Evaluate two models or theories of one cognitive process with reference to research studies. (22)

Evaluate (22) – An appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations.



Theory 1: Schema theory (Theorist: Frederic Bartlett)

Frederic Bartlett – War Of The Ghosts study (Schema)
[A] Prove that memory is reconstructive and schemas influence recall.

Demonstrate role of culture in schema processing.
[P]
  • Participants were European Americans and Native Americans.
  • Bartlett ask participants to read a Native American folk story twice.
  • Then asked them to recite reproduce the story 15 minutes after reading.
  • No participants knew the aim and purpose of the task.
[F]
  • Native American participants found it easier to reproduce the story.
  • European American version of the story left out or replaced details related to Native American Culture
    e.g. Canoe -> Boat.
  • European Americans filled in the gaps in their memory with their own cultural schema.
[C]
  • People reconstruct the past by trying to fit it into existing schemas.
  • More complex the information, the more likely elements are forgotten/distorted.
  • People try to find a familiar pattern in experiences, past or new.
  • People uses existing schemas to fill in the gaps of their memory, subconsciously.
  • Memory, according to Bartlett, is an imaginative reconstruction of experience.
[E]
  • Methodology not sophisticated.
  • No IV, DV or Control.
  • Making it difficult to measure or compare outcome.
  • Emic approach: Result specific to European American and Native American culture.
  • Low potential generalising ability .


Loftus &amp Palmer – Car crash study (Reconstructive memory)
[A] To prove the unreliability of memory.
[P]
  • 45 students were shown videos of car crashes.
  • They were then asked a series of questions about the specifics of the car crashes.
  • The critical question was “About how fast was the cars going when they hit each other?”
  • The verb “hit” was replaced with “Smashed”, “Collided”, “Bump” and “Contacted” for different participants.
[F]
  • Those who were asked with “Smashed” averaged the mean speed of 40.8 mph.
  • Those who were asked with “Contacted” averaged the mean speed of 31.8 mph.
[C]
  • The phrasing of the question brought a change in speed estimated.
  • Due to schema activated by the chose verb.
  • Shows schema can affect memory.
  • Shows the unreliability of reconstructive memory.
[E]
  • Confounding variable: Presumed ability to perceive the velocity of moving object.
  • Demand characteristics: Participants corrected their original answer according to the chosen verb.
  • Student sample. not enough to generalise to the mass population.
  • Ecological validity: Low, car crash was not real, therefore less emotion was involved affecting the level of detail retained.
  • Unethical and unfeasible to create real car crashes.
  • Forced participants to watch graphic car crashes.
  • Participants are generally desensitised because of the media.
  • No distress due to watching car crashes reported.

Strengths of Schema Theory

  • Lots of study to support the theory
  • Insightful understanding to how people categorize information
  • Uncovers memory distortion

Weaknesses of Schema Theory

  • Describes memory as being reconstructive, but does not show the process
  • Formation of schemas cannot be tested
  • Too vague


Theory 2: Multi-store model (Theorist: Atkinson and Shiffrin)

  • The Multi-store model suggests that there are three memory stores.
  • Each memory store responsible for a different type of memory.
The Multi-store model of memory
Sensory memory Short Term Memory (STM) Long Term Memory (LTM)
Input Sensory stimulus (e.g. visual, audio etc.) Conversion from Sensory Store through selective attention (choosing to retain the memory) Encoded from STM Store through rehearsal (repeatedly giving attention to the memory)
Loss Decay – Loss due to passage of time Displacement – loss due to replacement of other memories Interference – rehearsal gets interfered during retrieval
Process - Repetitive rehearsal in order to retain the memory Memory gets stored away in a conceptually indefinitely large store.
Retrieved to STM store when needed.
Duration 3 to 5 seconds 1 to 2 minutes Indefinite
Capacity - Limited, around 7 items Unlimited


Study supporting the Multi-store model theory
Glanzer &amp Cunitz – Primacy and recency experiment (Multi-store model)
[A] Test primacy-recency effect.
[P]
  • Participants were asked to read a series of 20 words.
  • They were then asked to recall the 20 words in any order.
  • In another variation, a distraction task was performed before

    • recall.

[F]
  • Participants remembered the the first and last few words better.
  • Results reliably fall into a pattern known as the “serial position curve”.
[C]
  • First few words – because they had more time to rehearse the words, encoding them into their long term memory store.
  • Last few words – because it is still in the short term memory store.
  • In the variation, the last few words were not recalled because of loss through decay.
  • Provides evidence for multi-store model of memory.
[E]
  • Low in ecological validity, lab environment.
  • Ignored participant’s understanding of the words.
  • Only one culture tested
  • Education in some cultures may train students to remember things.


Theory and study against the Multi-store model theory

Levels of processing theory

  • Argues that there are no such things as LTM or STM stores
  • Memory is a by-product of the processing of information
Shallow processing
  • Structural processing
  • Physical qualities
  • Phonemic processing
  • Sound/audible qualities
  • Maintenance rehearsal (repetition), leads to short term retention of information.
Deep processing
  • Semantic processing
  • Meaning of the information, understanding
  • Relate to other information
  • Elaboration rehearsal (analysis of meaning and logic processes), leads to better recall.
Craik & Tulving – Levels of Processing study
[A] Test the theory of Levels of Processing.
[P]
  • Participants were presented with 60 words and one of three questions to the words.
  • The questions were designed to activate different levels of processing.
  • e.g. Is the word in capital or small letters? (Structural processing).
  • e.g. What is the meaning of this word? (Semantic processing).
  • Participants were then given a pool of 180 words in which the original 60 words were mixed into.
  • They had to pick out the original 60.
[F]
  • Participants mostly picked out words that were asked with questions that triggered Semantic processing.
[C]
  • Shows that Semantic processing can lead to better recall.
[E]
  • Confounding variable
  • Serial positioning effect: Words that were at the end of the list will still be in the participant’s STM.
  • Understanding of words: Participants might not understand the words therefore taking longer to rehearse the word.
  • Ecological validity: Low, lab conditions.

Strengths of Multi-store model

  • Displays a basic layout of how memory works
  • First model to describe memory processes
  • Allowed development

Weaknesses of Multi-store model

  • Reductionist approach to explain memory
  • Does not explain what and why do certain information attract attention and encodes into the stores
  • STM and LTM stores are more sophisticated than the Multi-Store model suggests (Levels of processing)
  • Rehearsal is not enough for encoding complex information into LTM


< Back

© 2012-2013 Stanley Leung. All rights reserved.
Designed and coded by Stanley Leung | Contact Me