The Modal Model (Atkinson & Shiffrin 1971)

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Sess
  • Created on: 11-12-14 10:40
View mindmap
  • The Modal Model (Atkinson & Shiffrin 1971)
    • Short term memory
      • Sensory memory
        • Iconic (Visual) memory
          • < half a second
          • Another heavily research sensory memory
          • Encoded through eyes
        • Echoic (Auditory) memory
          • Encoded through ears.
          • 3-4 seconds long
          • One of the most researched sensory memories
        • Haptic (Touch) memory
          • Less researched
          • Encoded through touch
      • Working memory model (Baddeley & Hitch)
        • Central Executive
          • Manages information from both slave systems
      • Responsible for a response
      • Can be extended by rehersal
      • Has a capacity of 7 +/- 2 (Miller 1956)
    • Evidence FOR model
      • A) Evidence from normal memory
        • 1) Ppts are shown a list of words briefly and allowed free recall of the list (Murdock 1962).
        • 2) Most remembered the first items (primacy) and the last items (recency). This is called the serial position effect (coined by Ebbinghaus after experiments on himself)
        • 5) However, a double disociation still needs to be found
        • 6) This can occur by manipulating either primacy or recency effects to show that they are indeed separate
        • 3) Primacy: words have been in STM longest, so pass into LTM
        • 4) Recency: Words just heard, so still in STM
        • 7) Researchers have found things that block primacy and separate things that block recency
        • 8) Things that block primacy: Lower IQ, Lower frequency words (not things you hear everyday)
        • 9) Things that block recency: A distractor task after seeing the words , or delayed recall (Glanzer & Cunitz 1966)
      • B) Evidence from abnormal memory
        • 1) An amnesiac patient (HM) was studied by Baddeley and Warrington (1970)
        • 2) HM had a normal STM but impaired LTM, possibly due to localised brain damage.
        • 3) If one can be damaged and not the other, they are different
        • 4) Another patient, KF, has an impaired STM but a normal LTM
        • 5) This provides a double dissociation between the 2.
      • C) Capacity differences
        • 1) STM is limited to 7 +/- 2 things. (Miller 1956).
        • 2) LTM appears unlimited.
      • D) Coding differences
        • 1) Baddeley (1966), found in 3 experiments that LTM tended to be encoded semantically and STM acoustically.
        • 2) He presented participants with words that were: acoustically similar, acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar or semantically dissimilar.
        • 3) He found that when STM was tested, acoustically dissimilar words were tested.
        • 4) And when LTM was tested, semantically dissimilar words were recalled better, suggesting its due to semantics.
    • Evidence AGAINST model
      • A) Patient KF
        • 1) Shallice &  Warrington (1970): If patient KF has an impaired STM, how does he bring about responses?
        • 2) This suggests that the direction of the arrows is not always correct.
      • B) Repeated exposure in STM doesnt always lead to LTM
        • 1) Baddeley et al (1980) conducted a study when the BBC wished to change radio frequencies.
        • 2) The BBC played a jingle constantly stating which frequency they were changing to, so 'house wives' would hear and remember it.
        • 3) Baddeley found that only 18-20% could remember
        • 4) This is a problem as repeated exposure should have meant it passed into the LTM
      • C) Primacy/Recency aren't 100% clear cut
        • 1) Some studies such as Tzeng (1973) and Baddeley & Hitch (1977) have found evidence against.
        • 2) Baddeley & Hitch (1977) asked rugby players to recall a season's details.
        • 3) They recalled more recent events, showing recency can occur in LTM as well as STM.
        • 4) Tzeng (1973) conducted a recall study but with distractions.
        • 5) He found that recency still occurred after a distractor event, showing it wasn't necessarily STM.
    • Assumptions:
      • They assumed the direction of arrows
      • They assumed a response comes from the STM
      • They assumed 3 types of memory exist
      • If info is held in STM long enough, it moves to LTM

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Cognitive Psychology resources »