Evaluations Flashcards
How does the Clive wearing case study help the evaluation of the MSM
strengths and weaknesses
Clive wearing contracted a virus called amnesia. He could only remember info for around 20-30 seconds before they went blank but could recall events from before his illness, such as his wife’s name
strengths: Demonstrates separation of STM and LTM as info could not be transferred between stores
weaknesses: Wearing’s ability to recall procedural memories (such as playing the piano) challenges the MSM, suggesting that LTM is not a unitary store
What points do you use to evaluate the MSM
- support from case studies
- Support from Experimental research
- Criticism : oversimplification of STM and LTM
- Evidence from brain scanning
How does the HM help the evaluation of the MSM and the strengths and weaknesses of them
HM: he had severe epilepsy so got his hippocampus removed. post surgery he was unable to form new long-term memories but retained memories from before the operation. STM was functional but couldn’t be taken to the LTM
strengths: Supports the claim that the STM and LTM are separate stores, Hm could not transfer info between them
weaknesses: Cases such as HM are unique and lack generalisability
How would you evaluate the MSM:
support from experimental research
Primacy and recency effect (Glanzer and Cunitz): participants recalled words better from the beginning (primacy) and the end (recency) of a list
strengths: The primacy effect occurs because early words are rehearsed and transferred to LTM, While the recency effect shows words still active in the STM. this supports the idea of sperate memory stores
weaknesses: These findings may lack ecological validity as recalling word lists is artificial and may not reflect how memory operates in real-world context
How would you evaluate the MSM:
criticism: oversimplification of STM and LTM
The MSM claims they are unitary stores
- STM: research by (Baddeley and Hitch) working memory model shows that the STM is divided into multiple components (phonological loops etc)
- LTM: Tulving proposed that the LTM consists of separate stores (episodic, procedural and procedural)
limitation: These findings challenge the MSM simplicity suggesting it does not fully explain the complexity of memory
How do you evaluate the MSM:
evidence from brain scanning
(strength) Beardsley brain scans show the pre frontal cortex is active during STM memory task but the LTM isn’t
Squire et al: Hippocampus is active when LTM is engaged
- strengths: These findings provided biological evidence supporting the MSM claim that STM and LTM are distinct systems
- limitations : Brain activity doesn’t explain how information is transferred between stores or why some memories are forgotten despite rehearsal
How do you evaluate the WMM by dual-task studies
- participants struggled more when performing 2 visual tasks compared to performing a visual and verbal task simultaneously.
- This is because 2 visual tasks compete for the visuospatial sketchpad while verbal engages phonological loop
. Strengths - shows phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad are separate systems
. Weaknesses - Artificial settings, reduces external validity
how do you evaluate the WMM by support for the central executive?
1/2
Comes from experiments requiring attention allocation
- hitch and Baddeley
. participants judged whether “B is followed by A” for letters like “AB” engaging the central executive
. Participants then repeated the experiment with a distraction such as remembering a random number
task 1 slowed when task 2 used both stores
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation of the WMM with support for the central executive
Strengths - Shows central executive manages attention and is separated from slave systems
weaknesses - The central executives role remains vague with critics arguing
it is little more than a description of “attention allocation”
how do you evaluate the WMM
real life application
The WMM has practical implications in understanding cognitive disorders
- dyslexia - Links to deficit’s in the phonological loops e.g. reading skills and verbal rehearsal
- ADHD - Associated with impairments in the central executive leading to attention problems etc
- strengths - Incites have informed interventions such as strategies to improve verbal rehearsal in dyslexic children or enhance attention in ADHD patience
- Limitations - interventions often focus on specific components but mail fail to address the broader complexities of memory and cognition
how do you evaluate the WMM
real life application
The WMM has practical implications in understanding cognitive disorders
- dyslexia - Links to deficit’s in the phonological loops e.g. reading skills and verbal rehearsal
- ADHD - Associated with impairments in the central executive leading to attention problems etc
- strengths - Incites have informed interventions such as strategies to improve verbal rehearsal in dyslexic children or enhance attention in ADHD patience
- Limitations - interventions often focus on specific components but mail fail to address the broader complexities of memory and cognition
what would you include in the evaluation of retrieval failure on an explanation to forgetting
- lots of research support
- retrieval don’t always work
- retrieval failure explains interference effects
How would you evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation to forgetting
(lots of research support)
The wealth of research is a significant strength in explaining the role of retrieval failure on forgetting
Examples:
- Tulving and Pearlstone conducted an experiment where participants had to learn a list of categorised words. When given a category name as a cue more words were recalled than without
- similarly it was shown through and experiment that people who learnt and was tested in the same room had a higher test score
How would you evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation to forgetting
( Retrieval cues do not always work)
while retrieval cues effect recall, their effectiveness is limited as information if often more complex than simple ques.
Known as outshining hypothesis, where presence of better cues outshines context cues
Explain - Smith and vela found context effects are largely eliminated when learning meaningful material which suggests retrieval cues cannot explain some instances of forgetting
How would you evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation to forgetting
( retrieval failure explains interference effects )
It has a strong ability to explain explain interference effects
Tulving - showed that apparent effects are due to the absences of cues.
Participants learnt multiple word lists and performed worse with more (retroactive interference) but with cues recall 70% of the words were remembered regardless of number of lists .
Indicates that info is available but not always accessible
How would you evaluate context- dependent forgetting?
- Variable control issues (Godden and Baddeley) = Their research shown that environmental cues aid memory recall but it lacked internal validity. As the divers participated at different times and places so the environment could ag=effect the results
- Design and sample concerns- Small sample size (can’t generalise)
. repeated measures ( demand characteristics and order effects e.g. practise and fatigue)
. independent design would have been better but hard with trained divers - Ethical concerns - regarding participant safety. One diver was almost hit by a boat
How would you evaluate state-dependent forgetting?
- research from Goodwin et.al - He demonstrated that retrieval failure happens when emotional states vary in learning and recall. (His study on sober and non sober). Supports the idea state impacts recall
- Research from Carter and Cassidy
Also demonstrated retrieval failure is due to state. ( Their research with drugs and not on drugs). Shows when the cues are absent there’s more forgetting so state is curtail for forgetting - Criticism of cause and effect - Nairhe criticised the research suggesting its correlation rather than causation. As he said cues present at encoding and retrieval are associated but do not cause recall. suggesting it is not a direct casual relationship and other factors can play a role
