Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PSY 323:Cognition Chapter 8: Everyday Memory & Memory Errors.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PSY 323:Cognition Chapter 8: Everyday Memory & Memory Errors."— Presentation transcript:

1 PSY 323:Cognition Chapter 8: Everyday Memory & Memory Errors

2 Autobiographical Memory (AM) Memory over the life span  Recollected events that belong to a person’s past  Episodic memory for events from our life plus personal semantic memories of facts about our lives Multidimensional  Spatial, emotional, and sensory components  Visual experience often plays a significant role in forming and retrieving AM

3 Autobiographical Memory Cabeza et al. (2004) Procedure  Compared brain activation caused by either autobiographical memory or laboratory memory  Participants viewed pictures of Duke University  Photographs they took (A-photos)  Photographs taken by someone else (L-photos)

4 Autobiographical Memory Results  Both types of photos activated brain structures associated with  Episodic memory  Processing scenes  Photographs participants took also activated brain structures associated with  PROCESSING INFO ABOUT THE SELF  Memory for visual space  Mental time travel memory Cabeza et al. (2004)

5 Areas in the parahippocampal gyrus that were activated by the A-photos and the L-photos: Activation was much greater for the A-photos. Parietal cortex showing similar areas activated by both the A- photos and the L-photos during the memory test. Cabeza et al. (2004) Autobiographical Memory

6 Problems with testing AM… Limitations  Unlike lists of words, autobiographical memory is hard to study  All self reports  Hard to check on the reliability of the responses  The diary approach and the cue word approach may be useful, but have their limitations

7 Memory Over the Lifespan Conway (1996) Reminiscence Bump  When participants over the age of 40 are surveyed about life events they show enhanced memory for adolescence and young adulthood

8 People in this study tended to remember more that happened around their 20’s. Why? Memory Over the Lifespan Schrauf & Rubin (1998)

9 Why do we have the reminiscence bump? Some explanations

10 Reminiscence Bump Self-image hypothesis  Memory is enhanced for events that occur as a person’s self-image or life identity is being formed  People assume identities during adolescence and young adulthood Rathbone et al. (2008)

11 Reminiscence Bump Cognitive Hypothesis  Encoding is better during periods of rapid change that are followed by stability See next slide for study that tested this 

12 Autobiographical memories of immigrants Those emigrated at age 20-24 Those emigrated at age 34-35 Memory Over the Lifespan Schrauf & Rubin (1998)

13 Memory Over the Lifespan Cultural Life-Script Hypothesis Each person has:  A personal life story  An understanding of culturally expected events (cultural life script)  Personal events are easier to recall when they fit the cultural life script  Many important events occur during reminiscent bump time frame Berntsen & Rubin (2004)

14 Memory for Emotional Stimuli Emotional events remembered more easily and vividly  This feeling that emotionally charged events are easier to remember has been confirmed by laboratory research Enhances consolidation process  Recall gets better over time Key structure: amygdala  Bran scans provide evidence for this

15 LaBar & Phelps (1998) Procedure  Read a list of 40 words (20 arousing; 20 neutral)  Tested ability to immediately recall arousing words and neutral words  Tested again after one hour delay Results  Significant differences were found for both tests Memory & Emotion See next slide 

16 LaBar & Phelps (1998) Results  Nearly identical for both tests Memory & Emotion Results for immediate recall test 

17 Dolcos et al. (2005) Procedure  Tested ability to recall emotional and neutral pictures a year after initial presentation Results  Amygdala activity was higher for the emotional pictures  Emotional pictures more easily recognized in recall test Memory & Emotion See next slide 

18 Dolcos et al. (2005) Memory & Emotion Results 

19 Flashbulb Memories Brown & Kulick (1977)  Proposed idea that we tend to remember important, shocking, and stunning events more vividly like a mental photography  Memory for the circumstances surrounding how a person heard about the event

20 Flashbulb Memories Brown & Kulick (1977)  Proposed idea that we tend to remember important, shocking, and stunning events more vividly like a mental photography  Memory for the circumstances surrounding how a person heard about the event

21 Neisser & Harsch (1992) Procedure  Repeated recall experiment of special event (Challenger Explosion which occurred Jan 28, 1986) Are flashbulb memories really accurate? Liftoff at 11:39 ESTExplosion at 11:40 EST

22 Neisser & Harsch (1992) Procedure  Participants recalled the event repeatedly at different times after the event  3 days later, 10 months later, 5 years later  Tested the consistence of their recall Results  Right after the explosion, 21% of the participants indicated that they had first heard about it on TV  2 1/2 years later, 45% of the participants reported that they had first heard about it on TV Interpretation  Flashbulb memories decay just like regular memories Are flashbulb memories really accurate?

