memory A03

Question 1

Evaluate Baddeley’s Acoustic and semantic study

Answer 1

1) Strength: identified 2 memory stores
There are exceptions to Baddeley’s findings
But STM is mostly acoustic and LTM semantic
Led to development of multi-store model
2) Limitation: Used artificial stimuli
Words had no personal meaning to ppts, tells us little about coding for everyday memory tasks
Meaningful information uses semantic coding even for STM
Means findings have limited application

Question 2

A03 Evaluate Jacobs and Miller’s capacity studies

Answer 2

1) Jacobs strength: has been replicated
Old study may have lacked control (confounding variables e.g ppts being distracted)
Findings confirmed in later controlled studies (Bopp)
Shows study is a valid measure of STM digit span
2) Miller limitation: may overestimate STM capacity
Cowan reviewed other research
Concluded capacity of STM was only 4 chunks
Suggests the lower end of Miller’s estimate (5 items) is more appropriate than 7

Question 3

A03 Evaluate Peterson and Bahrick’s duration studies

Answer 3

1) Peterson limitation: meaninglessness stimuli
We try to recall meaningless things so study is not completely irrelevant
But recall consonant syllables does not reflect meaningful everyday memory tasks
Study lacks external validity
2) Bahrick strength: high external validity
Everyday meaningful memories (faces and names) were studied
Lab studies on meaningless pictures recall rates were lower (Shepard)
Findings reflect a more ‘real’ estimate of the duration of LTM

Question 4

A03 Evaluate the multi-store model of memory

Answer 4

1) Limitation: evidence suggesting there is more than 1 STM store
KF had amnesia, STM recall better when heard rather than read
Therefore MSM is wrong to say there is just 1 STM store
2) Limitation: prolonged rehearsal is not needed for STM-LTM transfer
Craik and Watkins said there’s 2 types of rehearsal (maintenance and elaborate)
Maintenance is described in MSM but elaborative is needed for LTM storage
Suggests MSM doesn’t fully explain LTM storage
3) Strength: research support showing STM and LTM is different
Baddeley found we mix words that sound similar when using our STMs
But when mixing words that have similar meanings when we use our LTMs
Supports MSMs view that these 2 stores are separate and independent

Question 5

A03 Evaluate Types of long-term memory

Answer 5

1) Strength: Case study evidence of different types of LTM
Clinical studies of amnesia (Clive Wearing) showed had difficulty recalling past events (episodic)
Procedural memory was still intact (could still play piano)
Supports difference in memory stores for LTM
2) Limitation: Conflicting findings about types of LTM and brain areas
Buckner and Petersen concluded semantic memory is located in left prefrontal cortex and episodic right
Tucking found that semantic memory associates with right prefrontal cortex and reverse for episodic
Challengers neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory / poor agreement
3) Strength: Helps people with memory problems
Memory loss in old age is specific to episodic memory
Belleville devised intervention for old people targeting episodic memory which improved it
Shows distinguishing between LTM memory helps specific treatments to be made

Question 6

A03 Evaluate the Working Memory Model

Answer 6

1) Strength: Support from clinical evidence
Patient KF studied (had a brain injury)
His STM for auditory information was poor (PL) but could process visual information (VSS)
Supports WMM view that there are separate visual/acoustic memory stores (COUNTERPOINT: KF may have had other impairments which explained poor memory-Challenges evidence)
2) Strength: Dual task performance studies support VSS
Baddeley ppts found harder to carry out 2 visual tasks at same time than do verbal and visual task together
Must be a separate slave system that processes VSS and PL
3) Limitation: Lack of clarity over central executive
Baddeley said CE was most important but least understood
CE is unsatisfactory component and challenges integrity of model

Question 7

A03 Evaluate Interference as an explanation for forgetting

Answer 7

1) Strength: Support in real world situations
Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall names of teams played against in the season
Players did not all play same number of games (injuries) Those who played most had the poorest recall
Shows interference operates in everyday situations increasing validity
2) Limitation: Interference may be overcome using cues
Tulving gave ppts list of words organised into categories
When given a cued recall test recall rose to 70%
Shows interference causes a temporary loss of access to information
3) Strength: Support from drug studies
Material learned before taking Diazepam recalled better than placebo group
Drug stopped new information reaching brain so could not retroactively interfere
Shows that forgetting is due to interference (reducing interference reduced forgetting)