Memory Revision Notes

Memory is the AQA A-level Psychology topic covering how information is encoded, stored, and retrieved, why it is sometimes forgotten, and how memory errors affect eyewitness testimony. It covers the multi-store model, the working memory model, explanations for forgetting, and the factors that affect eyewitness accuracy.

How This Topic Is Assessed

Paper 1: Structure and Marks

Memory is examined in Paper 1: Introductory Topics in Psychology, alongside Social Influence, Attachment, and Clinical Psychology and Mental Health.

At full A-level, Paper 1 is a 2-hour exam worth 96 marks (33.3% of the A-level grade), split into four sections of 24 marks each. Memory is Section B.

Students sitting the standalone AS qualification instead take a shorter, 1-hour-30-minute, 72-mark version with only the first three sections. The Memory content itself is identical at AS and A-level.

Questions mix multiple-choice, short-answer, and extended-writing formats.

The Three Assessment Objectives (AO1, AO2, AO3)

Every question on this paper is marked against the same three assessment objectives used across A-level Psychology.

• AO1 (Knowledge and understanding): accurate description of a model, explanation, or study, such as the components of the working memory model or Loftus and Palmer’s procedure.
• AO2 (Application): applying memory concepts to a novel scenario or set of results. A common format is a short experimental scenario that must be explained using a named model.
• AO3 (Analysis, interpretation, and evaluation): evaluating a model using supporting or contradictory evidence, methodological critique, and comparison with alternative explanations.

Extended-writing questions (16 marks at A-level, 12 at AS) use the same 4-band mark scheme as the rest of the paper. A “discuss” question expects both description and evaluation.

Where a question gives a scenario, AO2 marks are only awarded for explicit, named links between the scenario and the model. Simply restating the scenario earns no credit.

AO2 Exam Technique: The Two-Sentence Method

A reliable way to earn application marks: state the relevant psychological knowledge in one sentence, then immediately name the specific detail from the question it explains.

“STM has a limited capacity of around 7±2 items [AO1]. An 11-digit mobile number exceeds this limit, which is why it cannot be held in STM without deliberate rehearsal [AO2].”

Quoting a short phrase directly from the question, and using linking language such as “this suggests that…” or “in this case…”, is explicitly rewarded.

Multi-Store Model

Students will be expected to know:

• The multi-store model of memory: sensory register, short-term memory and long-term
  memory.
• Features of each store: coding, capacity and duration.

The multi-store model of memory: sensory register, short-term memory and long-term memory. Features of each store: coding, capacity and duration.

Strengths of the Multi-Store Model

AO3

1. Influential as a Foundational Model:

The Multi-Store Model was the first cognitive explanation of memory, shifting focus from purely biological explanations.

It provided a coherent framework for understanding memory processes and stimulated significant research and interest in the field of memory.

Its structural nature and clear distinctions between stores laid the groundwork for subsequent, more complex memory models.

2. Acknowledges Qualitative Differences:

The MSM correctly identifies real qualitative differences between STM and LTM. STM codes acoustically and LTM codes semantically, and the two stores also differ in capacity and duration.

This distinction, supported by research like Baddeley’s studies on coding, contributes to its accurate portrayal of memory.

3. Empirical Evidence for Separate Stores:

AO1 or AO3

Research studies can either be knowledge or evaluation:

• If you refer to the procedures and findings of a study, this shows knowledge and understanding (AO1).
• If you comment on what the studies show and what it supports and challenges the theory in question, this shows evaluation (AO3).

Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) and Murdock (1962)

When given a word list, participants remember words from the beginning (the primacy effect) and the end (the recency effect) far better than the middle. This is the serial-position effect.

The first words are rehearsed more and transferred to a long-term store, while the last words are still sitting in a short-term store. This supports the idea of functionally separate memory stores.

Case studies of individuals with brain damage

A well-known example is Patient HM, who, after brain surgery to treat epilepsy, was unable to form new long-term memories but retained his short-term memory.

This suggests that damage to one store (LTM) does not necessarily affect the other (STM), providing evidence for their separate existence.

Weaknesses/Criticisms of the Multi-Store Model

AO3

1. Oversimplification of Short-Term Memory (STM):

A significant criticism is that the MSM presents STM as a single, unitary store. Evidence from case studies challenges this.

Shallice and Warrington (1970) studied patient KF, who suffered impaired short-term memory for verbal information after a motorbike accident but retained his visual short-term memory.

