Multi Store Model Of Memory Flashcards

Question

Harry Bahrick (1975) (LTM evidence)

Answer 1

Found that many of the participants were able to recognise the names and faces of school classmates. Almost 50 years on. when you want to recall material stored in the LTM it has to be transferred back into the STM. According to the MSM model, none are recalled directly from LTM.

Answer 2

Strengths: - There is a large base of research that supports the idea of distinct STM and LTM systems (e.g. brain-damaged case study patient KF’s STM was impaired following a motorcycle accident, but his LTM remained intact). - It makes sense that memories in the LTM are encoded semantically – i.e. you might recall the general message put across in a political speech, rather than all of the words as they were heard. - The MSM was a pioneering model of memory that inspired further research and consequently other influential models, such as the Working Memory Model.

Answer 3

Weaknesses: - Some research into STM duration has low ecological validity, as the stimuli participants were asked to remember bear little resemblance to items learned in real life, e.g. Peterson and Peterson (1959) used nonsense trigrams such as ‘XQF’ to investigate STM duration. - The model is arguably over-simplified, as evidence suggests that there are multiple short and long-term memory stores, e.g. ‘LTM’ can be split into Episodic, Procedural and Semantic memory. - It does not make much sense to think of procedural memory (a type of LTM) as being encoded semantically, i.e. knowing how to ride a bike through its meaning. - It is only assumed that LTM has an unlimited capacity, as research has been unable to measure this accurately.

Answer 4

Point: Further research from brain scanning techniques has supported the Multi-Store Memory model and the idea of separate memory stores (i.e. a short term memory store and a long term memory store. Evidence: Squire et al (1992) used brain-scanning techniques and found that STM can be associated with activity in the prefrontal cortex and that LTM can be associated with activity in the hippocampus. Evaluation: This is a strength because it provides biological evidence that the different types of memory are processed by different parts of the brain and that the memory stores are distinct as the multi-store model suggests. (2) Point: Case studies of brain damaged patients (e.g. KF) have also offered support for the Multi-Store Model of memory. Evidence: Shallice and Warrington (1970), reported the case of KF, who was brain damaged as a result of a motorcycle accident. His STM was severely impaired, however his LTM remained intact. Evaluation: This supports the view that STM and LTM are separate and distinct stores and therefore supports the proposals of the Multi-Store Model of memory as it shows that it is possible to damage only one store in memory. (3) Point: The main strength of the MSM come from support for the idea that at least two separate memory stores do exist (i.e. STM and LTM). Evidence: Murdock’s (1962) Serial position effect (laboratory experiment): Murdock argued that no matter how many words a person is shown and then asked to recall, items at the beginning of the list are recalled to a greater degree than those in the middle, while words at the end have a greater recall than either the beginning or the middle. Words recalled at the beginnig are rfered to as the primacy effect, words remembered at the end of the list are refered to as the recency effect. Evaluation: This supports the MSM because the fact that participants remember words more at the beginning of the list is due to the fact that these words are rehearsed and are starting to pass into the LTM (as suggested by the MSM). Words in the middle of the list are not remembered as well due to the fact that these words are not rehearsed and therefore are lot through displacement. Finally, as suggested by the MSM, the words at the end are remembered well due to the fact that we can hold words in in our STM without rehearsal for up to 30 seconds. 3) Point: Case studies of brain damaged patients criticise the MSM. Evidence: The case of KF demonstrated that his deficit in STM was for verbal information and that the STM for visual material was normal. Evaluation: This is a weakness because it demonstrated that it is possible to damage only part of the STM going against the MSM idea that STM is unitary (suggesting that there may be more than one type of STM). APPLICATION: The MSM has been applied to ways of improving memory For example, research has shown that the limited capacity of STM can be increased for a process called Chunking. this shows health and knowledge of a memory system as represented in the multi store model can be applied to practical ways of improving memory. SUPPORTING RESEARCH EVIDENCE: A strength is that the MSM is supported by research studies that show STM and LTM a qualitatively different for example Baddeley found that we tend to mix up words that sound similar when we are using our STM. But we makes up words that have similar meanings when we use our LTM, so in coding in STM as acoustic button LTM, it is semantic. Further support comes from studies of capacity and duration by Miller and the Petersons. This shows that STM and LTM a different in terms of encoding capacity and duration and supports the MSM view that needs to memory stores are separate an independent. COUNTER ARGUMENT: not all psychologist, except that STM and LTM, are separate stores. It is often more difficult than suggested by MSM to identify in every day life where one store ends and the other begins.. some research is suggests that STM and LTM are integrated, for example, Guillermina Campitelli (2015) argues that STM is the part of LTM, that we are currently focusing attention on