The Cognitive Approach

Definitions• Information processing; understanding of memory; understanding forgetting; experiments; computer analogy; There are

others [including not on the spec such as perception, which are creditable if correct]• [The following are not features as such but can be used as examples of features:• Multi store model, levels of processing, eye witness testimony, cue dependency, interference, trace decay, reconstruction,

repression and so on.]• e.g.• • Information processing; (possible ID mark)• • Similar to a computer we input information, process and provide• an output/eq;• • E.g. The multi-store model of memory receives, retains and recalls• information from the memory stores/eq;• • We received information directly from our senses/bottom-up• processing/eq;• e.g.• • Understanding memory; (possible ID mark)• • We encode , store and retrieve information which makes up our memory/eq;• e.g.• • Experiments are used; (possible ID mark)• • There are 3 types of experiments with in the cognitive approach, laboratory, field and natural/eq;• • Each of these has an IV and a DV and are normally designed to test a hypotheses/eq;• • Laboratory experiments take place in an artificial setting and try to measure cause and effect between two variables/eq;

Theories of Memory – Multi store Model Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968

• DESCRIBE – 6 marks

• Multi Store model / Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)• • Information moves through three systems (SSM STM LTM) under the control of

various cognitive processes (attention, rehearsal, etc.)• • The distinctions among the three structures is made on the basis of three

characteristics; capacity, duration and encoding• • STM has a capacity of 7+/-2 items and a duration of 15 – 30 seconds• • We receive information from the environment through our senses, which is

automatically stored briefly in a sensory register• • Coding and rehearsal determine the fate of this information. • Rehearsal is seen as a key process as it not only keeps information in STM, but is

also responsible for transferring it to LTM• • Material in the sensory register that is attended to is coded in STM, and

information in STM that is sufficiently rehearsed is coded in LTM

Theories of Memory – Multi store Model Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968

• Evaluation – 6 AO2 marks• Brown (1958) Peterson and Peterson(1959) found that blocking rehearsal resulted in

poor recall• • Rehearsal of information does not necessarily lead to better recall. Craik and

Watkins found that recall was unrelated to neither duration in STM nor the number of times words were rehearsed

• • Brain damaged patients provide strong evidence for the STM and LTM distinction, as brain damage can affect one store and not the other

• • Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) research into the primacy recency effect found separate STM and LTM

• • Other have criticised lumping all the different types of LTM together as if they were the same. Critics argue the model doesn’t differentiate enough between procedural, semantic and declarative memories

• • Much research has used words and digits in stimulus lists that may not be a realistic use of memory

• • Laboratory research may give an unnatural view of memory

Theories of memory – Levels of Processing. Craik and Lockhart

• Description – 6 AO1 marks• Craik and Lockhart argued LOP is necessary to explain the transfer of information

into LTM without rehearsal• Memory is a consequence of how we process information - the deeper we process

it the easier it will be remembered• Deep processing which is a form of elaborative rehearsal produces longer lasting

memory traces• The deepest level is semantic processing, and the shallowest is structural processing• Information that is attended to on the basis of how it looks (structural processing) is

not very durable (long lasting)• Semantic analysis (understanding the meaning) results in deeper processing and

deeper processing results in a more durable memory• It distinguishes between maintenance rehearsal which simply retains items for the

time being and elaborative rehearsal which expands upon material and creates more lasting memories

Theories of memory – Levels of Processing. Craik and Lockhart

• EVALUATION – 6 AO2 MARKS• Students can be taught to make notes which have meaning rather than just reading

information that makes no sense to help them revise so the model does have applications to real life

• The model has support from Craik and Tulving’s study which demonstrated that semantically processed words were more deeply processed and therefore better recalled than other shallow information

• However this empirical support is laboratory based and therefore lacks ecological validity as both task and setting are artificial

• There are too many problems with actually defining deep processing and why it is effective. E.g. Baddeley (1978) criticises it for being circular i.e. Material which has been deeply processed will be remembered better BUT you could say material is well remembered because it must have been processed deeply

• Eysenck and Eysenck (1980) argue even shallow processing could lead to better processing IF the material was distinctive. E.g. you may see something so distinctive that it creates a mental image

Key Study: Craik and Tulving Levels of Processing

• Describe – aim, procedure, results and conclusions.– Aim: Used an experimental method with a repeated measures design comparing three conditions – structural,

phonetic and semantic/eq;Procedure– Participants did not initially know that it was a memory test and thought they just had to answer questions on a list of

words/eq;– In reality, different types of questions were making participants use different levels of processing structural, phonetic

and semantic/eq; – Words were presented to participants, each word was followed by a question which required a yes or no answer/eq;– Finally, participants were presented with the incidental memory test- incidental as they didn’t originally know they

were going to do it/eq; – Recall was measured through a recognition task where participants had to choose as many of the original words as

they could amongst several others/eq;• Results

– 80% semantic 50% phonetic and 18% of structurally processed words were recalled./eq; [percentages can be more or less similar provided are appropriately paired]