This suggests STM is not one single store. It likely has separate components for different types of information, such as verbal and visual.

This gap directly led Baddeley and Hitch (1974) to develop the more detailed Working Memory Model, which described STM as an active, multi-component system.

2. Oversimplification of Long-Term Memory (LTM):

The MSM is criticised for treating LTM as a single, unitary store. Later research shows LTM is made up of several distinct types:

• Procedural memory: memory for actions and motor skills (e.g., tying shoelaces, riding a bike).
• Episodic memory: memories of personal, experienced events (e.g., a birthday party, first day of school).
• Semantic memory: memories for knowledge or factual information (e.g., capital of Sweden).

Clive Wearing’s case study makes the point sharply. Severe brain damage destroyed his episodic memory, yet his procedural memory for playing the piano survived intact.

This contradicts the idea of LTM as one single store. Because the MSM ignores these different types of LTM, its explanation of how memory works is incomplete.

3. Over-Emphasis on Rehearsal:

The MSM suggests that maintenance rehearsal (repetition) is the primary way information transfers from STM to LTM.

This is an oversimplification. Craik and Lockhart (1972/1973) argued that the type or depth of processing matters more than the amount of rehearsal.

A common criticism illustrates this: students who read revision notes many times still struggle to remember them, yet easily recall a celebrity magazine article read only once.

Meaningfulness drives LTM transfer more than repetition does. Deeper processing, not mere rehearsal, is what the MSM’s linear model fails to capture.

4. Artificiality of Supporting Research (Lack of Ecological Validity):

Many studies that support the MSM use highly controlled laboratory tasks. Peterson and Peterson’s (1959) research on STM duration, for example, used consonant trigrams and backward counting.

These artificial tasks rarely resemble everyday memory use.

This lack of ecological validity limits how far the findings can be generalised beyond the laboratory, raising questions about the model’s real-world applicability.

5. Passive Nature of Stores:

The MSM portrays memory stores as passive containers that simply hold information.

This contrasts with later models like the Working Memory Model, which describe STM as an active processor that manipulates and works with information.

This more dynamic view of short-term memory is seen as a significant improvement over the MSM’s simpler, passive representation.

6. Linear and Unitary Assumptions:

The model assumes a strictly linear flow of information from one store to the next.

It is plausible that some information bypasses STM and goes directly to LTM. More complex interactions may occur too.

The model’s claim that STM and LTM are entirely unitary stores has also faced serious challenge. The Working Memory Model offers a far more detailed and accurate account of short-term memory.

Working Memory Model

Students will be expected to know:

• The working memory model: central executive, phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad
  and episodic buffer.
• Features of the model: coding and capacity.

The working memory model: central executive, phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad and episodic buffer. Features of the model: coding and capacity.

AO1

The working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974) replaced the idea of a unitary STM.

The Multi-Store Model treated STM as a passive, unitary store. The WMM instead views it as an active, multi-component system that stores, processes, and manipulates information.

Components of the Working Memory Model

The WMM consists of four key components: the central executive, the phonological loop, the visuo-spatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer.

1. Central Executive (CE):

This is considered the “control center” or “boss” of the working memory system, responsible for its supervisory function.

It directs information to the other components (known as “slave systems”) and allocates attention to tasks.

It’s crucial for higher-level thinking processes such as concentration, planning, and problem-solving.

The central executive decides what information to pay attention to and what to ignore, especially when dealing with a lot of information that could overload working memory.

It can process information from any sensory modality.

2. Phonological Loop (PL):

This component stores and processes verbal and auditory information.

It functions as a limited-capacity, temporary storage system for holding verbal information in a speech-based form.

It also plays a key role in the development of reading.

Sub-components:

The phonological loop is split into two parts:

1. Phonological Store (Inner Ear): This part holds speech-based information and receives and stores sounds.
2. Articulatory Control Process (Inner Voice): This is where verbal information is rehearsed, helping to prepare speech and think in words. For example, when you repeat a phone number to remember it, your “inner voice” is at work.

3. Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (VSS):

This component stores and manipulates visual and spatial information, acting like an “inner eye”.

It helps you picture things, such as the layout of a room or a famous landmark. It combines visual and spatial information from other stores into a single “complete picture”.

