Cognitive psychology and research methods:
Guidance for writing up Unit 3 psych report – Models of memory section
Section 1: AC 1.1 – 1.2 – roughly 2000 – 2100 words. (All together 3000 words)
Outline each of the three models of memory (approx 500 – 700 words per model – does not have to be an even split):
· MSM:
o Describe (briefly) key structures/processes (SM, STM, LTM)
o Briefly explain how model works & it’s main claims (3 separate, unitary stores, emphasis on rehearsal)
o Use evidence to illustrate/support (eg, studies showing differences between stores, eg, capacity, duration, encoding)
o Evaluate using evidence, eg, Clive Wearing – shows multiple LTM stores, so cannot be unitary; flashbulb memories don’t require rehearsal; LTM used in STM tasks
o Overly simplistic; doesn’t explain how different types of info might be processed, eg, visual/acoustic (see WMM); provides good foundation for other models/research; chunking useful technique.
· WMM:
o Link to MSM – challenges notion of unitary, passive STM
o Describe each component (briefly)
o Provide evidence to support model & illustrate components, eg, dual-tasking, articulatory suppression tasks, evidence for central executive
o Evaluate using evidence, eg, EVR good with reasoning, bad with decision-making, so more than one central executive? Reliance on case studies (unique – not generalisable); brain damaged patients – no before/after comparison, brain trauma may influence performance; doesn’t really explain processes; but has good application, eg, dyslexia; advancement over STM
· LoP:
o Link to previous models – agrees that memory is active (like WMM), but disagrees with structural models; challenges the MSM’s reliance on maintenance rehearsal
o Offers alternative view – memory as by-product of processing (therefore long/short-term retention, rather than long/short-term memory stores)
o Explain levels – shallow vs deep processing
o Illustrate using evidence, eg, Hyde & Jenkins, Perfetti & Elias, Palmere, et al.
o Evaluate – no independent measurement of depth – eg, Tyler – depth vs effort; circularity of argument; criticism by Eysenck that model only describes what’s happening, but recent studies explain that elaborative rehearsal enriches memory by linking it into pre-existing network of semantic association.
