The cognitive approach focuses on how information is processed and how that affects behavior. Two key assumptions are that the brain processes information similar to a computer and that cognition and behavior result from information processing. Theories discussed include levels of processing, which suggests deeper processing leads to better recall, and the multi-store model of memory, which proposes information moves between sensory, short-term, and long-term memory stores. Studies on levels of processing and context-dependent memory provide support for these theories but also have limitations like a lack of ecological validity. Forgetting can be explained by theories of displacement in short-term memory or cue-dependent retrieval from long-term memory.

1. Psychology – Unit 1
The Cognitive Approach

2. Basic Assumptions:

3. 1. The cognitive approach focuses on information processing and how it would affect
behaviour. This is largely based on the ‘Input-Process-Output’ model.
2. The second assumption compares our brains to a working computer and compares
our cognition and behaviour to processing and output.

4. Theories:

5. Levels of Processing
(Craik & Lockhart)
This theory suggests that the depth of processing impacts the accuracy of our recall. It states that there are two
methods of rehearsal;
• Maintenance, which refers to not a very deep level of processing. Information that is rehearsed through
maintenance rehearsal tends to be recalled not very accurately as the information probably isn’t significant and
therefore hasn’t been processed to a deep level.
• Elaborative, this is where information is rehearsed at a deeper level, therefore it may be a piece of information that
has lots of significance and is therefore recalled more accurately.
Evaluation:
• The theory is supported by Craik & Tulving’s Levels of Processing which found that semantic processing leads to
more accurate recall.
• The theory can be applied as it shows GCSE or A-Level students should use a deep level of processing for their
revision material in order to recall the information accurately in exams.
• Unlike the multi store model, the theory offers an explanation for memory durability by referring to depth of
processing
• A weakness is that the multi-store model provides direct evidence against the theory that memory is stored rather
than processed.
• Another weakness is that the supporting study (Craik & Tulving) lacked ethics as participants were deceived as
they weren’t told they would have to recall the words after answering the question.
• The theory has been criticised for being descriptive rather than scientifically explaining how the memory works.

6. Multi-store Model
(Atkinson & Shiffrin)
This theory suggests that our memories are stored within our brain. It states that there are three separate memory
stores;
1.Sensory Memory: this is where the information from the environment is taken in through the senses. Holds the
information for a very brief period.
2.Short-term memory: limited store for rehearsed information. Holds around 7 bits of information for 30 seconds. If
not rehearsed will be lost.
3.Potentially infinite capacity. Could hold memories for minutes or many years.
Evaluation:
•A strength to the theory is that is supported by the case study of Clive Wearing, who proved that the stores exists
his hippocampus was damaged which prevented short term memories from being stored in the long term memory.
•The theory can be applied into society as it could teach GCSE/ A-level students to rehearse their revision material
in order for it to be stored in the long term memory.
•It is also supported by Glanzer and Cunitz which found that, if not in any of the long term memory or the concious
memory, information cannot be recalled.
•A weakness, however is that Glanzer and Cunitz lacked ecological validity as the memorising of words cannot
represent everyday uses of memory.
•Craik & Lockharts Level of Processing contradicts the theory by suggesting that accuracy of recall is a result of
processing depth rather than rehearsal and storage.
•Shallice and Warrington found that a victim of a motorbike crash also had his hippocampus damaged but was able
to add long term memories, providing evidence against the model.

7. Cue Dependent Theory for
Forgetting (Tulving)
This theory that we need certain cues to retrieve certain memories that we have forgotten. We forget memories
unless we have the right cues. This theory suggests that forgetting is down to two different problems;
accessibility and availability. Cues have been differentiated into;
1. Context-dependent cues which refer to context or situation associated with that cue, e.g. a classroom may be a
context cue for a students work
2. State-dependent cues which refer to the emotion that we felt at the time, e.g. a Christmas song may be a state
cue for happiness and exitment
Tulving stated that when we encode memories, we also store information on where we were (context
dependent cues) and how we felt (state dependent cues) at the time we stored the memory.
Evaluation
• The study is supported by Godden and Baddely’s study which found that more words were remembered when
recall and learning took place in same environment.
• The study has applications into society as it shows colleges and schools should make students sit exams in the
environment where they learned the work.
• Unlike theories such as displacement, the theory can be tested as cues are measurable.
• A weakness is that Godden and Baddely’s study wasn’t representative to the population as the sample was
made up only of professional divers.
• The theory is contradicted by the displacement theory which states forgetting is due to a lack of capacity in the
short term memory.
• This theory is only an explanation of forgetting from the long term memory, it does not account for anything
about the short term memory.

8. Displacement Theory for
Forgetting
This theory is based on the idea that the short-term memory has a limited capacity for information. It states that
when we encode a memory, another must be moved out of the short term memory. This memory that is removed can
either be rehearsed enough to be stored in the long term memory or can simply be forgotten.
Evaluation:
• Displacement theory fits in with the multi store model of memory, which is supported with a lot of evidence, so
this helps to support the model.
• Shallice (1967) found that the greater the amount of information presented, the lower the recall, supporting the
model as it shows our short term memory has limited capacity as some of the info could not be recalled.
• The theory has applications as it could show that students have limited capacity in their short term memories and
some of their memories of the work gets displaced therefore they can’t recall it in exams.
• A weakness to displacement is that it is hard to distinguish whether memories are lost because they have been
displaced or because they have been decayed.
• Shallice’s study lacked ecological validity as the memorising of digits wasn’t representative of an every day use
of memory.
• The theory is contradicted by the cue dependent theory which states that forgetting is a result of not having the
appropriate cues which bring about recall.

