Multi-store Model (Atkinson & Shiffrin)

Sensory memory:

  • Enters via sensory input
  • Brief and only lasts 1-2 seconds.
  • Paying attention to the info passes it to STM
  • Forgotten through decay/ lack of attention to info

Short Term Memory (STM):

  • Lasts 15-30 seconds, stores 5-9 items.
  • Has subvocal rehearsal loop
  • Not paying attention/ rehearsing info leads to displacement
  • Passed to LTM via encoding & rehearsal

Long Term Memory (LTM):

  • Appears to be infinite
  • We are not sure how long information in LTM lasts
  • Information lost via trace decay or inference
Strengths Weaknesses
Murdock – serial position curve shows information is rehearsed because greater number of words recalled at the start & end shown in recency curve.

Glanzer and cunits- shows that by destroyed the recency curve by delaying recall by 30 seconds destroys STM info. – selective damage of recall shows there is STM.

Peterson & Peterson – investigate duration of STM rehearsals by asking ppts to recall trigrams after 3-18 seconds delays. After 18 seconds fewer than 10% recall – supports idea that STM lasts between 15-30 seconds.

Application – theory states that we need to repeat information in the stm for it to pass onto the ltm – help develop recall techniques to help revision.

Clive wearing – because amnesia stripped him of his episodic memory but he still knows procedural skills e.g playing piano – showing more section of LTM. MSM too simplistic.

Other theory – level of processing because the theory states info is retained by the depth it is processed on memory traces. – MSM is too simplistic & ignores processing effort.

Working memory model – believe that STM and LTM have several separate store systems; central executive, phonological loop, visueo-spacial sketchpad, episodic buffer – shows it’s not just one separate system & not passive.

Procedural & declarative – shows LTM store info in different stores. Procedural for skills, episodic for events, and semantic for meaning – shows LTM is not just one passive store.

Cognitive Practical: To investigate the duration of STM as proposed by Atkinson & Shiffrin. To investigate the effect of a 30 second delay to recall from STM.

Hypothesis: Predicted that significantly more words out of 15 will be correctly recalled from condition A (immediate recall) than condition B (30 sec delay).

Variables: Iv- manipulating the 30 second delay. Dv – correct number of words recalled out of 15. Controls – background noise, same delay timing, same word list tested, ppt variables & environment.

PPTS: 18 king ed. Students 1 male & 17 females.

Methods: opportunity sample. Lab

Procedure:

  • Ppts were asked to recall a series of 15 words from a PowerPoint. Each words shown for 2 seconds.
  • They were then asked to write down the words they could recall.
  • In condition B, after ppts were shown a slideshow of 15 new word. A distractor task was give, to count down in 3’s from 99. This task lasted 30 seconds and was used to delay recall.

Results: immediate 8.8 – 30 second delay 6.7

Conclusion: That a 30 second delay effects recall by destroying the recency affect in the STM. Proven that there is a small duration in the STM

Improvements: used a better task, or use more words to recall (more than 15).

Strength Weakness
High R – used a standardized procedure by everyone having the same instructions, recalling the same 15 words & same 30 second delay – easier to replicate to test for consistencies.

High R – based off previous research from Glanzer & cunits who destroyed recency effect with a 30 second delay – making our results more reliable.

Application – results show 8.8 had better recall from immediate than 6.6 from after 30 seconds finding STM can be disrupted by a delay – devise better revision techniques to help retain information.

High objectivity – uses quantitative data on results by using means so it is narrow & easily interpreted – reduces researcher bias as interpreted one way.

Low G- uses an opportunity sample consisting of 18 ppl – 17 female, 1 male – cannot generalise to all males or whole pop.

Low eco V – was done in an artificial experiment which could lead to ppts guessing the aim due to not concealing it well – demand characteristics could arise & behaviour not natural.

Low task V – not a normal activity on being asked to remember 15 words, and experience and artificial 30 second delay – therefore task has lower mundane realism not reflecting normal memory.