1.

Evaluate Atkinson and Shiffrins (1968) multi – store model of memory

2. tkinson and Shiffrin

(1968) proposed the
structural model of
memory, known as the
Multi
3. Store Model. The
model is linear
meaning the
information passes
from one store to
another
4. in a fixed sequence.
This model explained
their theory of
memory in 3 main
separate stores;
5. sensory memory;
short term memory
and long-term
memory. The model
suggests that for
6. information to move
from the sensory
memory to the STM,
we must pay attention
to the
7. information, this
then must be
maintenance
rehearsed – this is
when the information
is
8. repeated multiple
times - or elaborative
rehearsed - repeated
and given a meaning
too, this
9. then allows the
information to be
transferred from the
STM to the LTM. The
model also
10. included details on
how the information in
the stores was
encoded, for example
STM was
11. encoded through
visual & auditory
information and LTM
was encoded through
semantic
12. information. The
model also specifies
the capacity of the
two main stores, STM
having the
13. capacity of 7+/-2
and the LTM is
limitless. The model
also goes on to
suggest that the STM
14. lasts for a
maximum of 30
seconds whereas the
LTM is anything over
30 seconds. Also
15. included in the
model is the proposed
way in which
information is moved
from the STM to
16. the LTM – either
through maintenance
rehearsal or
elaborative rehearsal.
The model also
17. explains how
information can be
forgotten; in STM
information can
become displaced by
18. other units of
information as the
capacity is 7+/-2,
another way
information could be
lost is
19. through decay.
This is also the case in
LTM however it may
take a longer time for
information
20. to be lost through
decay as the capacity
is higher than in ST
21. tkinson and
Shiffrin (1968)
proposed the
structural model of
memory, known as the
Multi
22. Store Model. The
model is linear
meaning the
information passes
from one store to
another
23. in a fixed
sequence. This model
explained their theory
of memory in 3 main
separate stores;
24. sensory memory;
short term memory
and long-term
memory. The model
suggests that for
25. information to
move from the
sensory memory to
the STM, we must pay
attention to the
26. information, this
then must be
maintenance
rehearsed – this is
when the information
is
27. repeated multiple
times - or elaborative
rehearsed - repeated
and given a meaning
too, this
28. then allows the
information to be
transferred from the
STM to the LTM. The
model also
29. included details on
how the information in
the stores was
encoded, for example
STM was
30. encoded through
visual & auditory
information and LTM
was encoded through
semantic
31. information. The
model also specifies
the capacity of the
two main stores, STM
having the
32. capacity of 7+/-2
and the LTM is
limitless. The model
also goes on to
suggest that the STM
33. lasts for a
maximum of 30
seconds whereas the
LTM is anything over
30 seconds. Also
34. included in the
model is the proposed
way in which
information is moved
from the STM to
35. the LTM – either
through maintenance
rehearsal or
elaborative rehearsal.
The model also
36. explains how
information can be
forgotten; in STM
information can
become displaced by
37. other units of
information as the
capacity is 7+/-2,
another way
information could be
lost is
 38. through decay.
This is also the case in
LTM however it may
take a longer time for
information
39. to be lost through
decay as the capacity
is higher than in ST
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) proposed the structural model of memory, known as
the Multi Store Model. This model explained memory in 3 main separate stores;
sensory memory, short term memory and long-term memory. It is also presented
as a linear structure where the information passes from one store to another in a
fixed sequence. The model suggests that for information to move from the
sensory memory to the STM, we must pay attention to the information. To move
from the STM to the LTM, this information must be rehearsed constantly. The
model also included details on how the information in the stores was encoded,
for example STM was encoded through visual & auditory information and LTM
was encoded through semantic information. The model also specifies the
capacity of the two main stores, STM having the capacity of 5-8 items and the
LTM is limitless. The model also suggests that the STM lasts for a maximum of 30
seconds whereas the LTM is anything over 30 seconds. The model also explains
how information can be forgotten, in STM information can become replaced by
other units of information as the capacity is only 5-8 items.
The study of Glanzer and Cunitz supported this memory model as it portrayed
the serial position effect. The sample of two groups were given a task to recall a
list of words, one group recalling directly after the words were presented, and the
other had to wait for thirty seconds whilst counting back in threes. The results
obtained for both groups showed the primacy and recency effect. For the first
group, they managed to accurately rehearse the first portion and the end of the
list because they’ve rehearsed it over and over in their head. This supports the
evidence of separate LTM and STM memory stores as rehearsing helped
participants transfer words from the STM to the LTM. The results obtained for the
second group showed that they’ve only managed to rehearse the last portion of
the list accurately. This is because as they were given the task to count
backwards In threes, the memory of the participants was redirected to other
information such as the task of counting backwards. This supports the idea that
the memory in the STM can be replaced by other information if not rehearsed
properly.
However, the study that Tulving proposed in 1972 criticizes this model of
memory as it is too simplistic and ignores the complexities of the encoding
process within the LTM. In this model, it was stated that the information in the
LTM could only be encoded mainly semantically. Tulving discovered that this
wasn’t detailed enough and stated that the LTM could be divided into three
different divisions : procedural memory, episodic memory and semantic memory.
The MSM being described as an input-process-output system is over simplified
and ignores individual differences in memory. Moreover, there are major
problems with the fact that the MSM relies so heavily on evidence from lab
studies as it is questionable whether the studies reflect real life situations. It is
unlikely that in everyday life we would be expected to remember a list of
unrelated numbers, we are much more likely to need to recall shopping lists –
this is different because the information has a deeper meaning allowing the
memory to process the information with semantic connections, suggesting recall
would be easier compared with numbers with no meaning. Therefore, the study
lacks ecological validity as the results may not be able to generalise them to real
life situations.
In conclusion, the MSM offers a fundamental summary of memory systems as it
is successfully helped other researchers develop this concept of memory.
However, its limited capacity to explain is a result of its oversimplification. The
dynamic and active character of memory processes is ignored by the model, and
more recent studies have highlighted the significance of elements like semantic
processing in memory encoding. Although the MSM is still a helpful place to start,
it has to be updated to take into account more complexities discovered by more
recent cognitive psychology research.