Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
multi store model of memory, EVALUATE THE MSM, STUDIES - Coggle Diagram
-
EVALUATE THE MSM
!STRENGTH!
research to support it
- CW had a severe form of amnesia
- he shows that he can't transfer & retrieve information to & from the LTM.
- he is stuck in STM
- supports MSM as it presents itself with different stores of memory and therefore increases the validity of the model
!LIMITATION!
oversimplification
- CW still able to play piano despite being stuck in STM
- episodic memory was severly impaired due to brain damage but semantic & procedural memories still mostly intact
- suggests the LTM is not a single store (however its hard to generalise as it is just one person)
- also supports Tulving's view - different memory stores in the LTM
-
-
-
STUDIES
Capacity in STM
Jacobs (1887)
Procedures
- serial digit span (repeating back a string of increasing items in correct order)
- participants given letters/numbers omitting those with 2 syllables (W/7)
Findings
- average span for digits - 9-3 items
- average span for letters - 7-3 items
- digit span increases steadily with age
Conclusions
- shows STM does have a limited capacity of 5-8 items
- depends on material used (letters/digits) and age
- digits may be easier to recall as there were 9 digits whereas there were 25 letters
Criticisms (good and bad)
- good temporal validity
- lacks mundane realism
- individual differences in recall suggests that one is not just measuring capacity but other strategies that influence capacity such as chunking
Miller (1956)
Findings
- (reviewed other studies) people remember 5 letters as well as they can recall 5 words
- wrote an article: 'The Magic Number 7+/-2'
- on average people can remember 5-9 chunks of information
Conclusions
- chunking is vital to reduce the load on STM and remember more things at one time
Simon (1974)
Findings
- people have shorter span for longer chunks than smaller ones
Conclusion
- chunking isn't as straightforward as suggested by Miller, the size of the chunk does affect STM
Duration in STM
Peterson & Peterson (1959)
Aims
- conduct a controlled study to see how long information is retained in STM when verbal rehearsal is prevented
Procedures
- 24 students
- experimenter said nonsense trigram (random letters) followed by a 3-digit-number. Participants told to count backwards until told to stop and recall nonsense trigram
-repeat 8 times with different retention intervals
Findings
- participants remembered 90% - 3 second interval
-20% - 9 second interval
- 2% - 18 second interval
Conclusions
- STM has duration of less than 18 seconds if verbal rehearsal is prevented
- information may disappear after a few seconds
Criticisms
- ecological validity - stimulus material artificial meaning findings may not apply to real life
- population validity - students participants more intelligent and younger than average
Coding in STM and LTM
Baddeley (1966)
Aims
- investigate how information is coded into STM & LTM
Testing STM - Procedures
- 4 groups
- each group heard 1 word list (acoustically and semantically dis/similar)
Findings
- participants with acoustic similarity did worst
- on trial 4- recalled 55% of words
- participants with other 3 lists recalled 75% of words
Conclusions
- STM affected by acoustic confusions which demonstrates that info in STM is remembered in terms of their sounds (acoustically)
Testing LTM - Procedures
- same as STM
- recall was after a 20-minute retention interval during which the participants performed another task
Findings
- semantic similarity did worst
- trial 4 - recalled 55% of words
- other 3 lists recalled 70% of words
Conclusions
- information in LTM prone to semantic confusions - demonstrates information in LTM tends to be coded in terms of meaning (semantically)
Duration in LTM
Bahrick et al (1975)
Aims
- Study personally significant memories to see if VLT is better than found in lab studies
Procedures
- 400 people - aged 17-74 asked to:
list high school classmates' names
recognise classmates' photos
recognise classmates' photos
Findings
- 15 years after graduation-recognition 90% accurate (identifying names & faces)
- after 48 years - 80% for names & 70% for faces
- free recall poorer - after 15 years - 60% then to 30% after 48 years
Conclusions
- shows strong evidence for VLTM when memory is for personally significant events
- recognition better than recall & slightly better for names
Criticisms
- good way to test memory - high ecological validity
- more difficult to control variables e.g. saw classmates regulary