Evaluation of Multi-Store Model

Seite 1

Strengths

Glanze & Cunitz (1966): found tasks involving learning and recalling word lists. Position of the word was found to affect recall. Primacy effect (transfer to LTM after recall) and Recency effect (stay in STM at the start of recall).

Scoville & Milner (1957): case study of HM, who had medial temporal lobe damage. Had impaired LTM but STM capacity normal - suggests several stages of memory.

Shallice & Warrington (1970): KF, who had parietal-occipital damage, had intact LTM but poor digit span, a preserved primary effect and no recency effect.

Enormous use in understanding memory

Model is influential as it's generated a lot of research into memory

Model is supported by amnesiacs e.g. HM had impaired LTM. Couldn't remember the death of his mother/father or the Vietnam war but his STM is intact.

Seite 2

Weaknesses

Baddeley & Hitch (1974): Working Model of Memory showed that STM is more than 1 simple store and has different components - MSM is reductionist

Tulving (1972): More components of LTM, episodic, procedural and semantic - MSM is too reductionist

Model suggests rehearsal helps transfer info to LTM but this isn't essential.

Model's main emphasis is on structure and neglects the process elements of memory (only focuses on attention and rehearsal)

We're able to recall unrehearsed info (e.g.swimming) yet unable to recall info that has been rehearsed (e.g. reading notes whilst revising)