Paper 1 - Memory AO3

Question 1

What is a limitation of capacity of STM regarding the proposed capacity of our STM ?

Answer 1

• Capacity may be even more limited
• Cowan 2001 = revised studies, concluded that likely to be limited to 4 chunks if information, Vogue et al 2001 = capacity for visual information limited to 4 items
• Capacity may be smaller than first thought

Question 2

What is a issue with capacity of STM regarding differing capacities of STM ?

Answer 2

• Individual differences
• Jacob 1887 = digest span increases with age. 8 years olds with an average of 6.6, 19 year olds with an average of 8.6 digits
• May be due to increase in brain capacity as age increases

Question 3

What is a limitation capacity of STM regarding size of chunks?

Answer 3

• Found size of chunks affect how many words you remember
• Simon 1974 = individuals face shorter stab for larger chunks such as eight word phrases. Larger slab for smaller chunks such as one syllable words
• Suggests size of chunks matter

Question 4

What is a limitation of research into duration of STM regarding its research ?

Answer 4

• Critised for being artificial
• Doesn’t represent most everyday memory activities as not remembering meaningful things. But we do memories failed meaningless things such as groups of numbers and letters for phone numbers or post codes
• Suggests study has some relevance to everyday life but limited

Question 5

What is a limitation of research into duration of STM regarding ability for longer duration ?

Answer 5

• Found duration can be longer
• Nairne et al al 1999 = items could be recalled after as long as 96 seconds, asked to recall the same items across trials where as in Peterson and Peterson they were asked to recall different constant syllables which could have lead to interference
• Suggests duration can be longer than thought

Question 6

What is a limitation of research into coding of STM, LTM regarding STM coding ?

Answer 6

• Other experiments found STM doesn’t always code acoustically
• Brandimote et al 1992 = found participants use visual coding if given a task preventing from verbal rehearsal in retention interval before performing recall task. Normally we translate visual images into verbal codes in STM but as verbal rehearsal was prevented participants using visual codes
• Suggests STM uses visual coding

Question 7

What is a strength of multi store memory model regarding experimental support for separate stores in memory ?

Answer 7

• Research supports the idea that STM and LTM are separate memory stores.
• Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) found the serial position effect, where participants recalled words from the start (primacy effect) and end (recency effect) of a list better than those in the middle. The primacy effect occurs because early words are rehearsed and stored in LTM, while the recency effect occurs because the last words remain in STM
• Supports the idea that STM and LTM are separate, as they function differently in memory recall.

Question 8

What is a strength of multi store memory model regarding evidence from case studies to support idea that there are separate stores of memory?

Answer 8

• Case studies provide evidence that STM and LTM are separate
• Milner (1966) studied HM, who lost his hippocampus during surgery for epilepsy. Afterward, he could no longer form new long-term memories, but his STM remained intact.
• Suggests that LTM and STM are separate stores, as LTM can be damaged while STM remains unaffected.

Question 9

What is a limitation of multi store memory model regarding criticism of maintenance rehearsal?

Answer 9

• The MSM’s claim that maintenance rehearsal is necessary for transferring information to LTM has been challenged.
• Brown & Kulik (1977) identified flashbulb memories, where highly emotional events (e.g., 9/11) are directly stored in LTM without rehearsal.
• Suggests that memory formation is more complex than the MSM proposes, weakening its explanation of how information transfers to LTM.

Question 10

What is a limitation of multi store memory model regarding criticism of STM as a unitary store?

Answer 10

• MSM suggests STM is a unitary store, but evidence from case studies that this isnt true
• Shallice & Warrington (1970) studied KF, who, after brain damage in a motorbike accident, had difficulty processing verbal information in STM but could still process visual information.
• Suggests that STM has visual and auditory components supporting the working memory model over the MSM

Question 11

What is a limitation of the interference theory regarding individual differences ?

Answer 11

• Some people are less affected by interference than others.
• Kane & Engle (2000) found that individuals with a greater working memory span were less susceptible to proactive interference. Participants with lower working memory spans showed greater proactive interference when recalling word lists.
• Suggests that interference affects individuals differently, depending on their working memory capacity.

Question 12

What is a limitation of the interference theory regarding its low ecological validity ?

Answer 12

• Evidence mainly comes from laboratory studies.
• These studies often use artificial stimuli (e.g., word lists, nonsense syllables) that do not reflect real-life memory tasks. Participants may also lack motivation as there are no real consequences for forgetting.
• Lowers ecological validity, meaning the findings may not apply to real-life situations where memory is more meaningful

Question 13

What is a strength of the interference theory regarding RL evidence ?

Answer 13

• There is evidence from real-life studies.
• Baddeley & Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall teams they had played against. Recall was affected by the number of games played since, rather than how long ago they occurred.
• This supports retroactive interference in real life, as new memories (recent games) disrupted recall of older ones.

Question 14

What is a strength of the interference theory regarding its practical applications ?

Answer 14

• Research = applied to real-world scenarios.
• Danaher et al. (2008) found that exposure to two competing advertisements in a week impaired recall and recognition of the ads.
• This suggests that interference can reduce the effectiveness of advertising. A possible solution is to repeat an advertisement multiple times in a single day rather than spreading it out over a week, minimizing interference from competing ads and improving recall.