Sub-components:

Some researchers, like Logie, suggest the VSS can be broken down into two processors:

1. Visual Cache: A passive store for forms and color.
2. Inner Scribe: An active store that holds information about the relationship between objects in 3D space, records their arrangement, and rehearses/transfers information to the central executive.

4. Episodic Buffer (EB):

This component was added to the model by Baddeley in 2000 to address some shortcomings and explain how information is effectively combined.

It acts as a “backup” or temporary store.

Its main job is to combine different types of data (auditory, visual, spatial) from the other slave systems. It also pulls in information from long-term memory (LTM), combining everything into one coherent representation.

This makes it crucial for linking STM to LTM. It is “modality free,” meaning it can store and process both visual and verbal short-term memories.

For example, when reading a book, it helps recall and integrate visual images and other details from LTM into your current working memory.

Features of the Model: Coding and Capacity

Coding:

• The Phonological Loop primarily uses acoustic coding (sound-based).
• The Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad uses visual and spatial coding.
• The Central Executive can process information from any sensory modality.
• The Episodic Buffer is modality free, integrating various types of coded information.

Capacity:

• The Central Executive has a very limited capacity, able to manage only one stream of information at a time. Some sources suggest it’s limited to 4 items plus or minus one.
• The Phonological Loop has a limited capacity, typically what can be articulated or rehearsed in about 2 seconds. This is supported by the “word length effect,” where people recall more short monosyllabic words than longer polysyllabic ones.
• The Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad also has a limited capacity, estimated at around 4-5 chunks.

Supporting Evidence and Strengths

The Working Memory Model is supported by several lines of research:

1. Case Studies (e.g., KF):

The case study of patient KF, who suffered brain damage from a motorcycle accident, provides strong support for the WMM.

KF showed impaired short-term memory for verbal information but relatively intact visual short-term memory.

This suggests that the components of memory that process auditory and visual stimuli (the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad) are separate systems, as proposed by the WMM.

2. Dual-Task Studies:

These experiments show people can do two tasks at once with little interference, as long as the tasks use different components of working memory. Performance drops when both tasks compete for the same component.

For instance, Claire can search photos (visual) and listen to music (auditory) at the same time. But she struggles to read emails (verbal) while talking on the phone (verbal), because both draw on the phonological loop.

Bryan, an experienced driver, can drive (visuo-spatial) and hold a conversation (phonological loop) at the same time. Bob, a novice driver, cannot: driving demands all his attention.

This supports separate slave systems, each with the central executive allocating resources between them.

AO1 or AO3

As above, a study’s procedure and findings show knowledge (AO1); what it supports or challenges shows evaluation (AO3).

Baddeley and Hitch conducted an experiment in which participants performed two tasks at once (the dual-task technique). One task used digits, the other used words.

The digit span task asked participants to repeat a growing list of numbers. The verbal reasoning task asked them to answer true or false to questions such as “B is followed by A?”.

Results: digit-list length barely slowed their answers. They made no more errors, either.

Conclusion: the verbal reasoning task used the central executive; the digit span task used the phonological loop.

3. Brain Scanning Evidence:

Studies using PET scans and fMRI add physiological evidence.

Paulesu et al. (1993) used PET scans and found that different parts of the phonological loop activated distinct brain areas. The articulatory control process lit up Broca’s area; the phonological store activated elsewhere. The two regions are separate.

Braver et al. (1997) found prefrontal cortex activity rising with the cognitive load on the central executive. This fits its proposed role in allocating attention.

Neuroscanning research also shows different brain areas activate for verbal versus visual tasks: the phonological loop for verbal tasks, the visuo-spatial sketchpad for visual ones.

Prabhakaran et al.’s (2000) fMRI study found the right frontal cortex was preferentially active when integrating different types of information into working memory. Baddeley himself later linked this finding to the episodic buffer.

4. Active Processor View:

The WMM’s view of STM as an active processor, capable of manipulating information, is a significant strength over the Multi-Store Model’s passive view.

It provides a better account of STM than the Multi-Store Model.

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite its strengths, the Working Memory Model also faces criticisms:

1. Vague Nature of the Central Executive:

A common criticism is that the central executive is too vague and poorly defined.

Its exact role, particularly in terms of attention and decision-making, remains unclear and largely untestable.

Even Alan Baddeley, one of the model’s proposers, admitted it’s the “most important but the least understood component”.

Some psychologists suggest it might be divided into separate sub-components for different functions like focusing or switching attention.

