Li Chun Ho IB Psychology Higher Evaluate two models/theories of one cognitive process (memory) with reference to research studies.

In this response I will evaluate two models of memory; the Multi Store Model (MSM) by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) and the Levels of Processing (LOP) Model by Craik & Lockhart (1973). The MSM by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) proposed memories are processed through a linear three step stage; sensory stores, short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM). Information enters sensory stores mainly from vision (iconic), hearing (echoic) and touch (haptic). Paying attention to the information in the sensory stores moves it to the STM, which is rehearsed to move to LTM. Each store has different encoding, capacity and duration. STM is coded acoustically while LTM is coded semantically. There is a distinctive difference in capacity of the STM and LTM. STMs capacity is 72 items, determined by Miller (1956). The digit span was measured by chunking, where Miller found participants who were asked to remember numbers through chunking, by group numbers into brackets in 3s improves their recall when memorizing a set of numbers. LTM has unlimited capacity, as suggested by Linton (1982). Through a longitudinal study she subjected herself to note two events daily for 6 years. When trying to recall the events, she found she did better on dates that was selected before, and that she remembered positive events more than negative events. The difference in duration between the two storages is also apparent. The duration of STM is measured at no more than 18 seconds by Peterson & Peterson (1959) when asking participants to remember random constant triplets, while asking them to count backwards in 3s. The duration of LTM is suggested to be unlimited and lasting a lifetime by Bahrick et al (1975), who asked participants to recall names and faces of their classmates. Accuracy was still retained up to 48 years. These studies support the MSM by showing that distinct stores with quantitatively different capacities and durations exist, which can be determined using conventional scientific methods in a laboratory setting. The MSM is also supported by case studies involving brain damaged patients who demonstrates different stores of memory exist. Such includes HM, a severe epileptic patient. He underwent psychosurgery to remove the hippocampus. Although the number of seizures decreased, his memory was largely affected so that information could not be transferred from SHM to LTM. He would repeatedly read the same magazine and react to news of his uncles death. This supports the idea that STM has a short duration. Furthermore, although he has an almost intact long term memory, information in STM cannot be transferred into LTM. Moreover, the Primacy-Recency effect by Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) further supports the suggestion there are separate systems of memory. They demonstrated that early words and final words in a list are recalled well, while middle words are likely to be forgotten, leading to a serial curve effect. They concluded that early words had moved into the LTM and that later information was still in the STM hence they were easily forgotten due to the short duration of the STM. The MSM can also explain the Change blindness phenomenon. This is the inability to notice obvious changes in the environment. It can be argued the reason we miss significant changes in our environment is that the iconic memory in our sensory store is limited, only around 500 milliseconds. 1

Li Chun Ho IB Psychology Higher Evaluate two models/theories of one cognitive process (memory) with reference to research studies. The information reaching our STM is an approximation of these moment by moment changes. Therefore, this phenomenon may suggest memory involves different storages and schema processes. However, there are weaknesses of the MSM involving research methods and its concept. The MSM is seen as too simplistic that does not reflect the actual complexity of the STM and LTM, and they are less unitary than the model suggests. In the LTM, there may be a conflict in encoding between recent and old memories. The importance of the role of rehearsal is also questioned. Craik and Watkins (1973) tried to distinguish the difference of maintenance and elaborative rehearsal, but found that participants remembered words beginning with the letter p that was read out once as well as other words read out repeatedly. It suggests maintenance rehearsal may have been exaggerated. Moreover, rehearsal may not be the sole tactic to remember information. Emotional events that may also be traumatic and stressful are often remembered for a life time, such as the September 11th Attacks. This phenomenon is labeled as a flashbulb memory, and does not require rehearsal to move to LTM. There is also the question of validity. Cole & Scribner (1974) demonstrated children without schooling do not show the primacy effect. Perhaps they were not required to rehearse information. Therefore, a cultural bias is present and affects the generalisability of the concept to other cultures. Another factor affecting ecological validity is that rarely do we attempt to remember long series of numbers and word lists including triplets. Emphasis on experimental research therefore questions whether the results are same in real life. In addition, case studies also show memory is more complex than the MSM as proposed. Such includes Clive Wearing as studied by Milner (1966) who suffered Anterograde Amnesia, leading to substantial damage to brain areas including the hippocampus. He is similar to HM where he could not remember new information lasting several seconds, however he can learn new skills, and improve his body-kinesthetic skills in piano. This suggests there is a long term store for skills, procedural memory. As a result, it demonstrates the over simplicity of the MSM. Moreover, although Wearing can remember factors about his life before his illness, he cannot remember any experiences. Contrastingly, the LOP model by Craik and Lockhart (1973) argued long term memory is independent of rehearsal and repetition, but depends on how the information is learnt. Three different levels were proposed; shallow, intermediate and deep processing. The deeper the level, the more the information would be remembered. The shallow processing would use structural encoding that emphasizes the physical structure of the stimulus, such as whether the word is capitalized. The intermediate processing emphasizes how the word sounds like, such as whether it rhymes with other words. The deep processing emphasizes the meaning of the word and gives it contextual meaning in a sentence. It is suggested there are two kinds of rehearsal; maintenance and elaborative. Maintenance involves systematically repeating the information in our mind, while elaborative rehearsal gives a meaningful analysis of the stimulus.

Li Chun Ho IB Psychology Higher Evaluate two models/theories of one cognitive process (memory) with reference to research studies. This concept is supported by the research of Craik & Tulving (1975) who showed participants a list of words and asked a question on each question that either related to the structural, phonemic or semantic encoding, which were the case, rhyme and how the word fits in a sentence. Participants were later told to recall the entirety of the word list, revealing words processed semantically were recalled best, while words processed phonemically were remembered second best. This supports the concept memory is indeed processed in different depths. Further, this phenomenon can be used in everyday applications when we attempt to remember things, which can be aided using elaboration and semantic processing. The model is also well supported by many other studies, including Hyde and Jenkins (1973). There are also criticisms of the model. There is no clear explanation on why deep processing leads to better recall. Therefore, it describes how memory is created instead of explaining it. It is also suggested semantic processing is remembered the best because more time is spent on determining how it fits in a sentence, hence the effort and time spent may be confounding variables. Moreover, Eysenck (1978) suggested the concepts of deep and elaboration are too vague that cannot be defined quantitatively. It is also difficult to measure how deep semantic processing is. A circular argument therefore takes place, where information that is processed deeply is remembered better, yet the measure of how deep the information is determined by how well the information is remembered. This moreover adds ambiguity over the model. Another shortcoming refers to findings suggesting deep semantic processing does not often lead to improved retrieval of information. Morris et al (1977) showed that when participants were asked questions involving phonological recognition of a word, rather than stating whether they rhyme with other words their recall was higher than that of semantic processing. This undermines the claim of a perfect level of processing that goes deeper from structural to phonological to semantic processing.