1. Memory…

2. Q’s that the following will cover…
Discuss the Working Model of Memory
Discuss the Multi-store Model of Memory
Discuss one or more models of memory
Outline the MSM and evaluate against another model of memory

3. Draw both models of memory in as much detail as you possibly can.
The models….
Draw both models of memory in as much detail as you possibly can.
Functions of stores?
Encoding of stores?
Capacity?
Duration?

4. Iconic ½ sec, Echoic 3 secs
MSM – A01
Acoustic
Up secs (P+P = 18)
7+-2
Semantic
Up to life time
Unlimited
Iconic, Haptic, Echoic
Iconic ½ sec, Echoic 3 secs
V large capacity
Linear flow of information
Elaborate rehearsal needed to transfer to LTM
Stores are unitary

5. WMM - A01 Directs attention/ resources to slave systems.
ACS – does rehearsal. Repeats words seen or heard
Holds visual info + manipulates spatial info to understand relationships between things
Binds visual and sound info together as one episode
PL – Holds sound for v short time.

6. WMM - A01 Model created after research was conducted.
Info does not flow in linear way
STM is not a unitary store
Whole models shows STM- ONLY
Active process of memory.

7. RESEARCH !!! DRILL IT Evaluating the models MSM WMM Research - support
Glanzer and Cunitz – Primacy and recency effect
Gathercole and Baddeley. Hollow F and Light
Research - support
Beardsley – MRI scans. Diff task = Diff area
Baddeley – word length effect dissapears when ACS tied up.
Research - against
Clive Wearing
Eslinger and Domasio - EVR
General issues about the assumptions
Do we need to rehearse, is direction linear? Craik + Lockhart level or processing…
Compare
Easy marks by comparing one against the other. If Q is about MSM say its inferior to WMM. If Q is about WMM say its better than MSM and Why.

8. Would you know how to PES all of these? Pick one and do it
MSM
WMM
Research - support
Glanzer and Cunitz – Primacy and recency effect
Gathercole and Baddeley. Hollow F and Light
Research - support
Beardsley – MRI scans. Diff task = Diff area
Baddeley – word length effect disappears when ACS tied up.
Research - against
Clive Wearing
Eslinger and Domasio - EVR
General issues about the assumptions
Do we need to rehearse, is direction linear? Craik + Lockhart level or processing…
Compare
Easy marks by comparing one against the other. If Q is about MSM say its inferior to WMM. If Q is about WMM say its better than MSM and Why.

9. The WMM
P: The role of Phonological loop and the Articulatory Control process has been supported by research. E - Baddeley (1975) demonstrated that people find it more difficult to remember a list of long words (such as ‘association’) rather than short words, due to there being a finite duration for rehearsal it would be possible to rehearse short words but not as many longer words. However this word length effect disappeared when a participant was given an articulatory suppression task e.g. saying ‘la la la’ before recalling the words. S: This evidence demonstrates the limited capacity of the phonological loop and the function of rehearsal by the articulatory control process as proposed in the WMM.

10. Change you E depending on which you choose as you r p
A comparison style PES
P: The assumptions of unitary stores/ the rigidity of the linear flow/ reliance on rehearsal as proposed by the MSM have been challenged by later theory. E: The MSM makes no distinction between types of Short term memory. However Baddeley and Hitch’s WMM clearly shows that there are distinctions between types of STM e.g. VSSP and The Phonological Store. Baddeley’s dual task experiments lend support for the existence of separate stores as it is possible to carry out 2 tasks at the same time if they are different in nature. S: Therefore the assumption that the Short term memory is just one store is criticised for its simplicity and for not explain how the memory functions.

11. Explain the difference between Reciprocity and interactional synchrony (4 marks) Outline and evaluate research into care-giver interactions…(8 marks)
Very Very unlikely to get a 16 on this. There is simply not enough to discuss.

12. Attachment – reciprocity and Interactional Synchrony
What are they doing
Mirroring each others actions and emotions
Responding to each others actions and emotions
What does it look like?
Moving in same pattern at same time.
Like a conversation.
example
Mum sticks tongue out, baby sticks tongue out. Father and child lean towards one another, almost at exactly the same time.
Mum sticks tongue out, baby laughs
Triggers - this may not help…..

13. Meltzoff and Moore – What is this evidence of, what details do you know about the procedure and the limitations/ strengths?
12-21 days old
4 behavioural categories
Concordance rate of for observer scores.
Replicated later with 3 day old also showed interactional synchrony = innate?
No change in behaviour - babies wont change
High inter-observer
If occurs from 3 days - mother and baby together for strong attachment
Not universal -Le Vine I.S not found in Kenya but do have high secure attachment.

14. Isabella Without counting them – how many mother should there be?
Interactional synchrony
Attachment

15. “Discuss the effects of institutionalisation
“Discuss the effects of institutionalisation. Refer to studies of Romanian orphans in your answer.” (16)

16. Attachment Institutionalisation
Institution – the place, hospital, care home, orphanage, prison…
Institutionalisation – the effect of being in a place for long periods of time. In attachment the focus is on the fact that little emotional care provided.
As a result we focus on Orphan studies specifically Rutter’s Romanian Orphanage study.

17. Rutter
Don’t focus on the procedure too much. You need to know the effects the most
Basics of the procedure:
Exp group = 111 orphans adopted before 2, 54 by age 4
Control group 50 British adoptees
Physical, cognitive and social tests at 4,6,11 and 15
Potential for discussing terminology privation/deprivation/ institutionalisation.
Also discuss natural experiments and ethics.

18. Summarising the findings of the ERA
TASK: Using the least amount of words possible (that still make some sense to you) summarise the changes in development for the effect’s columns.
*Differentiate between those adopted before 6 months and those adopted after 6 months.
Time of assessment
Effect on Cognitive development
Effect on Physical development
Effect on Social Development
On arrival *
Age 4
Age 6 and 11

19. Summarising the findings of the ERA
Cognitive development
Physical development
Social Development
On arrival/ at adoption
IQ on arrival 63
for those adopted when over 6 months average was 45
51% were in bottom 3% of the population for weight
Shorter than normal for age
Smaller head circumference for age
Age 4
Majority adopted before 6 months no differences.
Before 6 months IQ increased from
After 6 months IQ increased from 45-90
Older adoptees still lagging behind
Age 6 and 11
Adopted after 6 months many were receiving help from either special educational and/ or mental health services.
Adopted after 6 months many showed disinhibited attachments (54%) and had problems with peer relationships.

20. So…. Discuss the effects of institutionalisation (16 marks)
Reliability of findings:
Morison’s study of Romanian orphans in Canada found indiscriminate friendliness was positively correlated with time spent in an institution. This reflects the disinhibited attachment type for those adopted later in life, in which they showed a relative lack of differentiation in response to adults.
A01
Outline the effects:
Cognitive
Physical
Social
Make the distinction of age of adoption
Strength of Longitudinal research:
By assessing the children at varying ages it has been possible to suggest that a number of the negative effects of institutionalisation can disappear after sufficient time and with suitable high-quality care. If conclusions were drawn after the assessment at age 4 this may not have been the case.
Application of it to improving children’s lives. In the past mothers giving up babies for adoption were encouraged to nurse their babies for a significant period of time. However research findings by Rutter et al have changed the process of adoption so that mothers who give a baby up for adoption do so in the first week of birth, so that the children can form a secure attachment with their adoptive families.