interactions in long term memory »scripts »false memory ◊misinformation effect ◊source...

• Interactions in Long Term Memory» Scripts» False memory

◊ Misinformation effect◊ Source misattribution◊ Memory and confidence◊ Repressed and recovered memory

» Autobiographical memories◊ Very Long Term Memory ◊ Real World Memories◊ Emotion and Memories

– Flashbulb memories

Study Questions.• Compare and contrast misinformation effects with retroactive interference. • According to research, what do you expect will happen to your knowledge of

Cognitive Psychology over the next several years?

04/20/23

Interactions in Long Term Memory

• Propositions» Empirical support for propositional theory

◊ Content memory vs. technical memory◊ Sachs (1967)

– Participants listened to story – Four test sentences

Identical: Test sentence was identicalHe sent a letter about it to Galileo, the great Italian scientist

Formal: Form was different, meaning preservedHe sent Galileo, the great Italian scientist a letter about it

Voice: Changed from active to passive voiceA letter about it was sent to Galileo, the great Italian scientist

Semantic: The meaning was changedGalileo, the great Italian scientist sent him a letter about it


• Propositions» Empirical support for propositional theory

◊ Content memory vs. technical memory◊ Sachs (1967)


• Propositions» Other Empirical Support

◊ The fan effect

◊ Propositions versus images


• Propositions» Propositions versus images

◊ Richman et al. (1979)


• Scripts -» Large scale semantic and episodic knowledge structures that

guide comprehension» Thorndyke (1975)

1. Story => Setting + Theme + Plot + Resolution2. Setting => Characters + Location + Time3. Theme => (Event) + Goal4. Plot => Episode5. Episode => Subgoal + Attempts + Outcome6. Attempt => Event episode7. Outcome => Event state8. Resolution => Event state9. Subgoal; goal => Desired state10. Characters; location;

Time => Stative (rather than active)


• Scripts» Schank & Abelson (1977)

◊ Headers: Words that activate a script– E.g., Menu, Waiter, etc. activate restaurant script– Two headers will ‘prime’ a script

◊ Frames: details about specific events in the script

◊ Default value: the common, typical concept that occupies a frame– Unmentioned details get filled in with default values

◊ Cognitive ergonomics


• Scripts» Bower et al. (1977)

◊ Asked people to write down component actions of scripts ◊ Determined which were most central or typical

» When events happen that are not in a script, they can be either:◊ More salient and more likely to be remembered

– if they are important story events that interrupt the usual routine of the scriptE.g., The waiter spills coffee. (restaurant script)

◊ Less salient and less likely to be remembered – if they are largely irrelevant “asides”

E.g., The was a picture of a flower on the menu. (restaurant script)


• Scripts» Bower, Black & Turner (1979)

◊ Participants read 18 stories based on scripts

◊ 1, 2, or 3 stories based on each script (I.e., 3 versions )

◊ Not all actions or events included in each story

◊ Recognition test for memory for stories


• Scripts» Bower, Black & Turner (1979)

Scripted Events

Stated Not Stated Other

No. of Scripts

1 5.46 3.91 1.71

2 5.40 4.62 1.76

3 5.59 4.81 1.86

Recognition: 7-point Scale, 1=sure new, 7=sure old


• Scripts» Smith & Graesser (1981)

◊ Memory for typical and atypical script actions

◊ Found better memory for atypical events

» The Script-Pointer-Plus-Tag theory◊ When a script is activated:

– store script in episodic memory

– script represents both stated and inferred typical events

– “tag on” atypical actions of story to script


• Scripts» The Script-Pointer-Plus-Tag theory

◊ Connolly, Hockley & Pratt (1996)– presented 6 different stories based on scripted routines

– typical and atypical actions presented 0-4 times

– surprise frequency test

- subjects asked to judge how often different actions were presented


• Scripts» Connolly, Hockley & Pratt (1996)

Mea

n F

requ

ency

Est

imat

es

4

3

2

1

0

Actual Frequency1 2 3 40

Typical

Atypical


• False Memory» Roediger’s False memory effect

1. (8 X 6) / 3 =

2. (3 + 7 - 2) X 3 =

3. 4 / (2 + 2) + 3 =

4. (6 + 3)/3 + 2 =

5. (23 - 17) X (32 - 15) =

6. (9 + 2 + 3) - (4 + 2 + 5) =

7. (3 X ( 3 X ( 2 + 1))) =

8. (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) X 10% =

9. 33 X 37 =

10. 44 X 46 =

1. Road

2. Chilly

3. Chess

4. Poison

5. Cake

6. Gravel

7. King

8. Bottom

9. Charred

10. Crown

11. Rough

12. Robber

13. Animal

14. Steep

15. Piano

16. Spider

17. Boards

18. Palace

19. Soccer

20. Crawl


• False Memory» Roediger’s False memory effect

100

50

Nonstudied StudyArithmetic

Studyrecall

Pro

port

ion

“Yes

”

Lure Words

List Words


• False Memory» Leading Questions

◊ Loftus & Palmer (1974)– View a film of a car accident.– Tested one week later with different verbs:

◊ How fast was the red car going when it <smashed into/made contact with> the other car?