– The researchers had found that the deeper the processing the more durable the memory/eq;• Conclusions

– This demonstrates elaborative rehearsal is more effective than pure maintenance rehearsal in improving memory recall

– Semantic processing involves the most cognitive work so thinking about the meaning of the words leads to them being remembered best

Key Study: Craik and Tulving Levels of Processing

• Evaluation –• Strengths (2 marks)

– The study does have a practical application to real life; giving meaning to material is one way of improving your memory/eq; (1st mark) Students can be taught to make notes which have meaning rather than just reading information that makes no sense to help them revise/eq; (2nd mark)

– As a laboratory experiment the study has tight control of extraneous variables/eq; (1st mark) which also makes it more likely that the IV influenced the DV/eq; (2nd mark)

Weakness• Even shallow processing could lead to better processing IF the material was distinctive/eq; (1st mark) There are ways of remembering information other than just its meaning/E.g. you may see something so distinctive that it creates a mental image/eq; (2nd mark)

Theories of forgetting: Cue dependent

• Description• When cues present at encoding are not present at retrieval then forgetting

may occur/eq;• Cues (or prompts) are like additional pieces of information that guide us to the

information we are seeking a bit like the contents page of a book/eq;• These memory cues may be necessary to access information that is available

but not accessible/eq;• There are two types of cues, one is context which are environmental cues such

as your classroom/eq;• For example when someone goes upstairs to get something and forgets what it

was, they might remember again when they are back downstairs in the same place (context) they first thought about it/eq;

• Another is state which are cues internal to the person such as being excited or afraid (1st mark)/eq; For example if you learn something when in a relaxed mood but cannot recall it when in a tense mood/eq (2nd mark)

Theories of forgetting: Cue dependent

Evaluation

• Cue-dependent forgetting can be supported by the fact that most people find that their recollections of childhood become fainter as they grow older. However, if they return to the area they lived in as children, the streets, houses and school often serve to bring the past alive/eq;

• The physical environment of childhood can act as an effective cue proving that many memory traces established a long time ago can be retrieved/eq;• The problem is we don't know what information is in the memory trace and which is extracted from the retrieval cue. So it may be difficult to know in some circumstances whether a true memory is accessed as a result of a cue or if the memory is a reconstruction/eq;• Baddeley argues the effects of context dependent forgetting only occur if the contexts in which information is learned and retrieved are vastly different. For example information learned in a classroom and then retrieved in an ice rink will be poorer than if the same information had to be recalled in a library/eq;• Interference theory would argue forgetting is due to confusion between old and new memories and not to do with the state of mind you are in/eq;• Cue dependent does not take biological factors for forgetting into account. Trace decay believes forgetting is due to the natural wasting away of the neural trace and therefore the context has little to do with forgetting/eq;• Has also been applied to real world successfully such as helping the police reconstructions based on cue dependency/eq;• The theory does have lots of experimental evidence to support it. Studies by Godden and Baddeley and/or Tulving and Pearlstone have demonstrated that forgetting is influenced by lack of retrieval cues present/eq;

Key Study: Godden and Baddeley – Divers Study

• Description– Aim

• To see whether words would be recalled better in the same environment or in a very different environment/eq;• To investigate whether a natural environment can act as a cue for recall/eq;

Procedure– 18 participants were given word lists to learn which were made up of 38 unrelated two or three syllable

words/eq; – The words were presented either on the beach or 15 feet under the sea/eq; – Participants then had to recall the words in one of four conditions which they were randomly allocated

to/eq; – Condition 1: learn and recall on the beach; Condition 2: learn and recall underwater; Condition 3: learn

on the beach and recall underwater Condition 4: learn underwater and recall on the beach/eq; – Recall was about 50% higher when it took place in the same environment as learning/eq;

RESULTS– 40% more words were forgotten if recall was in a different environment from where learned/eq; – The mean number of words recalled in condition 1 = 13.5; Condition 2 = 11.4; condition 3 = 8.6 and

condition 4 was 8.4/eq;

Conclusion– The study demonstrates how the environment can act as a contextual cue for learning/eq;

