strengths and weaknesses of cognitive approach

Question 1

strengths x2 of MSMM

Answer 1

• Clive Wearing damaged hippocampus STM intact could not transfer to LTM though, = demonstrate separation of two stores
• primacy and recency effect Glanzer and Cunitz remember repeating the first things on a list (stored in LTM cause of rehearsal) and last things (still in STM) so forget the middle… suggests loop where info is rehearsed b4 going to LTM

Question 2

weaknesses x2 of MSMM

Answer 2

• KC could recall facts not personal effects = suggests LTM split into 2 separate stores (Tulving’s theory)
• unique case studies so not able to generalise findings based on individual cases alone

Question 3

strength of the WMM

Answer 3

• KF motorbike accident had digit span of one, suggesting impairment in his phonological store but visual memory was still intact = suggests WMM has two independent subsystems ie verbal and visuospatial

Question 4

weakness of WMM x2

Answer 4

• neurophysiological cases are unique with specific impairments so can’t generalise findings
• can’t explain why we could store only a limited number of word sequences in the phonological loop but far longer sentences (15-20 units) = limited explanation

Question 5

strength of Tulving’s theory x2

Answer 5

• KC suffered LTM impairment couldn’t remember personal events but could recall facts = supports separation of 2 LTM stores.
• Dickerson and Eichenbaum 2010 links between episodic and hippocampus = shows that 2010 episodic still accepted as category even tho it was proposed in 1972

Question 6

weaknesses of Tulving’s theory x2

Answer 6

• CW suffered memory impairments but could still play piano, Tulving added additional procedural memory later on suggesting model incomplete/inaccurate
• semantic/episodic memories work together e.g. episodic task - learning list of words, as word can have semantic feature ie meaning of the word, and episodic reference (when and where the word was remembered) = can’t be studied in isolation

Question 7

weakness of reconstructive x2

Answer 7

• war of the ghosts has little relevance to everyday memory = deliberate attempt for evidence of scheme as pp’s would alter the story so that it would make sense when being asked to retell story
• steyvers and Hemmer 2012 argued in real context, without manipulated material, schematic recall can be very accurate = can’t assume EWT is completely unreliable

Question 8

strength of reconstructive x2

Answer 8

• application to society EWT
• supported by study on war of the ghosts

Question 9

strengths of case studies x2

Answer 9

• good at finding detail and depth about an individual or small group = rich data to draw conclusions from = harder to find from other research methods
• Schmolck 2012 found 3 patients with same brain damage in medial temporal lobe = case studies back each other up in conclusions

Question 10

weaknesses of case studies x2

Answer 10

• lacks generalisability to ppl without brain damage.
• schmolck case studies were similar but not identical = hard to ensure damage caused the difficulties in cognitive functioning

Question 11

strength of classic study (Baddeley) x2

Answer 11

• well controlled procedures can be replicated to increase confidence
• reliable as he repeated some of his conditions that showed similar results e.g. similarity in findings both times pp’s used list A (acoustically similar list)

Question 12

weaknesses of classic study x2

Answer 12

• lab experiment not representable of real life behaviour
• experiments reduced memory to recall of the order of a list of 10 words, with various conditions involved = reductionist, findings don’t represent every day life (low task validity)

Question 13

strength of contemporary study x2

Answer 13

• large sample size of 570 pp’s = generalisable
• well controlled procedures e.g. digits were presented one per second + 3 trials = replicable

Question 14

weakness of contemporary study x2

Answer 14

• rarely use verbal memory to memorise lists of digits in every day = digit span experiments may not reflect everyday use of verbal memory affecting validity
• assumed that digit span is affecting by subvocalising which is why under the age of 7 the DS is lower (subvocal rehearsal starts at 7) = assumption rather than something the study shows so it states the digit span but doesn’t explain it