Psych346 - 1
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Flashbulb Memory Definition
- memories for CIRCUMSTANCES in which one learned of a very surprising or emotionally arousing event. The flashbulb memory is not about the event itself. It's about how YOU FOUND OUT about it.
- Why are flashbulb memories hard to study?
- 1. hard to study because you have to catch people right as the event is happening. -Usually when something like this happens, you are busy. -Have to pass it quickly through the IRB. 2.Even if you act quickly, you might not be able to...you're asking people about emotional things that might make them upset. 3. Hard to keep track of people. People move, die, etc.
- Brown and Kulick 1977 - what were they interested in?
- Coined the term "flashbulb memory". -Flashbulb --> Like Photographic. Well preserved in a way that others aren't. -intrigued by the idea that there might be a special biological mechanism. -wondered if there is an evolutionary advantage to having such a biological mechanism.
- Brown and Kulick 1977 Experiment Set Up
- 1. Chose events that should all be unexpected 2. Events varied in emotion and consequentiality 3. 40 blacks and 40 whites 4.Asked: is there a difference in emotion/consequentiality? 5. Differences in people to incorporate a variety of different people that people might or might not identify with or who some people would think is more important than others. Example: Malcolm X vs. Medgar Evans. Or Dictator of Spain --most people in the U.S. might not get as worked up about him. 6. Asked: Do you remember the circumstances under which you heard about this event? If yes, then the people described it.
- What 6 features did they find for flashbulb memories?
- 1. Where were you? 2. What were you doing? 3. Who told you/how did you find out? 4. Feelings of others 5. Own emotional feeling 6. Aftermath (Except for personal events.. less mention of Others' feelings, and more mention about what the event was and who it was about.)
- 3 things Brown and Kulick looked at
- 1. content coding - what kind of information does this have? 2.consequentiality: "what are the consequences for my life?" 3.rehearsal: How often did you talk to others about the event?
- Explain the Model for the accounts of flashbulb memories
- Surprise --> Consequentiality --> Flashbulb Memory --> Rehearsal --> Accounts of Flashbulb Memory -If completely unsurprising/boring, then won't remember it. However, if way too surprising, then won't remember it at all. Needs to be just surprising enough that it goes to the "consequentiality box." -Consequentiality (how important it is). If it's not very important (example: dropping a book) then won't remember it. -Flashbulb Memory: this is where you remember it -Rehearsal: certain parts you repeat -accounts of flashbulb memory (make into a personal story)
- Brown and Kulick - What correlations did they find?
- Strong links between consequentiality ratings, # of rehearsals, # of content categories (where, who, etc), and length -supports model
- Flashbulb memories are NOT ______________ (unless _______________), but for the __________________
- 1. Flashbulb memories are not for the event itself 2. (unless you were involved), but 3. for the circumstances in which you heard the news.
- In our confidence scores, we were more confident in ______ than ________.
- more confident in general things than specifics
- What don't we know about the memories reported by B&K's participants?
- if the memory accounts are correct. example: Neisser talks about hearing a baseball game during the attacks of Pearl Harbor. No baseball in December
- Neisser and Harsch 1992 Experiment
- Challenger Explosion -Asked people about the event the morning after and then 3 years later.
- What is the assumption in Neisser and Harsch 1992 experiment? What do they measure? Findings?
- That you remember what happened to you the day before. Measure:Trying to measure accuracy... to measure accuracy, they measure consistency Findings: 3 years later, a lot of people are inconsistent
- Talarico and Rubin, 2003, experiment. Compare what to what? Asked: _____?
- Compare FLASHBULB MEMORIES to EVERYDAY memories. -Asked: Do these kinds of memories track the same or differently over time?/ Are the memories for September 11 better than memories for ordinary events? The flashbulb memory is 9/11. The everyday memory is a memory that happened that day or so before. Rate each on: vividness, emotion, rehearsals, etc. Compare over 1 week, 6 weeks, 32 weeks and compare changes
- Strengths of the Talarico and Rubin study
- Picked something relatively close in time
- Weaknesses of the Talarico and Rubin study
- 1. could do it over a longer time span 2. In one experiment you are choosing the event, but then in the 2nd, you are having them pick the event. They might favor an event that they remember better.
- Results of T&R
- Results: -The number of details remembered about September 11 and the everyday event were statistically indistinguishable. -Most memories were consistent, and while the number of consistent details did decline, there was no difference in decline for one type of memory over the other. What WAS different: the CONFIDENCE and VIVIDNESS of the memories. -Participants were more likely to believe their memories of 9/11 were accurate than their ordinary memories, and they reported these events as being equally vivid, even months after the event. -They said the ordinary events were less vivid, even though they could remember no more details about 9/11 than an ordinary event.
- What did T&R's experiment show about the problem with B&K's study?
- So it appears that the flaw in Brown and Kulik's research was the fact that they believed their participants' reports that flashbulb memories are more accurate than ordinary memories. When the accuracy of memories is checked, it turns out that flashbulb memories are no different from other memories.
