PSY 323:Cognition

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

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

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)

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)

Autobiographical Memory 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)

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

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

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

Why do we have the reminiscence bump? Some explanations

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)

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 

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

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)

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

Memory & Emotion 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 See next slide 

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

Memory & Emotion 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 words • Emotional pictures more easily recognized in recall test See next slide 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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”

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

The Misinformation Effect 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 Loftus & Palmer (1974)

The Misinformation Effect 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?" Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Loftus & Palmer (1974) • 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”

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

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

Creating False Memories? • 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? • 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) Hyman, Husband, & Billings (1995)

Creating False Memories? 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

PSY 323:Cognition