Memory - Evaluation Flashcards
1st Strength of the MSM?
Supported by real life case study of Clive Wearing -> CW’s memory ‘restarted’ once the time span of his STM elapsed (30 secs) which shows that his STM is working - his LTM is damaged = he could not recall some long term memories, e.g receiving his musical education or names of his children -> + = findings support that the claims of the MSM because they suggest that STM + LTM are separate stores as the MSM claims + one story can be damaged (LTM) whilst the other store remains intact (STM) - degree of validity.
2nd Strength of the MSM?
Further research support -> Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) asked p.ps to remember a list of words - they found that when p.ps were asked to recall the words - they tended to recall the words from the beginning + the end of the list the most - the words at the start = linked to LTM (primacy effect) - the words at the end = linked to STM (recency effect) -> + = demonstrates that STM + LTM are separate stores as the model claims - suggests the MSM has a degree of validity as an explanation of how memory works.
1st Limitation of the MSM?
It is not fully supported by the case study of Clive Wearing -> CW has some long term memories but not others - e.g he cannot recall having received a musical education (episodic memory) but can still play piano (procedural memory) -> - = the findings suggest that LTM is not a unitary store as the MSM claims - limits the validity of the MSM.
2nd Limitation of the MSM?
MSM overemphasises the role of rehearsal in forming long-term memories -> many psychologists believe that role rehearsal is too simple a process to account for the transfer of info from STM to LTM + transfer often occurs with no rehearsal - ‘flashbulb memories’ can be recalled very easily without rehearsal -> - = it would seem that material does not just pass from STM to LTM by being rehearsed in the way the MSM suggests + therefore suggests that the MSM is not a completely valid explanation of how memory works.
Strength of Baddeley’s research?
High control - a lab experiment + can establish cause + effect -> we can be confident that the IV (whether the words were acoustically/semantically similar/different) affected the DV (the number of words correctly recalled) -> + = results are unlikely to be affected by confounding variables - high internal validity - we can be confident that coding in LTM is mainly semantic + coding in STMS is mainly acoustic.
Limitation of Baddeleys’s research?
Low ecological validity -> artificial + simple task of recalling a list of words - doesn’t test the true complexity of memory -> - = cannot necessarily be generalised to real life (low external validity).
Strength of Peterson & Peterson’s research?
High control - lab experiment + can establish cause and effect -> confident that IV (the number of seconds p.ps were prevented from rehearsing the trigrams) affected the DV (if the trigram could be correctly recalled or not) -> + = the results of the study are unlikely to be affected by confounding variables - high internal validity.
Limitation of Peterson & Peterson’s research?
Low ecological validity -> p.ps were presented with a trigram + recalling it is an artificial + simple task - doesn’t test the true complexity of memory -> - = cannot necessarily be generalised to real life (low external validity).
Limitation of the claim that STM can hold 7+/-2 pieces of info?
There are individual differences in memory capacity depending of factors such as age -> Jacobs found that digit span increased steadily with age; 8 year old could remember an average of 6.6 digits - 19 year olds average was 8.6 -> - = the assumption that all individuals have a STM that can hold between 5-9 pieces of info is over-simplistic + may not necessarily generalise to how everybody’s STM works - not entirely valid.
Strength of Bahrick’s research?
High ecological validity -> used meaningful stimulus material (high school yearbooks) + tested people for memories from their own lives.
Limitation of Bahrick’s study?
Low control over extraneous variables -> it is possible that p.ps identification of their classmates might have been affected by external factors, e.g if p.ps had been close friends with certain people in the yearbook -> - = low internal validity.
Strength of Sperling’s research?
Lab experiment + has high control over extraneous variables -> all the p.ps had the same experience - all were shown the same letters for the same amount of time + given the same standardised instructions in a highly controlled environment -> + = the results are unlikely to be affected by confounding variables - high internal validity = can be confident in the results about the sensory register.
Limitation of Sperling’s research?
Low ecological validity -> p.ps were shown random letters in a laboratory + asked to recall them -> - = findings may be difficult to generalise to how sensory memory works in real life (low external validity).
1st Strength of the WMM?
Supported by research using the dual task technique -> Baddeley et al (1973) found that p.ps could successfully track a spot of light + complete a verbal task at the same time (using the VSS + PL) - p.ps were less successful when asked to track the spot of light + describe the letter F (both using VSS) -> + = supports the claim that STM is not unitary - instead consists of separate components that have limited capacity = degree of validity.
2nd Strength of WMM?
Supported by the case study of KF -> KF suffered brain damage after a motorcycle accident - KF had poor STM ability for auditory info but could process visual information normally - his immediate recall of letters + digits was better when he read them than when they were read to him - his PL was damaged, but his VSS was intact -> + = supports the existence of separate visual + acoustic stores as the model suggests - degree of validity.