9. Studies:

10. Godden & Baddely (1975)Aim:
Godden & Baddely wanted to test Tulving’s cue-dependent theory by investigating whether information is recalled more
accurately when the participant is in the same environment as they were when the information was learned .
Procedure:
A sample of 18 divers from a diving club were used. They were played a list of 36 words on a tape in tow places; underwater
and on dry land. After the 36 words were played, the divers were made to write down 15 numbers in order to remove the
information from the short term memory. There were then 4 different conditions;
• Learned and recalled on dry land
• Learned and recalled underwater
• Learned underwater, recalled on dry land
• Learned on dry land, recalled underwater
Results:
• The mean amount of words learned and recalled on dry land was 13.5
• The mean amount of words learned and recalled underwater was 11.4
• The mean amount of words learned on dry land and recalled under water was 8.6
• The mean amount of words learned underwater and recalled on dry land was 8.4
Conclusion:
More words were remembered when recall took place in the same environment as learning.
Evaluation:
• The study has ecological validity as the divers were learning the words in an every day scenario to them (underwater).
• The study supports Tulving’s idea of cue-dependent forgetting as it proves context cues have an impact on recall.
• The results can be applied into society as it shows that learning and examinations in schools should take place in the
same environments to achieve better results.
• The researchers couldn’t see what the divers were doing underwater therefore there is a chance they could’ve cheated
• The study isn’t representative of the whole population as only a group of professional divers from a diving club were used.
• The memorising of the word is an artificial representation of everyday an use of memory.

11. Levels of Processing Experiment
(Craik & Tulving)
Aim:
The aim of this study was to see whether semantic processing lead to a higher level of recall.
Procedure:
24 participants were shown a list of 60 words, all accompanied by a question that required a different type of processing;
structural (shallow processing), phonemic (intermediate processing) and semantic (deep processing). After this,
participants were asked to recall a word list of 180 words consisting of the original 60 words and a further 120 words.
Results:
17% of words recognised were processed at a structural level, 36% we processed at a phonetic level and 65% we
processed at a semantic level.
Conclusion:
Recognition of words was greater for the ones that were processed at a semantic level.
Evaluation:
• The study supports Craik and Lockharts Levels of Processing theory as it shows the level of processing has an impact on
recall.
• Results can be applied into society as it shows using semantic processing could help GCSE/ A-Level students to recall
information more accurately in exams.
• The study can be replicated as the questions were designed carefully with operationalisation of variables.
• A weakness is that the study lacked ethics as the participants weren’t told they would have to recall the words after
completing the questions.
• The test lacks ecological validity as the participants processed the words artificially therefore it is not representative of
an every day use of memory.
• The concept of depth is vague and very and cannot be objectively measured.

12. Key Issue:

13. Is Eyewitness Testimony
Reliable?Explanation:
Eyewitness testimony refers to someone giving their account of a crime that they have witnessed to authorities and
possibly identifying the criminal. This could lead to conviction if the wrong individual is identified. There is much a
strong case that eye witness testimony is reliable as Yuille and Cutshall found that witnesses of a real life incident (a
gun shooting in Canada) had remarkable accurate memories of the stressful event involving weapons. However,
psychologists including Elizabeth Loftus thought eyewitness testimony to be unreliable though as she found from an
experiment that the estimated duration of an event is distorted.
Application
• According to Atkinson & Shiffrins multi store Model theory, the eyewitness did not rehearse the information of the
crimes events enough for it to be stored into the long term memory.
• According to Craik & Lockhart’s levels of processing theory, the eyewitness may not have used semantic processing
to process the information of the events and therefore will not have had an accurate recall of the evnets.
• According to Tulving’s cue dependent theory, the eyewitness may not have had access to the appropriate state and
context cues regarding the information of the crime. A context cue may be the environment in which the crime took
place, for example f the eyewitness had witnessed a car crash, then being on a road my give the eyewitness access
to the memory. A state cue would be the emotion that the eyewitness felt at the time of the crime, for example; having
the feeling of being scared may lead to the eyewitness’ recall of events.
• According to displacement theory, there may not be enough capacity in the eyewitness’ memory for the memory to
be stored therefore it may have to be rehearsed to be stored in the long term memory, otherwise it would be
forgotten.

14. Evidence of Practice:

15. My Study:Aim:
To try and find out whether semantic processing leads to better recall.
Procedure:
The study was a lab experiment. An opportunity sample of 10 18-19 year old college students (5 male, 5 female) was used,
with a repeated measures design. After receiving a briefing from us researchers, participants were given a stimulus sheet
which included 20 questions (10 semantic, 10 structural). Once questions were completed, participants were given 30
seconds to recall the words. Once they had listed their recalled words, they were debriefed.
Results:
An average of 4.1 semantic words were recalled by the participants and an average of 3.8 structural words were recalled.
Conclusion:
Using semantic processing leads to a more accurate recall.
Evaluation:
• The study was a lab experiment therefore it was controlled over extraneous variables making the test repeatable and also
ensuring reliable results.
• The results are generalisable and representative of both genders as one half of the sample were male and the other half
female.
• The results of the study could show that A-level students should use semantic processing for their work so that they can
recall it accurately in examinations.
• A weakness is that the results aren’t representative of the whole population as only 16-19 year old college students were
used.
• The study lacked ethics as the participants weren’t aware of the test’s true aims while they were involved in the study.
• The test lacked ecological validity as the questions and words weren’t representative of an every day use of memory.
Problems encountered:
• Participants may have been able to see through the other side of the paper when recalling the words therefore they may
not have actually used their memory and simply copied what they could see wrote down.