Memory: The multi-store model of memory (AO3) Flashcards
(4 cards)
STRENGTH: Supportive evidence from case studies
A strength of the multi-store model (MSM) is that the model is supported by research from the case study of HM, whose memory was profoundly impacted following brain surgery. Patient HM’s long-term memory (LTM) was significantly impaired; he repeatedly read the same magazine without recalling that he had read it before and could not remember events that had occurred earlier in the day. Despite this, his short-term memory (STM) remained functional, as demonstrated by his ability to perform well on immediate digit span tasks, which measure STM capacity. This provides strong support for the MSM, as HM’s case illustrates the existence of two distinct and separate memory systems, STM and LTM, reinforcing the model’s core assertion of independent stores and thus enhancing its validity. On the other hand, HM’s case is unique and involved brain surgery and epilepsy medication, which may have altered his brain function, so the findings may lack generalisability. However, the findings have been reinforced with other data, for example from imaging studies, suggesting that the separation of STM and LTM is valid.
STRENGTH: Supportive evidence from brain scans
A strength of the MSM is that there is supportive evidence from neuroimaging studies that STM and LTM are distinct stores. Beardsley (1997) found that the prefrontal cortex is active during STM tasks, such as when making a decision, but not during LTM tasks. In addition, Squire (1992) found that the hippocampus is active when LTM is engaged. This provides evidence that there is more than one store of memory as different parts of the brain are active when different types of memory are used. This is scientific and objective evidence which increases the validity of the theory, as it allows direct manipulation of the independent variable, which increases confidence in causality.
LIMITATION: Elaborative vs maintenance rehearsal
A limitation of the MSM is that it may overemphasise the role of maintenance rehearsal in forming long-term memories, neglecting the importance of elaborative rehearsal. Craik and Lockhart (1972) conducted an experiment where participants processed words at varying depths; shallow processing involved judging whether a word was in uppercase letters, while deep processing involved determining if a word fit within a sentence context. Results showed that words processed at a deeper level were remembered more effectively, suggesting that depth of processing plays a critical role in memory retention. This evidence led to the development of the Depth of Processing theory, which posits that elaborative rehearsal, rather than simple repetition, strengthens LTM. As the MSM does not account for this more nuanced process, it limits the model’s validity, as it may oversimplify how memories are encoded and stored in real-life contexts.
LIMITATION: Oversimplification of long-term memory
A limitation of the MSM is that it oversimplifies long-term memory (LTM) by treating it as a single, unitary store. Research on Patient HM challenges this view; while HM was unable to form new episodic or semantic memories (like remembering events or general knowledge), he could still acquire new procedural memories, such as learning to improve on a mirror-drawing task, which relies on motor skills. These findings suggest that LTM consists of multiple, distinct systems - episodic, semantic, and procedural memory - each potentially governed by separate brain regions and processes. Although the MSM has been foundational in advancing our understanding of memory, its lack of differentiation within LTM reduces the model’s validity, as it fails to account for the complexity revealed by real-world cases.
