Memory Week 6 notes
Memory Week 6 notes PSYC 460
Popular in Human Memory
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychology
This 10 page Class Notes was uploaded by Becca Sehnert on Sunday October 2, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSYC 460 at University of Nebraska Lincoln taught by Dr. Bob Belli in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 6 views. For similar materials see Human Memory in Psychology at University of Nebraska Lincoln.
Reviews for Memory Week 6 notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/02/16
Involuntary Memories 1 What they are Involuntary autobiographical memories ▯ Definition – a past personal experience or a memory “fragment” of one’s past that arises into consciousness without any attempt to retrieve a past experience, or this past experience, from memory Modern conceptions of involuntary memories ▯ Very common ▯ Can be of recent experiences ▯ Can be both pleasant and unpleasant ▯ Can be cued by something external (a perception, an object), or something internal (a thought, a change in mood, another memory) ▯ Daydreams may consist of them ▯ Often ignored by psychologists as the focus has been on voluntary retrieval tasks – (e.g., cue word methodology) 1 Can anyone relate an involuntary memory that you had (in group)? ▯ Involuntary memories are not – Nonconscious skills – such as remembering how to ride a bike, play the piano, or to type – Any influence of the past on our behavior that happens without our awareness – Imaginations (without associated memories) – Memories of culturally known facts ▯ Involuntary memories may be – Episodic--relivings of one’s own past – Generic—a summarized or general event ▯ Involuntary memories are believed to be true Your assignment ▯ Record 12 involuntary memories via questionnaires ▯ Fleeting – Helpful to have a pocket size notebook to immediately record ▯ key phrases of what is remembered ▯ What cued the memory ▯ Fill out questionnaire later ▯ As before, a 3-5 page report ▯ Can find pdf of important Berntsen article on blackboard to address many points that are asked for this assignment Theories of involuntary memories ▯ Aesthetic – Focuses on the positive feelings of remembering ▯ Motivational – Focuses on the purpose of the memories ▯ Information Processing – Focuses on the cues that lead to the retrieval of the memories ▯ Ecological – Attempts to account for all the properties of involuntary memories 2 Aesthetic view of involuntary memories ▯ Occur rarely (wrong!!) ▯ Event is long forgotten ▯ Are from events that happened long ago (childhood) ▯ Usually perceptually cued by external stimuli Aesthetic view of characteristics of involuntary memories ▯ A “magical” reliving of the past ▯ Brought back in time (a then becomes a now) – A strong sense of joy ▯associated with remembering itself ▯Precedes remembering the content of the what is remembered ▯The content is pleasant, nevertheless ▯ Content is a complete personal event memory Proust’s memory (aesthetic) ▯ And suddenly the memory returns . And once I had recognized the taste of the crumb of madeleine immediately the old grey house, where [my aunt’s] room was, rose up like the scenery of a theatreand with the house the town , the streets along which I used to run errands, the country roads we took when the weather was fine. 3 Motivational Theories ▯ Involuntary memories – Occur frequently, such as during daydreaming – May be both positive and negative in content – Serve purposes ▯ To satisfy pleasure or reality principles (psychoanalytic) ▯ Cognitive purposes – Help in planning or problem solving – To maintain arousal when bored ▯ Coming to terms with trauma – Involuntary memories are themselves traumatic or that deal with a current despondent state – Post-traumatic stress disorder Information processing theories: Activation and Associations ▯ Activation of involuntary memories – Contingent on cues in the retrieval situation – Cues are contained in the structure of autobiographical memory ▯ Activation has been hypothesized due to – Associations based on similarity ▯ A current event reminds us of a similarly occurring past event ▯ Being in dentist’s waiting room reminds one of being in dentist’s waiting room before – Associations based on contiguity ▯ Based on two things that have occurred together to be retrieved together ▯ Taste of madeleine and Aunt’s house – Even though the madeleine is being tasted in a restuarant Information processing theories: Cue overload ▯ Cue overload – Many past events may qualify ▯ uneven footing and remembering Venice ▯ Uneven footing happens frequently – May cue a number of different involuntary memories ▯ Why this particular event is remembered? ▯ Involuntary memories – More likely to happen in nonfocused state in which the activation of possible cues becomes enlarged 4 Bernsten’s Ecological Theory: Current Life Situation ▯ Current life situation provides motivation – Past and future orientation ▯ Plans, expectancies, goals (future) ▯ Salient past events that frame one’s orientation to the future ▯ Reflective orientation to the past needed to frame a life story Bernsten’s Ecological Theory: Motivation and Information Processing ▯ Life situation primes clusters of thematically related ABMs ▯ Immediate situation provides cues ▯ Those clusters most informative to satisfy expectancies of future most likely to be involuntarily remembered ▯ Involuntary memories most likely to occur in diffused state – When immediate situati on not attention-demanding – person’s thoughts wander – An appraisal of life situation occurs – A relevant cue in immediate situation triggers a memory 5 Eyewitness_1 Lineup identifications The lineup (and show-up) Live line-up Photo-array line-up What type of retrieval task? Free recall, cued recall, recognition Social Psychological Factors? Show-up Expert Witness ▯ Armed robbery at Omaha 7-11 ▯18-year old African American woman as witness ▯Given a 6-person photo-array which included the police suspect (target-present) ▯At deposition, witness testifies ▯ Told to select the individual who most resembles the armed robber ▯ That of the 6 individuals ▯ Only one was of direct African descent ▯ The rest were AfricanAmericans ▯ And that the robber was of direct African descent 1 Biased lineup instructions ▯ Leading instruction implies that the suspect is in the line-up ▯ we have a firm suspect, and others have identified him from this array” ▯ Unbiased would instruct that the suspect may or may not be present ▯ Pressure instruction fails to offer the option not to choose ▯ “please choose the lineup member whom you believe is the robber” ▯ Unbiased would provide an option not to choose Biased/unbiased meta-analysis (Cultler & Penrod, 1995) ▯ 8 experiments ▯ Typically shown a crime with a perpetrator ▯ Both target-present and target-absent lineups ▯ Biased instructions lead to more frequent identifications in comparison to unbiased instructions Target-present correctTarget-absent false biased unbiased biased unbiased Means .50 .53 .74 .38 Biased/unbiased meta-analysis (Steblay, 1997) ▯ 22 experiments ▯ Confirmed results of Cutler & Penrod ▯ With biased instructions ▯ Target-absent lineups led to as much choosing as target-present lineups ▯ Combining leading and pressure instructions (in comparison to either alone) ▯ Increased identifications ▯ Increased false identifications in target-absent lineups 2 Lineup Fairness: Functional Size ▯Witnesses often are given a general description of the suspect ▯The suspect has a beard ▯The suspect is clean-shaven Determining functional size ▯ Mock witnesses ▯ Given description and a lineup ▯ Determine how many choose the suspect ▯ Functional size = N / N choosing suspect ▯ If 15 of 30 mock witnesses choose suspect, FS = 30/15 = 2 (fair or unfair) ▯ If 10 of 30, FS = 3.3; if 5 of 30, FS = 6 ▯ What makes a fair lineup? ▯ Brigham et al (1990) found that 3 of 6 actual lineups had a FS = 1.59 ▯ What’s the functional size of a show-up? The suspect has webbed feet . 3 Postidentification Feedback -- Method Lampinen et al (2007) ▯ Computer administered ▯ Ps shown video with culprit ▯ Target-absent lineup of 6 individuals ▯ After identification ▯ Half Ps told “Correct! You identified the correct suspect!” ▯ Ratings on different questions immediately followed Postidentification Feedback – Results (1) Question No Feed Feedback Confidence in correct ID (1=not at all3.42 5.33 certain to 7=absolutely certain How good a view of culprit (1=very poo4.45 5.09 7=very good) Length of time culprit’s face shown in3.74eo 4.64 (1=very little time to 7=quite a bit of time) Ability to make out specific features 3.71 4.79 culprit’s face (1=not at all to 7=very well) How much attention paid to culprit (1=4.81 5.48 to 7=total attention) Postidentification Feedback – Results (2) Question No Feed Feedback Feel have basis for making identificat3.26 5.36 (1=no basis to 7=very good basis) Willingness to testify in court (1=not2.68all 4.88 willing to 7=totally willing) How good memory for faces of strangers4.03 5.09 encountered only once (1=very poor to 7=excellent) How clear image in memory of the culpr4.03 5.09 (1=not at all clear to 7=very clear) 4 Confidence and accuracy ▯ Witness not aware of reconstructions – the phenomenal experience of remembering ▯ Confidence tends to increase with time ▯ Yet, highly confident witnesses at time of identification are usually more accurate ▯ Assuming ▯Fair lineup ▯no postidentification feedback ▯ With target-absent lineups ▯Witnesses show lower confidence with biased instructions and feel that they must choose Group exercise: What would you do in constructing and presenting a lineup? 5
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'