- Loma Prieta Earthquake Study (Neisser 1996)
- Looked at people's memories in CA -right at the scene (UC Santa Barba) -in CA but not at the scene (Berkley) -not in CA (Emory... in Atlanta) Results: -people in CA remembered the events much better than people in Atlanta -Also better at remembering earthquake related event better than people in Atlanta (falling of the bridge) -People in Atlanta who had relatives were better at remembering the event than those who didn't have relatives Arousal Ratings: -many CAs did not report having high arousal/stress during the event; -Arousal ratings not significantly correlated with recall -suggest that repeated rehearsal may be due to the improved recall
- Bridge vs. Earthquake -- Flashbulb?
- Bridge: like a flashbulb memory Earthquake: not really like flashbulb or event because they experienced it
- Earthquake study (1996) compared to the challenger study (1992)
- people were more accurate (55% to 42%) in the earthquake study (1.5 years to 3 years). Maybe it's just because the big forgetting hadn't happened yet?
- How does Neisser's Earthquake study relate to the B&K flashbulb memory model?
- Rehearsal. It's more likely that the people in CA (or those with relatives in CA who lived in Atlanta) talked about it than those who just lived in Atlanta. However, there's no data for rehearsal. As for surprise: -no correlation between arousal and accuracy in study. -Neisser didn't like the idea of consequentiality because he believed that false memory is about how you heard of the event. How does this relate to how it effects your life?
- Summary on Flashbulb memories: 1.Major events lead to memories that _____, but people ______ 2. Greater _______ does not necessarily mean greater ______ 3. Degree of ________ may play a role 4. Role of ____ is not clear and may change over time
- 1. at least feel special (seen by B&K's study of people of different races), but people can make big mistakes (as seen by accuracy of the challenger study) 2. Greater BELIEF does not necessarily mean greater CONSISTENCY 3. Degree of PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT may play a role (seen in earthquake study) 4. Role of REHEARSAL (earthquake study)
- What two types of memories did Hirst et al look at?
- Flashbulb Memories Event Memories
- What 4 things was Hirst et al looking for?
- 1. Rate of forgetting over long term (1 to 3 years). Specifically, is it the same or different for flashbulb and event memories? 2. What factors predict consistency/accuracy? (for flashbulb and event memories) 3. How does the content change over time? -How does confidence change over time? (for flashbulb and event) 4. Do the same or different processes seem to underlie forgetting of flashbulb and event memories?
- How did Hirst measure consistency?
- Step 1: Compared Survey 2 to Survey 1 Step 2: Compared Survey 3 to Survey 1 & 2. -Did it stay the same? -Did they go back to 2? -Did they go back to 1? -Become something else?
- What are the factors that influence event memory? Why is this?
- Media attention and ensuing conversation --can fix memories this way. Assumption: that the news is right.
- What are the factors that influence flashbulb memories?
- none. can't correct flashbulb memories. We have no way of knowing if they're actually correct or not.
- How does emotions play into flashbulb and event memories?
- Flashbulb and event memories are both influenced by emotion. (influence of emotion on memory) People not very good at remembering their emotions, though. (memory FOR emotion)
- Why is Sharot et all (compared 9/11 with summer memory) not the best study for flashbulb memories?
- 1. Summertime memories might not be the best control because they are happy memories.
- What did Sharot's study (9/11 vs. summer memory) show?
- Showed distance does matter, but not necessarily the only thing. In general, the closer you were, the more you were probably thinking about it and recollecting.
- What did Sharot's study (9/11 vs. summer memory) show about brain activation?
- Less activation in the parahippacampal vs. more activation in the amygdala (Less activation tied to detail vs. more activation tied to emotion) Fits well with the info that says that emotion influences memory.
- 6 canonical features of flashbulb memories
- 1. The sources of info/how they learned it 2. Where they were 3. What they were doing before hand 4. What they did/what happened immediately afterwards 5. How they felt 6. How others felt
- What is an event memory?
- Memory for the FACTS about the flashbulb event
- Three categories Hirst et al is interested in
- 1. CONSISTENCY of flashbulb memories 2. ACCURACY of event memories 3. PREDICTORS for the first survey (For later surveys, they were also interested in CONFIDENCE)
- In the Hirst paper, what kinds of information about event memory showed decline across surveys?
- The names of airline carriers
- In the Hirst paper, what did they say did NOT decline?
- Crash sites and order of events
- What is the Michael Moore effect?
- The idea that the people who saw the Michael Moore film remember where President Bush was during the attacks. Shows that paying attention to media can cause one to correct their event memory. (corrected memory from 2 to 3 after they got it from going from 1 to 2, but then they saw the movie...)
- According to the Hirst paper, the rate of forgetting _______ over time for ______ flashbulb memories and event memories (when looked at the retention time of one to three years)
- SLOWS BOTH
- How did the Hirst paper address the question of looking at there are similar patterns of forgetting for flashbulb and event memories?