Smashed: 40.8 mph, contact: 31.8 mph◊ One week later, asked if there had been broken glass (there was not)

Smashed: 32 % - Yes, contact: 14 % - Yes

» Memory Impairment: A genuine change or alteration in memory of an experienced event as a function of some later event


• False Memory» Misinformation Effect

◊ A tendency to remember misinformation

◊ The question about “smashed” was not just a leading question, it was a source of misleading information

◊ Tools, faces, ages, body size, vehicles, signs, etc.

◊ As interference


• False Memory» Source Misattribution: error in identifying the true source of

a memory

» Misinformation Acceptance: accepting that additional information was part of the original memory

» Confidence and accuracy◊ There is little or no relationship between memory accuracy

and confidence◊ Juror instructions


• False Memory» Stronger memory distortions

◊ Repeated exposure◊ Repeated recall of false information◊ Repeated questioning◊ Imagery/hypnosis◊ Occur even when warned about them

» Repressed and recovered memory

Autobiographical Memory

• Episodic vs. Autobiographical memory» Autobiographical memory: The study of one’s lifetime

collection of personal memories.

» The lab meets the real world◊ Ecological validity of cognitive research, revisited

» Pertinence of studying autobiographical memory1. Refers to self

2. Contains memory for very long term events

3. Contains an emotional component


• Autobiographical memory and the self» The self-reference effect» Self schema

◊ Facilitates retrieval

◊ Biases retrieval


• Very Long Term Memory» Bahrick et al. (1975)

◊ 400 participants aged 17-74 yrs

◊ Graduated between 2 wks and 57 yrs earlier– Various memory tasks concerning graduating high school class

– Recognition & Matching

• Names & pictures

– Recall

• Free and picture cued recall


• Very Long Term Memory» Bahrick et al. (1975): Recall


• Very Long Term Memory» Bahrick et al. (1975): Recognition


• Very Long Term Memory» VLTM for spanish (Bahrick, 1884)

◊ Maintenance of Spanish over 50 years

◊ 773 participants (learned Spanish in high school)

◊ Tested on– Reading comprehension

– Recall and recognition

– Vocabulary, grammar and idioms

◊ Findings– Sharpest decline in first 3 yrs

– Then stable for 30 yrs

– “permastore”


• Very Long Term Memory» VLTM for Cognitive Psychology (Conway et al., 1991)

◊ 373 students who completed Cog. Psych. course up to 12 years prior.

◊ Tested on various items– General and specific facts

– Names

– Research methods

– Concepts and concept grouping


• Very Long Term Memory» Recognitition (Conway et al., 1991)


• Very Long Term Memory» Recall (Conway et al., 1991)


• Very Long Term Memory» Real world memories

◊ Linton (1982)– Episodic experiences over 6 yrs

– Wrote down 2 or more events on a card every day

– Every month randomly selected a card

• Attempted to recall and set date

– Found that forgetting was a linear function of time

• 5 % drop in recall each year.



◊ Thematic life events (Schulster, 1989)– Attended the Metropolitan Opera for 25 yrs.

– Attempted to recall 284 performances

– Found a recency and primacy effect

– “Significant” performances were better remembered



◊ Wagenaar, 1986– Recorded 2400 daily events over six years

– Four cue types: What/Who/Where/When/

– Found pleasant events were better remembered at short intervals


• Very Long Term Memory» Memory and Emotion

◊ Emotional events– Trigger amygdala, production of ACl

– Consolidates memory

– Raises overall arousal

• i.e., general processing resourses

– Focusses attention

Central vs. peripheral remembering

“weapon focus”


• Very Long Term Memory» Memory and Emotion

◊ Flashbulb memory– Brown & Kulik (1977)

JFK assassination

– People seem to remember a lot of detail, but is it accurate?

– Neisser & Harsh (1992)

• Interviewed students one day after Columbia explosion

• Re-interviewed three years later, asking the same questions

• Very little agreement with original answers

Consequentiality, I.e., personal relevance.

interactions in long term memory »scripts »false memory ◊misinformation effect ◊source...

Documents