23 Talarico & Rubin (2003) Procedure  College students asked a number of questions on September 12, 2001  Some of these questions were about the terrorist attacks  Others were similar questions about an everyday event in the person’s life that occurred in the days just preceding the attacks  After picking the everyday event, the participant created a two- or three-word description that could serve as a cue for that event in the future  Some participants were retested 1 week later, some 6 weeks later, and some 32 weeks later Are flashbulb memories really accurate?

24 Talarico & Rubin (2003) Results  Interpretation o In reality, no differences between Flashbulb Memories and regular memories appear to exist; however, we have a perception that they are very different

25 Flashbulb Memories Narrative Rehearsal Hypothesis  Repeated viewing/hearing of event after initial exposure can potentially impact memory  Watching news coverage, discussing the event with others, etc.  Could introduce errors in own memory

26 The Constructive Nature of Memory Bartlett (1932) Procedure  Participants read a tale “War of the Ghosts” and then re-told it several times  Retellings were spaced out at increasing longer intervals (repeated reproduction paradigm)  Researchers monitored progressive changes in what participants remembered about the story

27 The Constructive Nature of Memory Results  Omissions  Poor recall for many of the details (specific names, or events)  Minor events were omitted (recall for main plot and sequence of events was not too bad)  Shorter than the original  Normailizations  Tendency to add and alter the stories to make them more conventional or reasonable (top-down processing) Interpretation  Memories are not accurate records of what happened but construction of what might have happened Bartlett (1932)

28 Source Monitoring The process of determining the origins of our memories  Source Monitoring Error is fairly common

29 SOURCE MONITORING: BECOMING “FAMOUS OVERNIGHT Jacoby (1988) Procedure Participants task: study faces of famous and unknown people Later tested: to see if they recognized studied faces and asked to judge their “fame”

30 SOURCE MONITORING: BECOMING “FAMOUS OVERNIGHT Jacoby (1988) Procedure & Results  Interpretation When stimuli is familiar it is sometimes difficult to determine its source

31 Making Inferences Pragmatic inference  We make inferences based on what we already know  Leads us to expect something that is not explicitly stated

32 Making inferences Arkes & Freedman (1984) Procedure  Researchers divided participants into two groups: those who had knowledge of rules of baseball and those who did not  Read the following story to participants:  In a baseball game, the score is tied 1 to 1. The home team has runners on first and third, with one out. A ground ball is hit to the shortstop. The shortstop throws to second base, attempting a double play. The runner who is at third scores, so it is now 2-1 in favor of the home team.

33 Making inferences Arkes & Freedman (1984)  After a short delay, participants were asked to indicate whether the following sentence was part of the story:  “The batter was safe at first.”  Results  Participants who knew the rules of baseball were more likely to remember the story incorrectly  Interpretation  Knowledge caused an incorrect inference to be made about the story that was presented to them

34 Source Amnesia  Remembering something but attributing it to the wrong source  We may recognize someone but have no idea where we saw that person

35 Scripts & Schemas Script  Our conception of the sequence of events that usually occur during a specific experience Schema  A stored framework or body of knowledge about some topic  These concepts explain adjustments and additions when re-telling the stories; why when we encounter new material, we try to relate it into existing schemas

36 Scripts & Schemas Brewer & Treyens (1981) Procedure  Used naturalistic setting: had participants enter an office  In this office were: Schema-consistent objects (e.g. a desk, calendar, and eraser) Schema-inconsistent objects (e.g. a skull, a toy top)  Missing from this office were some schema-consistent objects (e.g. books)

37 Scripts & Schemas Brewer & Treyens (1981) Procedure  Later, participants were surprised with a test asking them to:  First, recall all the objects they could remember  Second, recognize items actually in the office from those that were not

38 Scripts & Schemas Results  Books and filing cabinets were recalled but were not present in the room Office used by Brewer & Treyens (1981) 