2. Reliance on Lab Studies:

Many of the studies supporting the WMM, especially dual-task experiments, are conducted under highly controlled laboratory conditions.

This can lead to a lack of ecological validity or mundane realism. Lab tasks feel artificial. So findings may not reflect how memory works in everyday life.

Demand characteristics, where participants behave differently because they know they are being studied, can also be a problem.

3. Unitary Nature of the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad:

Some research challenges the idea of a single, unitary visuo-spatial sketchpad.

For example, Walber et al. (2011) found that people blind from birth could understand spatial layouts using touch, activating similar brain areas to sighted individuals.

This suggests that spatial awareness might be separate from visual processing, implying the VSS may need to be further divided into distinct visual and spatial components.

4. Limited Explanation for LTM and Musical Memory:

The model has been criticized for not fully explaining the link between working memory and Long-Term Memory.

Additionally, it fails to account for musical memory; for instance, people can listen to instrumental music without impairing performance on other acoustic tasks, which the model struggles to explain.

5. Limitations of Case Study Evidence:

While case studies like KF provide valuable insights, they involve unique individuals with traumatic experiences, making it difficult to generalize findings to the wider population. T

The trauma itself might contribute to the cognitive changes, making it hard to pinpoint the exact cause of the memory deficits.

AO2 Scenario Question

Bryan has been driving for five years. Whilst driving, Bryan can hold conversations or listen to music with little difficulty.

Bob has had four driving lessons. Driving requires so much of Bob’s concentration that, during lessons, he often misses what his driving instructor is telling him.

With reference to features of the working memory model, explain the different experiences of Bryan and Bob. (4 marks)

A tricky question – the answer lies in Bryan being able to divide the different components of his STM because he is experienced at driving and doesn’t need to devote all his attention to the task of driving (controlled by the visuospatial sketchpad).

Answer

“Because Bryan has been driving for five years, it is an ‘automated’ task for him. It makes fewer attentional demands on his central executive.

He is therefore free to perform other tasks, such as talking or listening to music. This lets him divide resources between his visuospatial sketchpad (driving) and his phonological loop (talking and listening to music).

Bob, a novice driver, cannot do this. His central executive needs all his attention just for driving, so he cannot divide resources between components of working memory.”

AO3

Working memory is supported by dual-task studies. It is easier to do two tasks at the same time if they use different processing systems (verbal and visual) than if they use the same slave system.

For example, participants would find it hard to do two visual tasks at the same time because they would be competing for the same limited resources of the visuospatial sketchpad.

However, a visual task and a verbal task would use different components and so could be performed with minimum errors.

The KF Case Study supports the Working Memory Model. After a motorcycle accident, KF suffered brain damage that impaired his short-term memory.

The damage was selective: KF’s verbal STM was impaired, but his visual STM was largely unaffected. This points to separate STM components for visual information (VSS) and verbal information (the phonological loop).

Case-study evidence like this has limits. It comes from unique, traumatised patients, so it may not generalise well.

Two further limitations remain. Little is known about how the central executive actually works, and the model still does not explain the link between working memory and LTM.

Explanations for Forgetting

Students will be expected to know:

•  Explanations for forgetting: proactive and retroactive interference and retrieval failure due to
  absence of cues.

Explanations for forgetting: proactive and retroactive interference and retrieval failure due to absence of cues.

Interference

AO1

Interference is an explanation for forgetting from long-term memory – two sets of information become confused.

Interference theory suggests that forgetting occurs because other information confuses or disrupts our memories.

This is more likely to happen when the information is similar. Interference can involve two sets of information becoming confused with each other

1. Proactive interference (pro=forward): his occurs when old or existing memories in our long-term memory affect new memories. The old information “moves forward in time” and disrupts the recall of more recently learned information.

   For example, if you consistently park your car in the same spot at work, and then one day you have to park in a new space, your old habit of parking in the usual spot might interfere with remembering where you parked that particular day.

2. Retroactive interference (retro=backward): This occurs when new memories from new learning affect old or existing memories. In this case, later learning interferes with earlier learning, meaning new memories disrupt old ones. For instance, if you get a new bank card with a new PIN, learning this new PIN might make it harder to remember the PIN for your older card

Research Evidence for Proactive Interference:

AO3

Greenberg and Underwood (1999): Participants learned four word lists with 48-hour intervals between testing each list.