Key Study: Godden and Baddeley – Divers Study

• Evaluation• Strengths

– The study has practical applications for education advising students to improve recall by reinstating the learning context for exams/eq;– It can also be used to help police investigations by getting them to interview witnesses in the same environment to the event they

saw/eq;– The study can help students with their revision by getting them to use cues to help learning/eq; (1st– mark) Students can make use of contextual cues by learning and recalling in the same environment (2nd– mark)– The study took place in a real life setting and so has greater ecological validity than laboratory research/eq;– The experiment was conducted in a realistic open water environment for divers (1st mark) so has higher– ecological validity and results relate to real life situations/eq; (2nd mark)– The study had practical applications as it was used to advise divers working on North Sea oil rigs how to– develop strategies to recall information collected on the seabed when they got back on the rigs (1st mark)/eq;– by using the same context when having to recall, for example….. (2nd mark)/eq;

– WEAKNESSES– The procedure in learning unrelated words is not an everyday task and so lacks ecological validity/eq;– There was a lack of control over some of the procedure including lack of standardisation and equipment failure (1st mark) which makes

it improbable the study could be replicated and get the same results/eq; (2nd mark)– It’s possible that participants who did not have to change environments (conditions 1 and 2)were able to rehearse the word list

more/eq;– The procedure in learning unrelated words using all this technology is not an everyday task and so lacks (mundane) realism/eq;– The sample was small (18) which may not be/is not representative of the population as a whole so cannot be– generalised/eq;

Theories of Forgetting: Interference

• Description– Forgetting occurs in LTM due to interference or confusion

between old and new memories/eq;– Retroactive interference is when the learning of new

information interferes with the learning of older information/eq;– Proactive interference is when the learning of old information

interferes with the learning of new information/eq;– In STM interference is important as it prevents rehearsal which

is needed for information to go from STM to LTM/eq;– E.g. trying to recall a phone number at the same time as being

asked a question means trying to respond to the latter may interfere with the first task

Theories of Forgetting: Interference

• Strength• McGeoch (1932) has shown that students are more likely to forget information from

topics that are similar in nature. For example revision of psychology should not be followed by sociology as the learning of one will interfere with the recall of the other/eq; (2 marks)

• Studies by Dallenbach/ Anderson & Myrow have demonstrated that forgetting is influenced by what happens in the time between learning and recall of information/eq; (1 mark)

• Weakness• The majority of supporting experiments are lab based and use nonsense syllables to

demonstrate interference. The research therefore has low ecological validity and interference is much less easier to demonstrate when meaningful real-life material is used/eq; (2 marks)

• Other theories have focused on lack of retrieval cues as an explanation of forgetting. Interference theory places too much emphasis on activity between the learning of information and recall, ignoring internal and external cues/eq; (2 mark)

Key Issue: Eyewitness Testimony

• Example might be given eg:You and a friend are queuing up at the local supermarket when you hear cries of ‘Thief! Stop! Help!’ and look around to see a man running off with a bag. The next day you and your friend go back to talk to the store manager and find that you recall things differently.• Using theories of forgetting and/or memory,

explain these differences in your recollections.

Key Issue: Eyewitness Testimony• Explanation using ideas from cognitive approach Terms and concepts can be drawn from

(but are not limited to) the terms listed in the specification.

• e.g. Information processing• · There may be individual differences in the way witnesses input and process what they

see based on schemas which in turn may lead to differences in recall/eq;• e.g. Cue dependent• · Those interviewed in the queue itself will be aided by cues (context and state) and so

may recall more detail than others questioned elsewhere/eq;• e.g. Displacement• · In a limited capacity short term memory some details of the event may be displaced

by others, causing forgetting of important details and what is displaced will vary from person to person/eq;

• e.g. LOP• · Those who used deeper processing are likely to remember more than those who used

shallow processing/eq;

• e.g. Multi store• · Some may have though about and discussed what they saw (rehearsal) so transferred

information into LTM and transfer information from STM to LTM/eq;• e.g. Interference• · Later learning / experiences may interfere with recall of what they saw (retroactive

interference) so those who were more ‘active’ after the event may recall less than those who were more ‘inactive’/eq;

• e.g. Demand characteristics• · When being interviewed some may be more prone to saying things they think the

manager wants to hear in a wish to please them/eq;• e.g. Use of the cognitive interview• · Others may be able to give much more accurate detail if the manager uses the cognitive

interview asking them to recall events from different perspectives or in a different order/eq;

• e.g Reconstructive memory• · They were behind a barrier so did not see all the details and therefore confabulated some

of their evidence

Key Issue – eyewitness testimony

Is EWT reliable? • EWT refers to the recalled memory of a witness to a crime or incident/eq; • Some argue that it is so unreliable it should not be the basis of criminal convictions/eq; • E.g. Beth Rutherford claimed her father had sexually abused her, but this was later found to be false/eq; • Others believe jurors are more likely to rely on witness testimony than scientific proof or forensic evidence/eq;

Is EWT reliable? (Leading questions is the concept) • Loftus and Palmer showed that memories are often reconstructions based on subsequent information/eq; • Leading questions can cause false or distorted recall e.g. the word ‘smashed’ made ps believe the cars were going faster/eq; • This showed that witness memory can be seriously altered by post event information in the form of misleading questions/eq; • Its difficult to generalise the findings of most EWT research as its typically laboratory based involving video footage which lacks real life emotions/eq; • Loftus and Zanni also found that changing a word can affect memory recall/eq;

Methodology: Experimental Method

• Define experiment:

Hypotheses

• Alternative Hypotheses– Either no mention of an alternative hypothesis or a very unclear prediction - 1 mark– A basic alternative hypothesis so that the examiner can just about identify what was predicted.