- 1. Looked to see if the factors that predict consistency (flashbulb memories) and accuracy (event memories) are the same. 2. Also, how does the content change over the long term for flashbulb memories and event memories?
- Changes in content of memories over time: Flashbulb Memories: Inconsistencies are ______ over time Event Memories: Mistakes are _______ over time
- 1. repeated 2. corrected
- How is the content different in flashbulb and event memories?
- Event memories are forming around accurate remembrances of the past Flashbulb memories are forming around personally accepted notions, even if they are inconsistent
- What is similar about forgetting for flashbulb and event memories?
- Pattern of rate of forgetting was the same for flashbulb and event memories. Fast at first, then slows down.
- What is different about flashbulb and event memories?
- 1. the content 2. the predictors
- List the 7 recommendations from the IES article
- 1. Space learning over time 2. Interleave worked example solutions with problem solving exercises 3. Combine graphics with verbal descriptions 4. Connect and integrate abstract and concrete representations of concepts 5. Use quizzing to promote learning a. Use prequestions to introduce topics b. Use quizzes to re-expose students to key content 6. Help students allocate study time efficiently a. Teach students how to use delayed judgments of learning to identify which content needs further study b. Use tests and quizzes to identify items that need to be further studied 7. Ask deep explanatory questions
- 3 critical features of the cue-only judgment of learning procedure
- 1) Students should test themselves of their mastery of a set of concepts after a meaningful delay (for instance, an hour, a day, a week, etc) 2) When testing themselves, it’s best to not have the answer in front of them. Instead, only have the question/cue. 3) Students should judge how likely they are to get the correct answer on the quiz, as opposed to just trying to generate the answer.
- Questions that prompt deep explanations
- 1. Why? 2. Why not? 3. How? 4. What if? 5. How does X compare to Y? 6. What is the evidence for X?
- Studying: Increasing Difficulty
- 1. increase spacing 2. "fading" from concrete to abstract
- Interim Tests
- 1. quizzes 2. flashcards 3. practice tests 4. Review fill in the blank notes
- Cepeda et al 2008 (Looked at spacing effects) Describe Study
- Varied the time between study episode 1 and study episode 2 as well as the amount of time from the test to the last time studied quizzed at the beginning of the term. If the person knew the answer, they eliminated it. (Can't test someone on learning, if they already know the information.)
- 1. Capeda: Is more time between study episodes always better? 2. Which is worse: to study too close together or too far apart?
- 1. No. 2. Too close together is worse
- Spacing effects does not work for:
- Perceptual categorization stuff (does work for: facts, vocab, language learning, math skills)
- Easier to initially understand, but less likely to apply that knowledge to a new situation
- Concrete
- If presentation is ______, harder to understand, but can apply the understanding in a different context
- abstract
- Concrete Fadedness (definition) goes to ---> ______
- Blank: analogical transfer Definition: start with something concrete; gradually take pieces away to make it more abstract. allows you to transfer your knowledge onto similar situations or analogous problems
- Analogical Transfer
- ants problem -being able to recognize the similarity and transfer knowledge to a different problem
- Complexity of Graphics: what to know
- Detailed graphics not always good because can be distracting from the actual main point
- Why don't the suggestions get used consistently in your classes?
- 1. Many professors have little or no formal training in teaching. 2. Not all methods are a good fit for all classes 3. Time! 4. Poor feedback/participation/evaluations from students 5. (Lack of deep questions --> teaching to standardized tests (no child left behind))
- Why don't students use the recommendations?
- Too much time/difficulty Study showed that students think that reading before lecture is more effective, but they don't actually read before lecture because they also think it's more difficult
- Desirable difficulty
- Conditions that make learning SLOWER AND MORE DIFFICULT, but lead to better long term learning and memory, and/or an improved ability to apply the knowledge to new situations Desirable because increase processing that encourages comprehension and memory (deep processing) Caveat: must be attainable Example: Reading through notes is an easy thing to do, but making up tests/flash cards is harder, though it will help you learn the material better for later on
- The problem with desirable difficulty
- We are bad at knowing what we know (metacognition)
- Metacognition
- Knowing what we know
- Conditions that lead to fast/easy learning and immediate good performance usually lead to ______ memory and generalization
- poor
- 3 Critical Features of Breaking the Illusion of Knowing
- 1. Wait to test yourself 2. Cue-Only Testing -->Only the question, NOT MC or TF 3. Think about whether you are likely to remember the information LATER (if it was a lucky guess, needs more learning)
- Testing Effect
- Taking a test promotes learning (often better than studying does)...actually getting better at retrieving information
- Prequestions: Good: The Problem: How to solve:
- Good: may help students identify what they don't already know and what they do already know -may activate related knowledge Problem: may feel obvious, may be tempted to ONLY focus on prequestion material How to solve: be clear that they are responsible for ALL material, change formats, focus on explanations for the questions (deep processing)
- Deep processing
- the idea that you're thinking about the meaning of something, making connections to other things
- Deep/surface structure is related to abstract
- Deep structure is related to abstract because it is the essence of the problem... what doesn't change.