The percentage of correctly recalled words decreased as more word lists had been learned previously (from 69% for the first list to 25% for the fourth list). T

his suggests that previously learned information moves forward and interferes with the recall of new information, demonstrating proactive interference.

Research Evidence for Retroactive Interference:

AO3

• McGeoch and McDonald (1931): Participants learned a list of 10 words until they could recall them perfectly. Then, different groups were given a second list to learn that varied in similarity to the first (e.g., synonyms, antonyms, unrelated words, numbers, consonant syllables). When asked to recall the original 10 words, forgetting was most significant (recall was worst) when the new list was similar to the old list, especially when it consisted of synonyms. This supports the idea that interference, particularly retroactive interference, causes forgetting, and is more potent the more similar the material is.
• Baddeley and Hitch (1977): They investigated interference in a real-life setting by asking rugby players to recall the names of teams they had played against during a season.

  They found that the number of games played since a particular match (interfering information) was more influential in forgetting details of earlier games than the actual time that had passed. This demonstrates that retroactive interference can explain forgetting in real-world situations.

• Schmidt et al (2000): This study showed people aged 11-79 a map of their childhood neighborhood, omitting street names.

  They found that the more times an individual had moved homes, the fewer street names from their childhood neighborhood they could recall. This suggests that the new information of more recent street names interfered with the recall of older street names (retroactive interference).

Limitations of Interference Theory:

• Artificiality of Lab Studies: Many interference studies use artificial tasks, such as learning lists of random or similar-sounding words, which lack personal meaning and ecological validity.

  This means findings may not accurately reflect how memory works in real-life situations. Baddeley states that the tasks given to subjects are too close to each other and, in real life; these kinds of events are more spaced out. 

• Mechanism Unclear: Interference theory tells us that forgetting occurs but provides little information about the underlying cognitive processes involved or how and why interference occurs. It’s unclear if interference involves overwriting information or merely temporary inaccessibility.
• Limited Scope: Interference primarily explains forgetting when information is similar and learned close together in time. It struggles to explain many everyday examples of forgetting that don’t involve similar competing information.
• Can Be Overcome by Cues: Research suggests that interference effects can be overcome with the use of cues. This implies that the information is still available in long-term memory, challenging the idea of permanent loss due to interference.
•  

Retrieval failure

AO1

Retrieval failure theory suggests that forgetting occurs not because memories vanish, but because we lack the cues needed to access them at recall.

The information is still in LTM. It just isn’t accessible.

This is known as the Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP). It states that cues present at encoding (learning) must also be present at recall to trigger the memory.

Psychologists have studied several types of cue, including context, state, and organisation.

• Context-Dependent Forgetting: This occurs when external environmental cues at the time of learning are different from the external cues present at recall.

  For example, you might go to the kitchen to get something, forget what it was, and then remember as soon as you return to the room you were in where the thought first occurred. The cues available at encoding in your bedroom were not present in the kitchen, hindering retrieval.

• State-Dependent Forgetting: This happens when internal cues (e.g., physiological bodily state or mood) at the time of learning differ from those at recall. For instance, if you learned something while in a highly anxious state, you might struggle to recall it when you are calm, and vice versa. Similarly, if you learn something while under the influence of alcohol, you might recall it better when in the same intoxicated state.
• Organisational/Category-Dependent Cues: The way information is organized can also act as a cue. Providing categories or a structure can provide triggers for recall.

According to retrieval-failure theory, forgetting occurs when information is available in LTM but is not accessible. Accessibility depends in large part on retrieval cues.

Forgetting is greatest when context and state are very different at encoding and retrieval. In this situation, retrieval cues are absent, and the likely result is cue-dependent forgetting.

Research Evidence for Context-Dependent Forgetting:

AO3

• Godden and Baddeley (1975): Scuba divers were asked to memorize a list of words either underwater or on land. They found that recall was significantly better when the learning and retrieval contexts matched (e.g., learning underwater and recalling underwater, or learning on land and recalling on land). This indicates that environmental cues promote recall.
• Grant et al. (1998): Participants read an article in either silent or noisy conditions, and then recalled it in either matching or mismatching conditions. They found that the ability to retrieve information was better when the conditions matched, showing how forgetting can occur if contextual cues (like silence or noise) are absent at recall.

