DOC PREVIEW
U-M PSYCH 240 - Memory for Inferred Information
Type Lecture Note
Pages 6

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 6 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Psych 240 1st Edition Lecture 14 Outline of Last Lecture: Episodic Memory (part 1) I. What we rememberII. How is information remembered? Outline of Current LectureI. Memory for Inferred InformationII. Eyewitness TestimonyCurrent LectureEpisodic Memory Part 2 I. Memory for Inferred Informationa. Inferencei. When hearing information, we quickly make inferences 1. Study sentence: There is a tree with a box beside it, and a chair is on topof the box. The box is to the right of the tree. The tree is green and extremely tall. a. Logical Inference: Bransford, Barclay, and Franksi. Recognition Test: 1. The chair is on top of the box.2. The chair is to the right of the tree. 3. The box is to the left of the tree.4. The chair is to the left of the tree.ii. People make inferences consistent w/ spatial organization. People do NOT make inconsistent inferences.b. Pragmatic InferenceThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.i. Not all inferences follow the info you’re given. a. John was trying to fix the bird house. Hewas pounding the nail when his father came out to watch him do the work.b. John was trying to fix the bird house. Hewas looking for the nail when his father came out to watch him and help him dothe work.2. Recognition Test: “John was using the hammer to fix the bird house when his father came out to watch him and to help him do the work.”ii. People who saw first sentence claimed that they had seen the test sentence more often. Confidence ratings for test sentence were higher than for actual sentences. ii. Advertising1. Experiment: Two Types of Commercialsa. Assertion Commerciali. Aren’t you tired of sniffles and runny nose all winter?ii. Tired of always feeling less than your best? Taking Eradicold Pills as directed will get you through a whole winter without colds.b. Implication Commerciali. Aren’t you tired of sniffles and runny nose all winter? Tired of always feeling less than your best? Get througha whole winter without colds. Take Eradicold Pills as directed.c. Test – T/F: Eradicold pills will get you through the winter w/o colds.2. Advertising Experiment (Harris, 1977)a. Experiment: Does gargling with Listerine prevent colds?Wouldn’t it be great,” asks the mother, “if you could make him cold proof? Well, you can’t. Nothing can do that. [Boy sneezes.] But there is something that you can do that may help. Have him gargle with Listerine Antiseptic. Listerine can’t promise to keep him cold free, but it may help him fight off colds. During the cold-catching season, have him gargle twice a day with full-strength Listerine. Watch his diet, see he gets plenty of sleep, and there’s a good chance he’ll have fewer colds, milder colds this year.”b. Results: most people said yes!i. Subjects see assertion and implication advertisementsii. Some subjects warned not to interpret implies claims as assertionsiii. Subjects accepted over half of the implications as true, even when warned3. Other inference tricks in advertisinga. People ignore hedgesi. “Lavium Pills may help relieve tension”1. (but they also may not)ii. “Spring Fluoride fights cavities1. (but it might lose)iii. “This detergent leaves dishes virtually spotless”1. (What does “virtually” mean?)b. Unclear Comparisonsi. “Snarfo makes you healthier” (than what?)ii. “The inside of this car is 700% quieter”iii. Batteries always “last longer”b. When we make inferencesi. Encoding1. Giving context affects what is encoded and later recalleda. “washing clothes”b. Balloon storyii. Storage1. Test recall for “War of the Ghosts” story. 2. Bartlett found: a. More distorted 4 months later than immediatelyb. Memory is changed during storagec. Memory changes to fit into schema betterd. Forgetting happensiii. Inferences at Retrieval1. Study: Carol Harris was a problem child from birth. She was wild, stubborn and violent. By the time Carol turned eight, she was still unmanageable. Her parents were very concerned about her mental health. There was no good institution for her problem in her state. Her parents finally decided to take some action. They hired a private teacher for Carol.2. 1 week later: ½ subjects told that it is about Helen Keller3. Test: Did you read “She is blind, deaf, and cannot speak.”a. Helen Keller group: 50% said yes.b. Carol Harris Group: 5% said yes.II. Eyewitness Testimonyi. Eyewitness memory for complex events can be distorted1. You may forget things that happened2. You may remember things that didn’t happen3. Your memory may be influenced by: a. Interim misinformationb. How you were questioned.b. Misinformation experiments (Loftus)1. See event2. Misinformation3. Memory testii. “Hit” vs. “smashed” Experiment (Loftus and Palmer)1. Subjects see accident2. Misinformation3. Test: did you see broken glass?a. Control: how fast were they going when they hit each other? i. 14% yesb. Misled: how fast were they going when they smashed into each other?i. 32% yesiii. “Stop” vs “yield” sign (Loftus)1. View auto accident. Care at yield sign. 2. Misinformation3. Test: Slides of stop and yield sign: which did you see?a. Control: “Did the car pass the Datsun when it was stopped at yield sign”i. 75% yieldb. Misled: “Did the car pass the Datsun when it was stopped at stop sign”i. 41% yield1. Most said stop2. Most didn’t know about the deceptionc. Overwriting vs. augmenting memoryi. Overwriting1. Time: event misinformationnew memory2. Test of overwriting: “Hammer” experimenta. See man carrying hammer – steals $20b. Groups read descriptionsc. Testi. Group 1: “mans was carrying tool”1. Hammer or screwdriver? 72% hammerii. Group 2: “man was carrying screwdriver”1. Hammer or screwdriver? 63% hammeriii. Group 3: “man was carrying screwdriver”1. Hammer or wrench? 75% hammerii. Misinformation acceptance: accept new information as if it were true of the original event1. Why do we accept misinformation?a. Source confusion: not clear which memory is the real oneb. Strength: new information is strongerd. Interviewing techniquesi. Cognitive interview1. Reinstate conditionsa. Exploits encoding specificity: memories are tied to the context in which they were acquired2. Tell story w/o interruption3. Use reverse orderii. Line-ups1. Successive presentations, not simultaneousiii. Sequential


View Full Document
Download Memory for Inferred Information
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Memory for Inferred Information and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Memory for Inferred Information 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?