Memory and Cognition

1. Memory and Cognition PSY 324 Topic 7: Everyday Memory & Memory Errors Dr. Ellen Campana Arizona State University

2. Intro to Everyday Memory • So far we’ve talked about a lot of different types of long-termmemory, but many of the studies have been about memory for lists of words • In this chapter we’ll be talking more about how long-term memory functions in everyday life • Autobiographical memory • Flashbulb memory • Memory as a constructive process • Source memory

3. Autobiographical Memory

4. Autobiographical Memory • Autobiographical memory = recollection of events that belong to a person’s past • Mostly episodic memory • Field perspective – as if experiencing the event • Common for recent events • Observer perspective – as if seeing the event (seeing self) • Common for more remote memories • Also includes semantic memories related to the self • Where you were born, what your first word was, etc. • Much more complex than memory of word lists!

5. Autobiographical Memory • Autobiographical memory is multidimensional • Spatial, emotional, sensory, etc. • Visual information plays a large role • Greenberg & Rubin (2003) – neurophysiological evidence (visual cortex damage) • Can’t recognize objects => Autobiographical memory impaired, even non-visual aspects • Autobiographical memory is much richer than laboratory memory • Cabeza & Coworkers (2004) – brain imaging study

6. Richness of Autobiographical Mem. • Cabeza & Coworkers (2004) • Gave participants cameras to take pics of 40 specific campus locations • A-photos: photos individuals took themselves • L-photos: lab photos (taken by another student)

7. Richness of Autobiographical Mem. • Cabeza & Coworkers (2004) • Gave participants cameras to take pics of 40 specific campus locations • A-photos: photos individuals took themselves • L-photos: lab photos (taken by another student) • Phase 1: exposed to A-photos & L-photos • Not in the scanner • Phase 2: shown A-photos & L-photos (some new, some from before)… had to say which was which • This part was in the scanner

8. Richness of Autobiographical Mem. • Cabeza & Coworkers (2004): Findings • A-photos & L-photos activated many of the same structures • Medial Temporal Lobe: episodic memory • Parietal Cortex: scene processing • A-photos activated many additional areas • Regions that process memory for self • Regions that process memory for visual space • Regions associated with experience of mental time travel • Hippocampus

9. Richness of Autobiographical Mem. • Why talk about that imaging study? • Demonstrates that autobiographical memory is richer than lab memory • Even though participants were viewing the same location for A-photos and L-photos, A-photos activated more areas than L-photos. • Activation thought to be related to memories of the experience of taking the picture • If even simple, relatively unimportant memories have rich representations, what makes some “stand out” in our minds more than others?

10. Memory Over the Lifespan

11. Memory over the Lifespan • What memories tend to “stand out”? • Personal milestones • Highly emotional events • Events that become big parts of a person’s life • Major transition points • Juniors & seniors recalled more events from Sept of freshman year than any other month • Alumni recalled both September of freshman year and end of senior year events more than other times

12. Memory over the Lifespan • Memory is different for different times in life • Memory between ages 10 and 30 “stands out” • This effect is called the reminiscence bump • See figure 8.3 to see what this looks like on the graph

13. Memory over the Lifetime • Why the reminiscence bump? • Life-narrative hypothesis • People tend to assume their life identities between 10-30 • Many important “firsts” between 10 and 30 • Cognitive hypothesis • Encoding is better for periods of rapid change, followed by stability (10-30=change, stability after that) • Evidence: bump is shifted for late vs. early immigrants

14. Memory over the Lifetime • Why the reminiscence bump? • Life-narrative hypothesis • People tend to assume their life identities between 10-30 • Many important “firsts” between 10 and 30 • Cognitive hypothesis • Encoding is better for periods of rapid change, followed by stability (10-30=change, stability after that) • Evidence: bump is shifted for late vs. early immigrants • Cultural script hypothesis • Cultural expectations shape recall (typical events, times)

15. Memories Across the Lifespan • All three hypotheses probably contribute to the occurrence of the reminisence bump • These also interact with the other factors that make certain memories “stand out” • Milestones, transitions, events that are part of our major “life story” • Highly emotional events • Next: flashbulb memories (emotional events)

16. Flashbulb Memory • Flashbulb memories are episodic memories about the context in which you found out about highly emotional events • Often culturally-relevant events (JFK, challenger, 911) • Remembered for a long time, in vivid detail • Why called “flashbulb”? Brown and Kulik used this analogy in a paper about JFK’s assassination • Their paper looked at memory after many years… • … but were these memories accurate?

17. Flashbulb Memory • To test accuracy of flashbulb memories, researchers use a method called repeated recall • Right after an event, people write about it (baseline) • Later they are asked to write about it again • Researchers compare writings for each person • Neisser & Harsch (1992) – repeated recall for the challenger explosion

18. Neisser & Harsch (1992) Quote from day after event: I was in my religion class and some people walked in and started talking about [it]. I didn’t know any details except that it had exploded and the schoolteacher’s students had all been watching, which I thought was so sad. Then after class I went to my room and watched the TV program talking about it, and I got all the details from that.