Research Evidence for State-Dependent Forgetting:

AO3

• Overton (1964): Information learned while drunk was recalled better when drunk again, and information learned sober was recalled better when sober. This supports the idea that recall is better if performed in the same internal state as when the information was encoded.
• Carter and Cassaday (1998): They used antihistamines to alter participants’ internal states during learning and recall of a word list and passage. hey found 40% higher rates of accurate recall in matching conditions (e.g., medicated at both learning and recall, or sober at both) compared to non-matching conditions. This supports that internal cues promote recall.

Research Evidence for Organisational Forgetting:

Research Evidence: Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) gave participants 48 words to learn.

Those asked to recall the list with cues based on four-word categories performed significantly better than those who used free recall.

This suggests categories act as effective cues for recall.

Limitations of Retrieval Failure Theory:

• Ecological Validity: A common criticism is that the context or state differences in laboratory experiments (e.g., underwater vs. on land, sober vs. drunk) are often dramatically different from everyday forgetting experiences. This raises questions about whether these findings accurately reflect why we forget in less extreme, daily circumstances.
• Limited Scope (Recognition vs. Recall): Godden and Baddeley (1975) found no significant difference in recognition accuracy between matched and non-matched conditions when they repeated their diver experiment using recognition instead of recall. This suggests that retrieval failure may only explain forgetting for certain types of memory, tested in specific ways, and may not be a universal explanation.
• Cyclical Reasoning: The Encoding Specificity Principle can suffer from cyclical reasoning by assuming that differences in cues cause retrieval failure, rather than exploring alternative explanations.

Strengths and Applications of Retrieval Failure Theory:

• Strong Evidence: Retrieval failure has been consistently supported by laboratory experiments using controlled conditions, which increases confidence in its conclusions.
• Practical Applications: Understanding retrieval failure has significant practical applications, especially in improving memory. For example, students can use this knowledge to develop effective revision strategies by creating memorable cues for their notes.
• Cognitive Interview: The concept of context reinstatement, a key component of the cognitive interview, is directly based on the encoding specificity principle. This police interviewing technique encourages eyewitnesses to mentally return to the crime scene, recalling environmental and emotional details to trigger memories, which has been shown to improve the amount and accuracy of information recalled.

Eyewitness Testimony

Students will be expected to know:

• Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: leading questions, post-event
  discussion, and anxiety; the use of the cognitive interview

Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: leading questions, post-event discussion, and anxiety; the use of the cognitive interview.

Leading questions

AO1

A leading question is one that prompts or encourages a certain answer, often used by police or lawyers.

The way a question is phrased can subtly suggest how participants should respond, often in a way that supports the researcher’s ideas.

Loftus and Palmer investigated how misleading information could distort eyewitness testimony accounts.

• Experiment 1 (Speed Estimates): Forty-five American students were shown films of traffic accidents. They were asked to describe what happened and then a critical question about the car’s speed, using different verbs: “smashed,” “collided,” “bumped,” “hit,” or “contacted”. Results showed that the verb used affected the estimated speed; “smashed” led to a much higher speed estimate (40.8 mph) than “contacted” (31.8 mph). This indicates that simply changing one word in a question can lead to markedly different responses and influence recall.
• Experiment 2 (Broken Glass): In a second experiment, 150 students watched a film of a multiple car accident. One critical question asked, “Did you see any broken glass?”. Even though there was no broken glass in the film, participants who heard the word “smashed” in the speed question were more likely to falsely recall seeing broken glass. This demonstrates how leading questions can not only distort memory of details like speed but also create false memories of events that never happened.

Conclusion:

The effects of leading questions can be explained in two ways. A “response bias” means the question only changes how participants answer, not what they remember.

A “substitution explanation” means the leading question actually changes the eyewitness’s memory of the crime itself.

Loftus and Palmer’s second study supports the substitution explanation.

AO3

The video clip lacks the emotional impact of a real-life accident, so the research lacks mundane realism and ecological validity.

A further problem with the study was the use of students as participants.

Students are not representative of the general population. They may be less experienced drivers and less confident about estimating speeds. This may have made them more easily swayed by the verb used.

A strength of the study is that it’s easy to replicate. The method was a lab experiment with a standardised procedure.

Post-Event Discussion

Post-event discussion refers to conversations that take place between co-witnesses or other individuals after an event has occurred.

These discussions can significantly influence and distort the original memory of the event before recall, even when witnesses believe they are sharing accurate information.

