model in its classic Priming (Ramponi et al (2004)). Strong involuntary
form has limitations associations can cause recall of words
Support from brain scanning studies like Nyberg
(2002). Material processed semantically showed more
activity
LoP helps students with revision. Those who revise
semantically learn better than those who just read
The Multi-Store Model (MSM)
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) proposed an early MSM, which suggested there are three types of information store:

Sensory Memory
 Duration ¼ to ½ second
 Capacity All sensory experience (larger capacity)
 Encoding Sense specific (e.g. different stores for each sense

Short Term Memory

 Duration 0-18 seconds
 Capacity 7 ±2 items
 Encoding Mainly auditory

Long Term Memory

 Duration Unlimited
 Capacity Unlimited
 Encoding Mainly semantic (but can be visual and auditory)

Peterson and Peterson (1959)

Aim To test memory (STM) when rehearsal is prevented for different times
Procedure 24 students tested on recall of test items. Shown a trigram (ACE) and had to count
in 3s backwards until a red light showed and recall the trigram. They were stopped
at different time intervals
Results Time delay caused recall to decrease
Conclusion When rehearsal is prevented items in STM are lost. They can be hold for a
maximum of 28 seconds.
LTM is somewhat different to STM. It has an unlimited capacity and information can last a lifetime as its duration
in unlimited. Some things however are forgotten very quickly. It is held semantically
through meaning rather than phonetically via the STM.

Evidence for LTM + STM

Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) Primacy + Recency effects. Suggests words are transferred in the LTM that are
shown early, whereas words later on are stored in the STM. Words in the middle
are most often forgotten
Smythe + Costall (2003) LTM + STM are 2 distinct systems. These results are after testing a week later

There is also support from Brain Damaged patients and genetic conditions to support to MSM:
Case of HM Suffered severe epilepsy and at 27 he underwent brain surgery to treat his
condition. They removed large areas of the temporal loves on both sides of the
brain. Since the day of the operation he has been unable to form new memories.
But his LTM remains intact from before the operation as he can still perform new
motor skills. Although he can’t form new LTM his STM capacity is the same as most
at 7. Therefore he has a severely damaged LTM but a fully functioning LTM – thus
separate system.
Prader-Willi Syndrome Genetic condition with multiple physical and psychological effects, from short
stature and obesity to learning difficulties and behavioural problems. Studies have
shown people with PWS have normal LTM but functioning STM. Canners et al
(2000) found that their LTM was strong whilst STM was weak. If LTM can function
but STM is impaired there is evidence to suggest that the memory stores are
separate.

But despite all the support for the MSM there is evidence that STM is processed semantically. Gelkopf + Zakai
(1991) tested whether information was lost on a first-in first-out basis as MSM had proposed. They found they
were not displaced in this way.
Case of FK Suffered brain damage from Carbon Monoxide poisoning at 29. Suffered damage to
his LTM and has difficulty recalling facts although he can recall events. He has
difficulty recalling words, and when tested found it difficult to pronounce unknown
words when reading. Reading involves STM. If there was no semantic processing in
the STM, then FK’s recall should have no difference in pronunciation of unknown
words.

This evidence suggests that there are:

Separate STM Systems to handle visual and verbal information. Support from FK
who showed this when reading.
More than one type of LTM:
Semantic Memory – Memory of Facts
Episodic – Memory of events
Procedural Memory - Memory of how to do things
This is supported by the evidence of HM’s ability to perform new motor skills but not
able to form new LTM of facts and FK’s ability to recall events but not words.

Evaluation of MSM
For
Evidence from experiments. That LTM + STM are
separate – Smythe + Costall found mobile phone use
stimulates STM not LTM
HM sustained severe damage to LTM but kept a
relatively normal STM. It showed the stores are indeed
separate
Against
More than 1 STM e.g. Seitz + Schumann-Hergsteller
(2000) in which verbal information but not a motor task
inferred with the ability to do maths. Also FK and his
reading
Evidence of FK suggests that the STM is analysed for
meaning and not for sound, putting MSM in doubt
Strong evidence from the cases of FK + HM that there
are more than one type of LTM, for facts, events and
skills

The Reconstructive Memory Approach (RSM)

This concerns what happens when information is stored and retrieved from memory. Bartlett (1932) suggested
memory was more ‘an imaginative reconstruction of past events; influenced by our attitudes and responses to
those events at the time they occurred’.
 Retrieval of memory involves an active process of reconstruction. We actively piece
it together using Schema. We activate the relevant schemas and make use of the
information in them, e.g. War of the Ghosts and data schema.
War of the Ghosts became increasingly stereotyped and anglicised. It involved
people using their own theories to what a story on ghosts and war should sound like
Allport & Postman (1947) found people distorted the picture of a white man with a
knife to a black man with a knife. Suggesting we used black schema and white
schema to help distort the scene to make it logical to us.
For Against
Memory is inaccurate and distorts in line to our existing Reconstruction is a retrieval process, and there are
schema other important aspects of memory that are not
Memory becomes increasingly stereotyped following explained by the reconstructive memory approach. It
reproduction e.g. War of the Ghosts does not address the issue of memory stores, or how
memories are processed

Forgetting
Forgetting is where we do not have the ability to remember or recall an event. But why do we forget information?
Has it been permanently lost from the brain e.g. trace decay.