Weak IV or DV mentioned. - 2 marks– A clear alternative hypothesis, so that the examiner can identify and understand what was predicted

OR a basic alternative hypothesis with direction correctly stated. Both IV and DV are present -3 marks

– A clear alternative hypothesis so that the examiner can identify and understand what was predicted and has correctly stated its direction. Both IV and DV are present and appropriate to hypothesis - and at least one is operationalised.

• Null Hypotheses– 1 mark for a basic null hypothesis giving a negative e.g. “will not”. 2 marks for a more elaborated

answer– referring to both the IV and DV.– This must be a null hypothesis, not an experimental/alternate one; directional or non-directional

(one or two tailed) is acceptable.– EG A change in teacher will make no difference to students level of attendance, (any difference is

due to chance)/eq; (2 marks)

Types of experiment• Lab – strengths and weaknesses

Strengths– Laboratory experiments have greater control over extraneous variables which makes them

easier to replicate and test for reliability of results/eq; (2 marks) – Extraneous variables can be controlled/eq; – The environment in which the experiment takes place is controlled/eq; – They can reduce the influence of confounding variables to try and ensure the only variable

affecting the DV is the IV (cause and effect)/eq; (2 marks)Weaknesses– Laboratory experiments are not carried out in a natural setting this means they suffer from

low ecological validity/eq; (2 marks) – Laboratory experiments are low in ecological validity/eq; – Laboratory experiments suffer from demand characteristics; (1 mark) where ps may give

answers in order to please the experimenter/eq; (2nd mark)• Field – strengths and weaknesses

• Natural – strengths and weaknesses

Experimental DesignHOW WE ALLOCATE PARTICIPANTS TO CONDITIONS

• Independent Groups (measures) –different people (participant variables)– Strength

• no order effects/eq;• because different participants are used in each condition/eq;

– Weakness• Uncontrolled participant variables/eq;• Means that individual differences may affect the results/eq;• Differences in the confidence levels of participants between the groups may influence the results/eq;

• Repeated Groups (measures) – same people– Order effects (fatigue, practice)– Counterbalancing

• Strength– No uncontrollable ps variables/eq;– so less chance of individual differences affecting results/eq;

• Weakness– Suffers from order effects as same ps are in each group/eq;– so more chance of practice or fatigue effects which could lead to better / poorer performance/eq;

• Matched pairs – different people, matched up to be similar– Strength

• Reduces participant variables (as far as they can be matched) /eq;• so less chance of individual differences affecting results/eq;

– Weakness• It requires a large number of potential participants to start with in order to get enough pairs/eq;• This makes it expensive and time consuming so rarely used/eq;

Reliability

• Consistency of results achieved by– Replicability– Control– Standardisation

Validity

• Measuring what you claim to measure– Population – who (generalisation)– Ecological – representative of real world– Experimental – did they believe it?• Demand characteristics• Extraneous variables

– Situational– Experimental– Participant

Evidence in Practice - experiment

• Aim, procedure, results and conclusions of own practical• Aim/purpose – 2 AO3 marks

– 0 marks Either no mention of an aim/purpose or not a cognitive psychology experiment unclear about what was done. No credit for a statement of prediction/hypothesis.

– 1 mark A simple aim/account of purpose so that the examiner can just about identify what was investigated. One variable is discernable (e.g. visual cues) and/or the general area of the study is indicated (e.g. context dependency).

– 2 marks A clear aim / account of purpose so that the examiner can identify and understand what was done. Both variables can be inferred and/or the area is clear.

Evidence in Practice – own experiment

• Evaluation – reliability, validity etc

• Because the sample was opportunity we could have deliberately picked people we knew had the desired characteristics

• We all used the same standardised instructions which increases the reliability of our study • It was carried out in a quiet classroom, which is a natural setting for the participant so increasing ecological validity • Some participants may have told others about the study so they may have tried to give us the results they thought we wanted • All participants were 16 to 18 so we cannot generalise the results to older people • As it was an experiment so we don't know if the participant’s behaviour was natural or a result of demand characteristics