Here’s how post-event discussion can affect eyewitness testimony:

• Memory Conformity and False Memories: When witnesses discuss what they have seen, their testimonies can alter to match the accounts of others, a phenomenon known as memory conformity. This occurs because individuals are more likely to adopt incorrect details or ideas if they believe the other person is right or to avoid social disapproval. This process can lead to the reconstruction of memories, the incorporation of misleading information, and even the creation of false memories where details that never happened are recalled.
• Information Blending: Information obtained during post-event discussions can be unconsciously integrated into a witness’s memory, making it difficult for them to distinguish between what they personally witnessed and what they learned from others. A witness might later report something like, “my friends and I have talked about what happened so many times since that I’m almost not sure what I did see,” illustrating this blending of memories.

Key Research Supporting the Effects of Post-Event Discussion:

AO3

• Gabbert et al. (2003): This study clearly demonstrated the impact of post-event discussion. Participants viewed a film clip of the same crime scene, but each member of a pair was shown different details. After engaging in a post-event discussion with their partner and then individually completing a test of recall, researchers found a 71% inaccuracy rate for information gained through these discussions, compared to a 0% inaccuracy rate in a control group who worked alone. Shockingly, 60% of participants in the co-witness group even reported a detail that only their partner had seen and was completely absent from their own video, such as a girl being guilty of a crime, despite not witnessing it themselves. This illustrates how post-event discussion can lead to the assimilation of unobserved information and the creation of false memories.
• Bodner et al. (2009): This research provided a potential way to mitigate the negative effects of post-event discussion. They found that if witnesses are explicitly warned about the potential distorting effects of post-event discussion, the accuracy of their recall can be improved.

Evaluation of Post-Event Discussion Studies:

AO3

• Strengths: Similar to leading questions, Gabbert et al.’s study benefited from a highly controlled experimental setting, allowing for careful control of extraneous variables and establishment of cause and effect. This high level of control also enables replication to check reliability.
• Weaknesses: These studies also face criticisms regarding artificiality and lack of ecological validity, as participants watch videos rather than experiencing real crimes. In real-life situations, factors like post-event discussion and media reports are often uncontrolled and can influence eyewitness memory, making it difficult to establish a clear cause and effect relationship between the factor and memory accuracy.

Anxiety

AO1

Anxiety is a mental state of arousal that includes feelings of extreme concern and tension, along with physiological changes such as increased heart rate and sweating.

Research suggests that anxiety can have both negative and positive effects on the accuracy of EWT.

Negative Effects of Anxiety:

Some research indicates that anxiety can negatively affect recall, as the “fight-or-flight” response may narrow attention and impair memory.

• Weapon Focus Effect: This phenomenon describes how a witness’s attention is drawn to a weapon, reducing their ability to remember other details of the crime.
• Johnson and Scott (1976) Study: Participants in a waiting room overheard a discussion before witnessing an event. In a low-anxiety condition, a man left with a pen. In a high-anxiety condition, a man left with a knife covered in blood. When asked to identify the man from photographs, those in the high-anxiety (knife) condition were less accurate (33%) compared to those in the low-anxiety (pen) condition (49%). This study demonstrates the negative effect of anxiety, possibly due to weapon focus.
• Loftus and Burns (1982): Found that participants who saw a violent version of a crime (boy shot in the face) had impaired recall for events leading up to the incident.
• Peters (1988): Found that participants visiting a healthcare centre were better able to recognise a researcher than a nurse who gave an injection, suggesting weapon focus for the syringe reduced accuracy.

Positive Effects of Anxiety:

Conversely, some research suggests anxiety can have a positive impact on EWT, as heightened alertness from the “fight or flight” response can strengthen memories of stressful events.

• Yuille and Cutshall (1986) Study: This real-life study investigated eyewitnesses to a shooting in Vancouver. They found that witnesses who had been most distressed at the time of the shooting gave the most accurate account five months later (93% accuracy). This challenges laboratory research and suggests anxiety can have a positive effect in real-life situations.
• Christianson and Hubinette (1993): Studied 22 real bank robberies and found no evidence that high arousal negatively impacted recall. Victims were more accurate in their recall than bystanders and accurately remembered details even 4 to 15 months later, suggesting highly emotional events may enhance memory.

Explaining Contradictory Findings:

The Yerkes-Dodson Law of Arousal suggests an “inverted-U” relationship between anxiety/arousal and performance (EWT accuracy).

