Memory Mindmap

Question 1

Coding STM Research

Answer 1

Baddeley 1966

Question 2

Coding LTM Research

Answer 2

Baddeley 1966

Question 3

Capacity STM Research

Answer 3

Jacobs (1887) and Miller (1956)

Question 4

Capacity STM Research Evaluation Studies

Answer 4

Jacobs validified by Bopp et al (2005)
Miller improved by Cowen (2001)

Question 5

Duration STM Research

Answer 5

Peterson and Peterson 1959

Question 6

Duration LTM Research

Answer 6

Bahrick et al 1975

Question 7

Duration LTM Research Evaluation Study

Answer 7

Shepard 1967

Question 8

Baddeley 1966 Procedure and Findings

Answer 8

Gave different lists of words to four groups of participants.
1 - Acoustically similar
2 - Acoustically dissimilar
3 - Semantically similar
4 - Semantically disimilar
Participants were asked to recall the correct order. When they did it immediately, acoustically similar was worse and when they did it after 20 minutes, semantically similar was wose.

Question 9

Baddeley 1966 Findings suggest

Answer 9

Coded acoustically in STM and semantically in LTM

Question 10

Jacobs (1887) Procedure and Findings

Answer 10

Measured digit span, reading out digits and adding if they get it correct, until the participant cannot correctly recall.
Found mean span for digits was 9.3 and for letters was 7.3.

Question 11

Miller (1956) Observation

Answer 11

Observed that things come in sevens (deadly sins, days of the week) and concluded capacity of STM was 7+-2. Also noticed people can recall more with chunking - grouping information into chunks.

Question 12

Peterson and Peterson (1959) Procedure and Findings

Answer 12

24 students in 8 trials. Students were given a consonant syllable to remember and had to count backwards from a number to prevent mental rehearsal.
Retention interval varies by time - 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 seconds, Findings were after 3 seconds recall was 80% and after 18 seconds was 3%.
Suggested that without verbal rehersal, STM duration is 18 seconds.

Question 13

Bahrick et al (1975) Procedure and Findings

Answer 13

Studied 392 Americans ages 17-74. Obtained HS yearbooks and tested recall through photo recognition and free recall of names of graduating class.
Tested within 15 years were accurate to 90%.
After 48 years, it was 70%.
Free recall less accurate - 60% 15 yrs, 30% 48 yrs. Shows LTM may last a lifetime for some material.

Question 14

Baddeley 1966 Evaluation

Answer 14

Clearly identified memory stores, important step to understanding memory and led to development of MSM.
However, artificial stimulus use may not tell us much about everyday coding - semantic may be used in STM for meaningful tasks and thus limited application.

Question 15

Jacobs 1887 Evaluation

Answer 15

Older studies lacked validity (no control on confounding variables like distration). However, findings replicated since by controlled studies ie Bopp 2001, improving validity.

Question 16

Miller 1956 Evaluation

Answer 16

May have overestimated capacity of STM. Cowan (2001) reviewed research and concluded probably 4+-1.

Question 17

Petersen and Peterson 1959 Evaluation

Answer 17

Lacked external validity due to meaningless artificial stimuli.

Question 18

Bahrick et al 1975 Evaluation

Answer 18

High external validity due to use of meaningful memories. Shepard 1967 did similar but with meaningless pictures and found lower recall, suggests Bahrick is more realistic estimate.

Question 19

Who developed MSM

Answer 19

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968, 1971)

Question 20

Draw MSM of memory

Answer 20

Stimulus from environment
Passes into sensory register (iconic, echoic)
Process attention passes into STM.
Prolonged rehearsal passes into LTM.
Maintenance rehearsal keeps in STM.
Retrieval passes from LTM to STM.
Response (remembering) is recall from STM.

Question 21

MSM A03 Research Support

Answer 21

There is support that STM and LTM are different stores (ie Baddeley) and studies of capacity and duration.

Question 22

MSM AO3 Ecological Validity

Answer 22

Many of the studies that informed MSM lacked ecological validity and used meaningless stimuli (letters and digits rather than names, faces etc). May not be valid model of everyday memory.

Question 23

MSM AO3 STM Stores

Answer 23

There is evidence for more than 1 store. Shallice and Warrington’s KF had amnesia. STM for digits very poor when read to him, but better when he read them himself. Suggests MSM wrong for claiming only 1 and likely there are more.

Question 24

MSM AO3 Rehersal

Answer 24

MSM says more rehearsal = more chance of going to LTM. Craik and Watkins (1973) found that type is more important - elaborative rehearsal and making semantic links to existing. MSM doesn’t explain how we remember some things after hearing them once.

Question 25

MSM AO3 General Conclusion

Answer 25

Lots of evidence that STM and LTM are not single stores. MSM is oversimplified model of memory

Question 26

Discuss research into features of STM

Answer 26

AO1 Points
- Coding Baddeley 1966
- Capacity Jacobs 1887 and Miller 1956
- Duration Peterson and Peterson 1959
AO3 Points
- Baddeley led to MSM but used artificial stimuli, limited application
- Jacobs older lacked validity but confirmed by controlled like Bopp et al 2005
- Miller may have overestimated - Cowan 2001 reviewed and said 4+-1 chunks.
- Peterson and Peterson lacked external validity.

Question 27

Discuss research into features of LTM

Answer 27

AO1 Points
- Bahrick et al 1985
- Baddeley 1966
AO3
- Ba

Question 28

Fill out STM, LTM X Capacity, Duration, Coding grid

Answer 28

STM
CAPACAITY - Jacobs 1887 and Miller 1956 and Bopp 2005 and Cowan 2001
DURATION - Peterson and Peterson 1959
CODING - Baddeley 1966

LTM
CAPACITY - none
DURATION - Bahrick et al 1975
CODING - Baddeley 1966