The memory core studies: the classic study Wilson et al. (2008) on a patient with severe amnesia (Clive Wearing), and the contemporary study Braun et al. (2002) on how misleading advertising can create false memories.

What this dot point is asking

OCR wants you to know the two memory core studies. The classic study is Wilson et al. (2008), the case of Clive Wearing, showing how amnesia destroys some memory but spares other types. The contemporary study is Braun et al. (2002), showing how misleading advertising can create false memories. For each you need the aim, method, results, conclusions and an evaluation.

Wilson et al. (2008): the classic study

Aim

To study the effects of severe amnesia on memory by examining the case of Clive Wearing, a professional musician.

Method

A longitudinal case study. Clive Wearing developed amnesia after a viral brain infection damaged his hippocampus (a region vital for forming new memories). Researchers observed and tested his memory over time.

Results

He had anterograde amnesia (he could not form new long-term memories, feeling as if he constantly "woke up" for the first time) and retrograde amnesia (he had lost many memories of his past). However, his procedural memory and skills were largely intact: he could still play the piano and conduct, and he still recognised and loved his wife.

Conclusion

Some types of memory can be destroyed while others survive, so memory is not a single store. This supports the idea of separate memory systems (as in the multi-store model) and distinguishes the amnesia types in factors affecting memory.

Braun et al. (2002): the contemporary study

Aim

To find out whether exposure to misleading advertising can create false memories of childhood events.

Method

An experiment in which participants were shown misleading adverts about a product or experience. In one famous condition, an advert described a Disney visit featuring Bugs Bunny, a character who could not have been at Disney (Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros character, not a Disney one). Participants were later asked about their childhood memories.

Results

Many participants later confidently "remembered" having met Bugs Bunny on a childhood trip to Disney, an event that could not have happened. The misleading advert had created a false memory.

Conclusion

Misleading advertising can create false memories, supporting the theory of reconstructive memory: people rebuild the past and can absorb suggested but impossible details, which is a key reason eyewitness testimony can be unreliable.

Evaluating the two studies

Wilson et al. (2008) has the strength of rich, in-depth longitudinal data about a rare condition, and high ecological validity (a real person's real memory). Its weaknesses are that a single case may not generalise to others, and case studies rely partly on interpretation. Braun et al. (2002) has the strengths of an experiment (control and the power to show cause and effect) with a clear, striking result and obvious application to advertising and eyewitness testimony. Its weaknesses are that the task is somewhat artificial, it raises ethical questions about deliberately implanting false memories, and the sample may not generalise. Together they show memory is both structured (separate systems) and reconstructive (open to distortion).

Try this

Q1. Which type of memory survived in Clive Wearing (Wilson et al., 2008)? [1 mark]

• Cue. Procedural memory and skills (he could still play the piano), and he still recognised his wife.

Q2. What did Braun et al. (2002) create in participants using misleading adverts? [1 mark]

• Cue. A false memory (of meeting Bugs Bunny at Disney).

Q3. Give one weakness of using a single case study like Wilson et al. (2008). [2 marks]

• Cue. A single case may not generalise to others, and case studies rely partly on interpretation.