Moderate anxiety is associated with better recall than very high or very low anxiety.

However, this law can be seen as an oversimplified explanation because it doesn’t account for the multiple factors that make up arousal (cognitive, behavioural, emotional, etc.).

Evaluation of Anxiety Studies:

AO3

• Strengths (Real-Life Studies): Studies by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) and Christianson and Hubinette (1993) were conducted in real-life settings, providing more ecologically valid results compared to artificial lab studies. Participants experienced actual stress and anxiety, making their EWT more applicable to real-world situations.
• Weaknesses (Lack of Control): While offering high ecological validity, real-life studies often lack control over extraneous variables. For example, in Yuille and Cutshall’s study, witnesses could have been influenced by post-event discussion or news reports. Proximity to the crime might also be a confounding variable, as those experiencing higher stress might have been closer to the event. This lack of control makes it harder to establish a clear cause and effect relationship between anxiety and memory accuracy.
• Weapon Focus Criticism: The weapon focus effect may be testing for the effects of surprise rather than anxiety. Pickel (1998) found that identification was least accurate in conditions with high unusualness (e.g., a raw chicken in a hairdressing salon) rather than high threat (e.g., a handgun).
• Ethical Issues: Exposing participants to distressing images or traumatic recollections can breach ethical guidelines (e.g., protection from psychological harm and informed consent). A cost-benefit analysis might be needed to weigh the ethical costs against the benefits of increased knowledge.

Cognitive Interview

AO1

The cognitive interview (CI) is a questioning technique developed to improve the information an eyewitness can retrieve about a crime. It is based on psychological research into memory improvement and the importance of cues.

It helps to reduce the influence of schemas, leading to more reliable evidence.

• Background: Police have often received little training on effective interview techniques, and incorrect eyewitness identifications have led to many miscarriages of justice. Fisher (1980s) observed standard police interviews, noting that witnesses were bombarded with direct, closed questions, were frequently interrupted, and could not talk freely. Geiselman and Fisher designed the CI to address these problems.

The cognitive interview involves a number of techniques:

1. Context Reinstatement

The eyewitness is encouraged to mentally return to the crime scene, recalling environmental (sights, sounds, weather) and personal (emotional state, feelings) details.

This is based on Tulving’s encoding specificity principle, where recall is enhanced when cues at recall are similar to those present during encoding.

• Encouraging the witness to relax and speak slowly.
• Building rapport with the eyewitness to ensure they feel psychologically comfortable and are more likely to recall accurate details.
• Offering comments to help clarify witness statements.
• Adapting questions to suit the understanding of individual witnesses.
• Allowing the witness to control the flow of information and using open-ended questions.

Supporting Evidence:

AO3

• Geiselman et al. (1985): Found that participants interviewed using the CI recalled more details (average 41.2 correct facts) compared to those using a standard interview (29.4 facts), with no significant difference in errors made.
• Fisher et al. (1989): In real-life cases of robberies, detectives trained in the CI gained 63% more information than untrained detectives, with over 90% accuracy. This suggests the CI effectively enhances memory in real-world situations.
• The development of the CI demonstrates a practical application of cognitive psychology research, leading to decreased inaccuracy of EWT and potentially fewer wrongful convictions. It helps the police record more accurate EWT.

Limitations:

AO3

• Increased Errors: Kohnken et al. (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 42 studies (nearly 2,500 interviews). While the CI increased correct recall, the enhanced cognitive interview led to more errors than the original version. This suggests that while quantity of information increases, accuracy might not improve proportionally, and can even result in a similar accuracy rate (CI 85%, standard 82%).
• Time-Consuming and Resource Intensive: The CI is time-consuming, requiring longer interview durations and additional officer training. Police forces may lack the time and resources for adequate training, which can limit its practical value. Kebbel and Wagstaff argued that a few hours of training are insufficient.
• Effectiveness of Individual Components: Milne and Bull (2002) suggested that the entire CI need not be used to reap benefits. They found that “context reinstatement” and “report everything” produced the greatest accuracy of recall. This implies that even gradual changes from the standard interview can improve EWT accuracy.
• Limited Usefulness in Some Situations: The CI is not effective in identity parades or identifying subjects from photographs.
• Age of Witness: Not all CI techniques are appropriate for use with children, for example, changing perspective may not be possible until children are no longer egocentric.