Thesis (M. S.)--Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008. / Committee Chair: Hertzog, Christopher; Committee Member: Rogers, Wendy; Committee Member: Schumacher, Eric. Part of the SMARTech Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Collection.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Retention on a short-term memory task and a subsequent final recall test were used to test implications of models of human memory. The type of retention interval activity was manipulated between-Ss and length of retention interval was manipulated within-Ss. Initial tests of recall revealed an inverse performance probability for the rehearsal-interference group as interval length increased. No effects of interval length were seen for a group given unrestricted rehearsal time. Retention levels for both groups were not significantly different on the final recall test. Implications of these results for general models of memory were presented.

This thesis has examined the relationship between recognition tasks and recall tasks, more specifically, the superiority of recognition over recall. Although this supperiority was still found to exist, evidence suggested that as discriminability among alternatives in the recognition task decreased, the superiority of recognition, over recall also decreased. Also investigated was the effect recognition and recall have on one another. It was found that recognition enhanced the ensuing recalls however, evidence suggested that as discriminability among alternatives in the recognition task became more difficult, performance on subsequent recall decreased.

An independent S design employing a distractor-type task was used to investigate release from proactive inhibition (PI) as a function of intertrial interval (ITI) in short-term memory (STM). Of specific interest was whether PI release was provided by shift in ITI length rather than a function of lengthening the ITI. Four groups were employed in this study. One group received short ITIs for 4 trials and then a long ITI for the next 2 trials; another group shifted from a long to short ITI, and two additional groups received constant ITIs throughout. It was found that neither lengthening ITI nor a shift in ITI length provided a release from PI. Implications concerning time as an organizational (clustering) factor in final recall were not substantiated.

The introduction of the Evidence Amendment Act (1989) in New Zealand allowed for children�s evidence to be videotaped and to be presented in court at a later time as evidence-in-chief. Typically, children see these tapes for the first time in court when they are required to be present for cross-examination, frequently months, or even years, after the evidence was recorded. From a theoretical perspective, allowing children to view a pre-recorded interview may be potentially beneficial, serving to remind the child of what was said at an earlier interview, and reactivating or �refreshing� the child�s memory of the event. It is also possible that viewing the videotape will have detrimental effects on children�s reports. For example, errors may be compounded when children see themselves make an error or complying with a suggestion on videotape. In a series of five studies, the current thesis examined what effect, if any, viewing an earlier interview had on children�s subsequent reports about an event. In all studies presented, children took part in an event, and then were interviewed about that event 1-2 weeks later. That interview contained misinformation, which was introduced in questions. In Study 1, children watched their own videotaped interview 24 hours prior to being re-interviewed about an event in which they had participated seven months earlier. At Interview 2, the reports from these children were not very different from those of children who had no reminder, but they did report more information in free recall. In Study 2, children viewed their pre-recorded interview immediately prior to Interview 2, rather than 24 hours prior, as in the first study. In addition, the delay between the event and Interview 2 was extended to 12 months. These changes were made to maximize any possible effects of the videotape as a reminder. In this study, there were greater differences between the reports of children who had, and who had not, viewed the earlier interview. These relative gains in information were not at the expense of accuracy. Study 3 aimed to replicate the results of Study 2, using a larger sample. Due to circumstances beyond the Experimenter�s control, the participant number included in this study was reduced. The pattern of results in the present study was generally similar to the results observed in Study 2. One group of participants participated in an additional event shortly before the end of the delay period between the interviews. This provided a unique opportunity to assess whether viewing a pre-recorded interview would assist with source monitoring, as the additional event was very similar to the first event. Study 4 examined this data. Results of this study indicated that the intervening visit interfered with the effectiveness of the pre-recorded interview as a memory aid. In addition, viewing the videotaped interview did not assist the children with source monitoring. Study 5 examined whether the results from Studies 2 and 3 would generalise to a different event. The results suggested that a videotaped interview was much less effective with the different event. It is likely that this was because the event was less interactive, potentially less salient, and less familiar to the participants than the event used in the previous studies. Study 6 combined the data from the previous five studies, in order to increase the statistical power. By doing this, it was anticipated that the consistent aspects of the results would become clearer, and that the inconsistent findings would be eliminated. Indeed, this study summarized the strengths of the earlier studies, and demonstrated that children�s reports at Interview 2 were enhanced when they viewed their videotape of Interview 1. This enhancement did not lead to an increased number of errors for the reminder group. Taken together, these findings suggest that viewing a videotape of an earlier interview has some advantages and no detrimental effects on children�s subsequent reports. Errors spontaneously generated by the children tended to be minor, did not increase following exposure to the earlier interview, and were not repeated across the interviews. Watching a prior, videotaped interview had most benefit on increasing the information reported in free recall, and did not reduce accuracy. This is important, as free recall in interviews with children is typically accurate, but brief. Further, when asked direct questions, in some cases children who had seen a prior interview tended to be more likely to provide the correct answer. These findings are considered in the context of current legal reforms.