Models of Memory SAQ workshop

SAQ1: Evaluate one model of one cognitive process i. e SAQ1: Evaluate one model of one cognitive process i.e. appraise the strengths and limitations of the Multi-Store OR Levels of Processing model of memory Choose a model look back at your notes and complete the summary sheet on this one

SAQ planning activity Download the planning document from the wiki page and think of as many strengths and limitations of the model in the following three categories: 1) An evaluation of the model itself 2) An evaluation of the research support & refuting research We will then share our responses as a class & collate a complete plan

SAQ 2: Compare & contrast two models of one cognitive process i. e SAQ 2: Compare & contrast two models of one cognitive process i.e. Give the similarities and differences between Multi-Store and Levels of Processing models of memory complete the summary sheet on this one – info below

Thesis There are a number of similarities and differences between the MSM & LOP models of memory. This paper will compare and contrast the two models, the research that support those models, and the relative strengths and limitations of the two models

The Models: What is different? The MSM focuses on the structure of memory, and makes a clear distinction between STM & LTM & LOP focuses on the depth of processing as what determines retention LOP does not make the distinction between LTM & STM, and the MSM proposes that STM & LTM are distinct separate stores of memory, and are different to each other in terms of encoding, capacity & duration The MSM model is linear, stating that STM is limited in capacity & duration, and rehearsal leads to a transfer from STM to LTM MSM states that rehearsal is the way in which information is transferred from STM to LTM, but LOP focuses on depth of processing on determining the length of retention

The Models: What is similar? Both models of memory which are influenced by the computer metaphor and the both come from the information possessing approach and were developed around the same time Both models are based on the key principles of the level of analysis, that ‘models of psychological processes can be proposed’ and ‘cognitive processes actively organize and manipulate information that we receive’ Both seek to explain how memory works, both offer explanations of why some information is retained for longer than others, both have given us insight into the cognitive processes involved in memory Both suggest that encoding has an influence on retention – LOP – if processing is deep = semantic = longer retention & acoustic = shallow = short retention (Elias & Perfetti, 1973) in MSM – Bahrick et al. (1975) showed that if semantic information in LTM has a duration of up to a lifetime Both suggest that rehearsal is important – MSM – transfer from STM to LTM, and the LOP makes the distinction between ‘maintenance and elaborative’ rehearsal Both are limited in their ability to explain how memory works, and fail to account for the complexity of human cognitive processes They both take into account factors that the other model ignores – LOP ignores distinction between STM & LTM – MSM – does not take into account the significance of depth of processing

The research supporting the models: What is similar? Both models have experimental research support, with the use of controlled environments and experimental designs to see examine causal relationships between the manipulation of the IV on the DV This similarity between the research can be seen through comparing Glazer & Cunitz (1966) study of the in the primacy recency effect supporting the MSM model, and Hyde & Jenkins (1973) study of the effects of the depth at which words are processed on recall which supports the LOP model, - both studies required participants to recall word lists, both were carried out in controlled conditions, both had experimental designs, both can be criticized for having low ecological validity. Nevertheless, both studies support their respective models, Hyde & Jenkins (1973) showed that depth of processing does influence recall – supporting LOP, and Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) study suggest that there are two separate stores of memory.

The research supporting the models: What is different? The MSM model has additional support from case studies of brain damaged individuals such as HM (Milner, 1966) who suffered from anterograde amnesia, and was unable to transfer information from STM to LTM. This strengthens the validity of the MSM model, suggesting that there is indeed two distinct separate stores of memory (STM & LTM) The LOP model also has difficulties explaining certain the findings of studies which support the MSM model, for example, Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) carried out an experiment on the serial position effect, which supports MSM suggesting that there are two separate stores of memory, but LOP fails to offer a complete explanation for this phenomenon. However, MSM is also limited, as it is unable to explain the findings of Hyde & Jenkins (1973) study which clearly suggest that depth of processing is important, thus supporting LOP

The evaluation of the research & models: What is similar? Both are too simplistic, and fail the both to take into account the factors that the other model does The experimental research that supports both models has methodological issues such as low ecological validity, as much of the research is carried out in an artificial environment which is very different to real life situations The experimental research supporting both models have few ethical issues, but its vital for such studies to closely follow APA ethical guidelines, which they mainly do apart from minor deception. Both models have supporting research which is easily replicable, it can and should be replicated cross culturally to ensure that the models are valid They both have practical applications: MSM – highlights the importance of rehearsal to transfer information to LTM, and ‘chunking’ to enhance the capacity of STM, furthermore, LOP suggests that when studying ‘deep’ processing tasks will lead to longer retention.

The evaluation of the research & models: What is different? The research that supports the LOP, showing that depth of processing is important in retention, is limited by the possibility of confounding variables of processing effort and time, however, the research supporting the MSM does not have such problems The LOP model has a major problem in terms of its ‘circularity’, as the model predicts that deep processing will lead to better retention, and researchers conclude that because better retention is due to certain processing tasks, they must involve ‘deep’ processing. On the other hand the MSM model does not have such problems. However, Craik & Lockhart (1986) have been open to adapting the LOP model, and did integrate ‘elaboration & distinctiveness’ of information as crucial factors influencing retention – and in contrast the MSM fails to account for how more distinctive information can be retained for longer

Conclusion: The MSM have a number of similarities and differences, but together, they have deepened our understanding of how memory works and offered greater insight into the complexity of human cognition

Word bank: However… On the other hand… In contrast… In comparison… Conversely… A similarity is… A difference is.. Moreover…

Evaluation of LOP Influential model – emphasis on mental processes rather than rigid structures, Descriptive rather that explanatory model – e.g. how do you define what is deep and shallow processing Does not include the amount of effort one puts into learning as an important factors However, Craik and Lockhart (1986) have suggested that elaboration on information and the distinctiveness of information are also important in determining memory

Evaluation of MSM Distinguishes between STM & LTM Milner (1966) case study of HM supports this distinction – anterograde amnesia Model is too simplistic and inflexible Does not take into account the strategies people use to remember things – it emphasises the amount of information processes rather than its nature To much emphasis on structure without explaining the processes involved Rehearsal as the only transfer from STM to LTM has been criticized – LOP theory

Lesson Objectives Receive feedback on strengths & weaknesses of MSM SAQ Review plans for ‘compare & contrast’ the MSM & LOP models Complete key study sheets, and connect the research back to the key principles of the LOA

Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart)

Similarities between the two models (comparison) -they are both models used to explain memory, both use information processing approach, both have experimental research support (give examples), both have support from experiments, both have weaknesses in terms of the research – e.g. Ecological validity,, both are too simple, they both support the key principles of the LOA

Differences between the two models (contrast) -they explain memory in different ways, focus on different aspects of memory (structure/process), the have different types of research supporting them (e.g. MSM-more case studies), the research supporting the models has different strengths & weaknesses