19. Neisser & Harsch (1992) Same person, quote from 2 ½ years later: When I first heard about the explosion I was sitting in my freshman dorm room with my roommate, and we were watching TV. It came on a news flash, and we were both totally shocked. I was really upset, and I went upstairs to talk to a friend of mine, and then I called my parents.

20. Schmolke and coworkers (2000) • O.J. Simpson trial • Response at 3 days: I was in the commuter lounge at college and saw it on TV. As 10:00 approached, more and more people came into the room… • Response at 32 months (same person): I first heard it while I was watching TV at home in my living room. My sister and father were with me… • Conclusion: “it seems unlikely that so-called flashbulb memories differ from ordinary episodic memories in any fundamental way.”

21. Are Flashbulb Memories Special? • Talarico and Rubin (2003) – 911 event • Some evidence that they are not special • Accuracy and number of details decreased similarly for flashbulb and everyday episodic memories • Some evidence that they are special • Participants’ beliefs that memories were accurate stayed high for flashbulb, but dropped for everyday episodic memories • Participants’ ratings of vividness and how well they could “relive” events stayed high for flashbulb, but dropped for everyday episodic memories

22. Are Flashbulb Memories Special? • Davidson and Coworkers (2006) – also 911 • Found flashbulb memories more resistant to fading • congruence scores high for flashbulb, but dropped for everyday events • All participants remembered 911, but only 65% were able to recall what the other memory was

23. Are Flashbulb Memories Special? • Davidson and Coworkers (2006) – also 911 • Found flashbulb memories more resistant to fading • congruence scores high for flashbulb, but dropped for everyday events • All participants remembered 911, but only 65% were able to recall what the other memory was • Why? • Flashbulb memories about emotional events (amygdala) • Added rehearsal: narrative rehearsal hypothesis

24. Are Flashbulb Memories Special? • What’s the point? Are they or aren’t they? • Two studies found conflicting results • Differed with respect to cues • Talarico & Rubins – participants created their own… therefore remembered everyday memories better (Mantyla from last time) • Robinson and Coworkers – participants used given cues • Still an open debate • About memory in general, this tells us… • Emotional context of event can influence memory • Knowledge (even if it comes later) can affect the original memory

25. The Constructive Nature of Memory

26. The Constructive Nature of Memory • People reporting memories unknowingly • Omit details • Distort or change things that actually happened • Report things that never actually happened • Constructive approach to memory • What people report as memories are constructed by the person based on what happened plus additional factors (knowledge, experience, expectations)

27. “War of the Ghosts”Bartlett (1932) • Description of myth from an unfamiliar culture • Repeated production – participants came back a number of times to tell the same story • Similar to repeated recall for flashbulb memories • Participants made more errors over time • Errors reflected something about the process • Story changed to be consistent with participants’ culture • Confusing details left out • Details changed (canoe -> boat)

28. Educated Guesses • Bahrick and Coworkers (1996) • Recall your own high school grades • A recall = 89% • D recall = 29% • Why these types of errors? • People tend to remember positive events more • Memory is constructive • If they were A/B students, they make a prediction that a specific grade was most likely an A, and remember it that way • How does constructive memory work?

29. Source Monitoring • Source monitoring (and errors) is part of the explanation for how constructive memory works • Source memory is the memory for how you acquired a certain memory • Did I hear that on the news or did someone tell me? • Source monitoring errors / source misattributions are when you remember the fact, but think it came from the wrong source • Memories disconnected from source over time

30. Source Monitoring Errors • Jacoby and Coworkers (1989) – becoming famous overnight • Acquistion: read a list of names (all made up, and people were told this just after reading) • Immediate test: identify famous names from list • Non-famous, new names • Names from prior list • Famous names • Delayed test: same as immediate, 1 day later

31. Source Monitoring Errors • Jacoby and Coworkers (1989) – becoming famous overnight • Results: made-up names from the list that people saw in the acquisition stage were more likely to be rated as famous (in participants’ memory these fictitious people “became famous overnight”) • Explanation: Made-up names more familiar than new names during delayed test, but participants didn’t remember why they seemed so familiar (source), so they attributed familiarity to famousness

32. Constructive Memory • Source misattribution involves participants making inferencesabout the source, and using those to construct / reconstruct memory • Flashbulb memory studies • Bartlett’s war of the ghosts experiment • Bahrick & coworkers’ high school grades experiment • Jacoby & coworkers’ becoming famous overnight

33. Memory and Inference • So memory as a constructive process • What we remember is constructed based on events, percepts, experience and knowledge • The process of memory construction involves making inferences • This is a normal consequence of a largely adaptive memory– in other words “it’s a good thing.”