39 Scripts & Schemas Results  Participants recalled more schema-consistent than schema- inconsistent items  True for both items that were present and items that weren’t  Objects that weren’t present in the room but were recognized with high confidence were uniformly schema-consistent  Recalled items were most likely to be objects consistent with the schema (e.g., typewriter) Interpretation  Schemas lead to errors in memory  Schemas are often used as a retrieval mechanism to facilitate recall Brewer & Treyens (1981)

40 The Misinformation Effect  After exposure to subtle misinformation, many people tend to misremember  Can change how a witness describes the event at a later date  This misleading information after a person witnesses an event is referred to as misleading postevent information (MPI)  As memory fades with time, the injection of misinformation becomes easier

41 The Misinformation Effect Loftus & Palmer (1974) Experiment 1 Procedure  Cars were driving on what appeared to be a one-lane highway  Subjects saw the same film of a car accident  Later, different subjects were asked: “How fast were the cars going when they…”  smashed  collided  bumped  contacted  hit

42 The Misinformation Effect Experiment 1 Results  Subjects estimates of speed varied with the verb they got in the question  Subjects who got the stronger verb (smashed) gave higher estimates of speed Elizabeth Loftus Loftus & Palmer (1974)

43 Experiment 2  This time the accident took place at an intersection and cars were going considerably slower.  The key question: ◦ Group 1: "About how fast (MPH) were the cars going when they hit each other? ◦ Group 2: "About how fast (MPH) were the cars going when they smashed into each other? ◦ Group 3: Participants in this control group were not interrogated about vehicular speed The Misinformation Effect Loftus & Palmer (1974)

44 Experiment 2  One week later  Without viewing the film again subjects were asked several questions  Embedded randomly in a series of questions is the critical question: "Did you see any broken glass?" The Misinformation Effect Loftus & Palmer (1974)

45  A week after the film:  “Did you see the broken glass?”  Note: No glass was in the film  32% in the “smashed” group said YES  Compared to 14% of the “hit” group  The likelihood of saying YES increased as the estimates of speed increased  Remembering broken glass was more common for participants who had seen “smashed”

46 Possible Conclusions How accurate is Eyewitness Testimony?  A lot is involved here  Perception – can only remember what is perceived This depends on one’s attention level at the time Also, may depend on top-down processing  Memory Trace Replacement Hypothesis MPI impairs or replaces original memories  Retroactive interference Something new (MPI) and this might cause something old to be forgotten

47 Errors of Eyewitness Identification Errors due to Attention  Weapon-focus effect: An eyewitness’s diminished ability to subsequently identify a perpetrator when a weapon was used in a crime Errors due to Familiarity  Just looking familiar can lead to you being accused Errors due to Suggestion  Post-identification feedback effect leads to confident witnesses

48  These are recollections of events or details of an event that did not occur Hyman, Husband, & Billings (1995)  Procedure  Contacted the parents of their adult participants (college students) and asked them to provide descriptions of actual events that happened when the participants were children  The experimenters also created descriptions of false events  Deception was used as participants were told that all the events were supplied by the parents  Participants were asked if they recalled the event and if so to elaborate Creating False Memories?

49  Results  20% of false events were “recalled” and described in some detail by participants  Sometimes it took a follow-up interview for participants to “remember” the false event  Interpretation  Apparently, hearing about the event and then waiting caused the false event to be remembered as being a real event Source monitoring error (source amnesia)  Familiarity Source monitoring error (source amnesia) Creating False Memories? Hyman, Husband, & Billings (1995)

50 Lindsay, Hagen, Read, Wade, Garry (2004)  Partial replication of Hyman, Husband, & Billings (1995)  Participants also viewed a photo of when they were in first or second grade Wade, Garry, Read, & Lindsay (2002)  Hot air balloon study Creating False Memories?

51 Credits  Some of the slides in this presentation prepared with the assistance of the following web sites:  www.tamu.edu/.../Ch%208%20Everyday%20Memory.ppt www.tamu.edu/.../Ch%208%20Everyday%20Memory.ppt  people.auc.ca/brodbeck/3717/episodic.ppt  misskanaley.edublogs.org/.../Cognition-Long-Term-Memory-...  courses.csusm.edu/.../Interactions%20in%20LTM%20--%20C...


Download ppt "PSY 323:Cognition Chapter 8: Everyday Memory & Memory Errors."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google