Cue Dependency Theory of Forgetting

Tulving (1972) proposed that forgetting takes place when we have the information we are seeking in our memory
but we lack the necessary cues to access it. Cues are additional pieces of information that guide us to the
information we are seeking.
Tulving + Pearlstone (1966) demonstrated that we can remember more words if we have access to categorise
where words are taken e.g. dogs. In one condition they recalled words without cues (free recall). In the cued
condition they were given category titles as cues (cued recall). In the cued condition participants remembered
more words. The titles were a form of semantic cue and the meaning triggered recall.
State + Context cues Context are environmental cues e.g. returning to your house after years away,
whereas state refers to physiological cues or in other words the state we are in
when we learn something.

Godden + Baddely (1975)

Aim To see whether words would be better remembered when recalled in the same
environmental that in a very different environment – in this case the beach and the
sea
Procedure 18 divers were given a list of words to learn. They were presented to them on a
beach and 15ft under the sea. They were asked to recall words. In one condition
the participants recalled where they learnt and the other where not leant, to control
the possibility of decline inaccuracy of recall was due to the disruptive change of
land to sea or vice versa were also given a recognition test
Results Overall where the words were learnt does not affect the level of recall. However lists
learned under water were recalled better than on the beach. It was approximately
40% better when learnt and recalled in the same environment. In the recognition
tests the change in environment it had no effects.
Conclusion Recall was considerably better if context was the same as where it was learnt.
Suggest context cues enhance recall. The fact that recognition was unaffected by
change in environment suggests change itself was not responsible for accuracy of
recall.

Psychological cues
The state we are in when we learn something can work in much the same way. Recall is said to be state-
dependent if it requires a physiological cue for recall. When we are in a certain state in learning, being in the
same state for recall can genuinely help retrieve information. This is comparable to emotional states. If we are
happy when encoding, retrieval will be better.

For and Against Cue Dependency

For
Evidence from studies such as Baker et al (2004) –
chewing gum between recall and learning improved
results significantly
Tulving + Pearlstone (1996) showed recall was better
with semantic cues
Explains everyday occurrences. Sensory cues when
returning to your old home
Can enhance people’s recall in state or in context;
Jerabeck + Standing (1992) found students recall
better when imagining their classroom
Against
Only forgetting from LTM e.g. Baker et al (2004) affects
after a day but not immediately
Not a complete explanation for forgetting. Does not
explain why emotionally charged memories remain
vivid in the absence of context cues or why we lend to
recall happy material better than unhappy material

Repression
Freud (1894) proposed the idea that we forcibly forget facts or events that provoke anxiety or unhappiness, thus
protecting us from experiencing these negative emotions. It is a defence mechanism. He believed these theories
remain active in the mind, but the individual is not aware of them and they trigger symptoms like depression.
These memories can be recalled under psychoanalysis and there is evidence of this such as where children have
been sexually abused, and they only recall it later in life.

For and Against Repression

For
Evidence from Koeheler (2002) that words appear to be
stressful to participants are poorly recalled compared to
neutral words, suggesting stressful words are
repressed
Walker (1997) found that happy memories are better
recalled than unhappy memories – thus sad memories
are repressed
Against
Hadley + Mackay (2007) found taboo words of
emotional significance are better recalled throwing
Koehler’s results into doubt
Bernsten (2002) found that participants remember
shocking memories in more detail than neutral
memories

Key Issue
Eye Witness Testimony (EWT)
Loftus has thrown the accuracy of EWT into doubt. Loftus (1975) tested whether misleading questions could lead
participants to remember false details of a film. A piece of film showing a car that was involved in a crash to 150
students. All participants were given 9 of the same questions but the tenth one differed – ‘How fast was the car
going when it past the barn?’ and the other ‘How fast was the car going down the road’. There was no barn. A
week later they were tested and 17% of those in the Barn group reported seeing a barn compared to just 3% of
the control group, throwing the reliability of EWT into doubt.

However there is counter evidence from Yullie + Cutshall (1986) which found that 13 of 21 witnesses of a
shooting after 5 months correctly recalled the event, and were unfazed by the misleading questions. This was
similar to Riniolo (2003) on questions of the Titantic’s sinking.