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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. Autobiographical Memory
Parietal cortex showing similar areas activated by both the A-photos and the L-photos during the memory test.
Areas in the parahippocampal gyrus that were activated by the A-photos and the L-photos: Activation was much greater for the A-photos.
Cabeza et al. (2004)

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. Why do we have the reminiscence bump?
Some explanations

10. 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)

11. 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 

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

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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 

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

17. 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 pictures
Emotional pictures more easily recognized in recall test
See next slide 

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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, 2-3 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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)

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

28. 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”

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

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

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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)

35. 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

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

37. 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)

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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)

41. 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)

42. 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)

43. 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”

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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
Hyman, Husband, & Billings (1995)

48. 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
Click on picture for video 

49. Credits
Some of the slides in this presentation prepared with the assistance of the following web sites:
people.auc.ca/brodbeck/3717/episodic.ppt
misskanaley.edublogs.org/.../Cognition-Long-Term-Memory-...
courses.csusm.edu/.../Interactions%20in%20LTM%20--%20C...