AQA A-Level Psychology 16 Mark Model Essays
Memory
1. Outline and evaluate the Working Memory Model (16 marks)
The Working Memory Model (WMM) was proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin to address some of the
concerns of the unitary Multi-Store Model (MSM) of memory. It sees the short term memory (STM)
as a dynamic processor of different types of information, using different components coordinated by
a central decision-making system. The central executive (CE) plays a supervisory role, monitoring
incoming information and allocating subsystems to tasks. In this way, it is said to be involved in
attention. The episodic buffer connects the CE to the long-term memory and other cognitive
processes, as well as functioning as a kind of temporary store for the CE. The episodic buffer also
integrates all the information processed by the different functions of the working memory and
maintains the time sequencing of events. One such function is the phonological loop (PL), which is
responsible for processing auditory information. The PL can be subdivided into the phonological
store, which holds sounds that we hear, and the articulatory process, which allows for maintenance
rehearsal. The visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS) deals with visual stimuli and has also been subdivided
by Logie into two component parts: the visual cache, which stores information we see, and the inner
scribe, which arranges objects in a visual field - such as when we’re remembering the number of
windows on a house or performing mental arithmetic.
Rory is able to both talk to his grandparents and play a game on his phone simultaneously because
each requires a different subsystem. The PL is involved in talking and the VSS is used to play the
game. However, describing a route and playing a matching game both compete for the VSS because
they require Rory to visualise something, which means that he cannot complete both at the same
time. This means he needs to allocate his full attention to the single task of describing his route to
school.
Rory’s experience echoes one strength of the WMM, which is that it has been supported by dual
task studies carried out by Baddeley et al. Baddeley found that participants who were asked to carry
out a verbal task and a visual task at the same time performed just as well as participants tasked
with carrying out only one. However, when asked to complete two activities that were both visual in
nature, or both verbal, performance declined significantly. Baddeley explained this by suggesting
that these dual tasks that both competed for the VSS or the PL, and therefore the participants
struggled because they exceeded limits of the WMM. This enhances the credibility of the WMM
because it has been proven in controlled lab studies. However, critics of Baddeley’s research suggest
that it lacks mundane realism because - like much research into memory - it has been conducted
using artificial stimuli and contrived situations that do not reflect how we use our memories in real
life. Therefore, the WMM may be less useful for explaining real-world phenomena.
The WMM has also been supported by the research of Shallice and Warrington (1970), who reported
the case study of patient KF. KF had suffered a motorbike accident that had damaged his STM.
However, not all parts of his STM were damaged equally: he had better memory for information that
he read himself than for information that was read to him. This can be explained by the WMM,
which would suggest that patient KF’s phonological loop was damaged, but his visuo-spatial
sketchpad remained intact. Thus, it would seem that the WMM is right to assume that the STM is
not a single, unitary store but in fact consists of a number of distinct processing systems. However,
as a counter-argument, the case study may have been confounded by the wider effects of patient
KF’s accident. He may have suffered trauma beyond that demonstrated on his STM. This wider
trauma to other areas of the brain may have contributed to his reduced cognitive capacity, and
, therefore prevents us from establishing a causal link between his memory abnormalities and the
WMM.
Another limitation of the WMM is that some psychologists argue that it is a limited, incomplete
explanation for STM. In particular, critics point to the undeveloped nature of the CE, which is
described simply as ‘attention’. A few researchers believe that it may be possible to subdivide the
CE, as has been done with the other subsystems, but not enough research has been carried out to
justify this. Therefore, the WMM needs to be developed further in order to fully explain the role of
all its component parts and build a more comprehensive picture of how they all fit together. Lack of
clarity is something that detracts from the validity of the WMM, as the CE is a vague and untestable
concept.
2. Outline and evaluate the Multi-Store Model of memory (16 marks)
The multi-store model of memory (MSM), as proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin, sees memory as a
series of unitary components in which information registers through a sequence of stages in a linear
fashion. All information about our environment passes into the sensory register (which has an
unlimited capacity, but very short duration - milliseconds - and modality-specific coding), but only
that which we pay attention to is passed into our short-term memory (STM). The STM has a duration
of 18 seconds, a capacity of 7 +/- 2 chunks and acoustic coding. Maintenance rehearsal enables us to
transfer information into our long-term memory (LTM), which is an unlimited capacity store, in
which information held can last up to a lifetime. The LTM codes information semantically. When we
need to recall information in our LTM, known as retrieval, it is moved back into our STM for use.
One strength of the MSM is that it has been supported by research carried out by Baddeley et al.
Baddeley split participants into groups of 4 and gave them a list of words to learn; either
acoustically-similar, or semantically-similar. Those who were asked to recall the acoustically-similar
words from their STM (after an 18 second intervening period), had the worst recall, whereas when
participants were asked to recall information form their LTM (after 20 minutes), recall of
semantically-similar words was the worst. This suggests that the STM is coded acoustically and the
LTM is coded semantically, which supports the MSM’s predictions and therefore lends weight to its
principles.
However, one limitation of the MSM is that it has been challenged by a case study produced by
Shallice and Warrington (1970) of patient KF. KF suffered a motorcycle accident that caused brain
damage, however elements of his STM were not equally affected. KF had better recall for words that
he read himself, than for words read to him, suggesting that his STM was better for visual
information than auditory information. This suggests that the MSM is a limited explanation because
it fails to account for how each store may have multiple ways of coding, or may process different
types of information differently. Therefore, the MSM is less useful because evidence from case
studies suggests that it oversimplifies the complexity of memory
Finally, further research by Craik and Watkins disputes the claims of the MSM, particularly regarding
maintenance rehearsal. Craik and Watkins argue that there is another, more effective way of
transferring information from the STM into the LTM: elaborative rehearsal. This involves linking new
information with existing knowledge in order to really understand what it means, which leads to it
being quickly assimilated into the existing knowledge base in our LTM. Through suggesting an
alternative explanation to that proposed by the MSM, Craik and Watkins therefore challenge the
integrity and validity of the MSM as a whole.