34. Brewer (1977) / McDermott & Chan (2006) • The children’s snowman vanished when the temperature reached 80. • The flimsy shelf weakened under the weight of the books. • The absent-minded professor didn’t have his car keys. • The karate champion hit the cinder block. • The new baby stayed awake all night.

35. …… people who read these sentence often inaccurate remembered the sentences as…

36. Brewer (1977) / McDermott & Chan (2006) • The children’s snowman vanished when the temperature reached 80. • The flimsy shelf weakened under the weight of the books. • The absent-minded professor didn’t have his car keys. • The karate champion hit the cinder block. • The new baby stayed awake all night. melted collapsed lost broke cried

37. Pragmatic Inference • Changes in wording we just saw are examples of pragmatic inference • We use our experience to fill in the details without even realizing we are doing it • Two more in the book you should know about • Bransford & Johnson (1973) – hammer example • Arkes & Freedman (1984) – baseball example • Inference uses knowledge and experience, which are represented by schemas and scripts

38. Schemas • Schemas are representations of what is usually or prototypically involved in an experience • A kids’ birthday party, a movie, oktoberfest, holidays • Even if a movie theater is out of popcorn when you go, you may later infer there was popcorn there • Brewer & Treyens (1981) - office study • This type of representation is what causes us to substitute “cried” for “stayed up all night” in the sentences we heard earlier

39. Scripts • Scripts are representations of the sequence of actions that usually occur during an experience • Restaurant, class, sports, evening out, holidays • Even if you may not have gone trick-or-treating one Halloween, you may remember doing so later • Bower and Coworkers (1979) – dentist office study

40. Bower and Coworkers (1979) The Dentist Bill had a bad toothache. It seemed like forever before he finally arrived at the dentist office. Bill looked around at the various dental posters on the wall. Finally the dental hygienist checked and x-rayed his teeth. He wondered what the dentist was doing. The dentist said that Bill had a lot of cavities. As soon as he’d made another appointment, he left the dentist’s office.

41. Bower and Coworkers (1979) • Study included many stories like “the dentist” • After a delay, participants were given titles and asked to write what they remembered about the stories • “Bill checked in with the dentist’s receptionist” …. • ….Common even though it wasn’t really there • People filled in details based on their own script for going to the dentist

42. Construction: Plusses & Minuses • Inferences in memory are much like gestalt laws in perception – they are also heuristics • Heuristics – provide a “best guess” which is fast, efficient and easy to store, but sometimes inaccurate • Hammer example – how inefficient it would be to have to make all these details clear every time! • Algorithms – opposite of heuristics, provide an accurate answer but take time, capacity, etc. • In the case of memory, require infinite storage • S in the book was said to have this (it wasn’t all good!)

43. Construction: Plusses & Minuses • Like gestalt laws, in practical terms our inferences are very often right • Sometimes our memories can be manipulated by suggestions by others • Memories created • Memories changed • Ramifications for law and the court system

44. Memory and Suggestion

45. The Power of Suggestion • People are suggestible • Advertisements, political arguments affect our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors • Information presented by others can also influence our memory for past events • Misinformation Effect – misleading information presented after a person witnesses an event can change how the person describes the event later • Misleading information in this situation is called misleading postevent information (MPI)

46. Method: Presenting MPI • Step 1: Information to be remembered is presented • Could be a list of words, film, slideshow, etc. • Step 2: MPI is presented to some participants and not others • MPI is presented in a natural way so participants do not know they are being misled • Step 3: All participants report on their memory of the information presented in step 1 • Reports compared for the two groups of participants

47. Loftus & Coworkers (1978) • Step 1: slide show of accident • Car stops at a stop sign, then turns corner and hits pedestrian • Step 2: participants answer questions • MPI group: “did another car pass the red Datsun while it was stopped at the yield sign?” • Control:“did another car pass the red Datsun while it was stopped at the stop sign?” • Step 3: participants see pictures, say which are old • Critical picture: car parked at a yield sign (new picture) • MPI group more likely to say yes (which was an error)

48. Loftus & Coworkers (1978) • Study demonstrates that misleading postevent information (MPI) can affect details of what people remember seeing • Another similar study looks at how MPI can affect the conclusions people draw about other aspects of the situation • Also replicates the finding from Loftus & Coworkers (1978)

49. Loftus and Palmer (1974) • Participants watched a video of a car crash • Participants answered questions about the film • MPI group: How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? • Control: How fast were the cars going when they hit each other? • Answers compared • MPI group (smashed) answered 41 mph, on avg. • Control group (hit) answered 34 mph, on avg.

50. Loftus (1993, 1998) • Participants from Loftus & Palmer invited back one year later • Question: Did you see any broken glass? (no = right) • Results • MPI group (smashed) answered yes 32% • Control group (hit) answered yes 14% • More evidence that MPI affects memory for details (even details that are inferred) • How does this happen???