Multi-Store Memory Model Evaluation

Research evidence by Glanzer et al demonstrated support for short-term

and long-term memory being different stores.
Participants were tasked with recalling word lists with earlier and later
words more likely to be recalled and this was known as
the ‘primacy’ and ‘recency’ effect.
This primacy effect occurs as the first words are transferred to long-term
memory while the recency effect occurs as the last words are still within the
short-term memory.
Delays of 10 seconds or more before recall resulted in only a primacy effect
with only long-term memory affected. This highlighted the difference in
short-term memory and long-term memory, supporting the theory.
A major strength of this model is the model’s predictions around memory
which can be easily tested to verify whether it applies to human behaviour.
The evidence supports the idea of short-term memory and long-term
memory being separate types of memory and it has been verified through
the use of PET scans and fMRI scans when participants have been doing
separate tasks related to short-term memory and long-term.
The prefrontal cortex is seen to relate to short-term memory while the
hippocampus is associated with longterm memory, supporting the model’s
idea of different memory stores.
The multi-store memory model can be argued to be oversimplifying
memory structures and processes.
Shallice et al highlighted this with a case study of KF who suffered brain
damage resulting in difficulty with verbal information in short-term memory
but normal ability with visual information.
This highlights how short-term memory is not a single store as the MSM
suggests.
Long-term memory may not be a single store either as Schachter et al
proposed 4 different types of long-term memory stores.
These were:
 Semantic memory is the memory for knowledge
  Episodic memory which helps recall your own actions or what you
did
 Procedural memory that stores actions such as riding a bike or
learning to read
 Perceptual-representation systems (PRS), which is memory
related to the recognition of specific stimuli.
Spiers et al studied 147 patients with amnesia finding evidence to support
Schachter’s theory finding problems with semantic and episodic memory
but not procedural or PRS highlighting even long-term memory is not a
single store as the theory for multi-store memory proposes.
The case study of Clive Wearing highlights this further where he was found
to have lost his episodic memory but not procedural, again suggesting
more than one type of long-term memory store.
However, this was a single case study of one individual and may lack
external validity to wider generalisation due to possible individual
differences.
The model is supported by amnesia cases as patients have been found to
either lose their short-term memory or long-term memory abilities but not
both.
This supports the multi-store memory model as it shows both memory
stores are separate as the model proposes.
One major weakness is that in real life memories are created within
contexts rather than within laboratory-based “free-recall” experiments which
the multistore memory model is heavily based on.
This lacks ecological validity due to the artificial settings and therefore
external reliability to real-world situations as results may differ.
Lockhart et al also proposed that rehearsal was not the only means by
which memories may be transferred to long-term memory and the level of
processing was another method.
This resulted in the inclusion of elaborative rehearsal in the revised multi-
store memory model and highlights the overly simplified nature of the
model.

Types of Long-term Memory Evaluation

Research evidence supports the case for their being 3 different memory
stores associated with the LTM. Brain scans have shown 3 distinct areas
being active with the hippocampus and other parts of the temporal lobe
such as the frontal lobe associated with episodic memory. Semantic
memory has been associated with activity in the temporal lobe while
procedural memory associated with the cerebellum and motor cortex.
This supports theories for 3 distinct stores of long-term memory. Case
studies such as HM (Milner 1962) support the case for procedural and
declarative memory stores being distinctively different. HM could not form
episodic or semantic memories due to the destruction of his hippocampus
and temporal lobes however he was able to form procedural memory
through learning how to draw figures by looking at their reflection (mirror
drawing). However, he could not recollect how he had learnt this skill
supporting the case for different stores between “knowing how” to do
something and semantic knowledge-based memories or experience-based
(episodic).
A weakness with this study is it is based on a single individual, therefore,
making it difficult to generalise the findings to the wider population as
deficits in memory may be unique to this one person.
Another major weakness into theories for long-term memory is the lack of
research into brain areas that are involved in procedural memory. Case
studies of individuals with brain damage that affects procedural memory but
not declarative memory is needed to understand this better, however, such
cases are extremely rare. Therefore we cannot conclusively say the
procedural memory store is fully understood with any detail to generalise
such a theory.
Support for semantic and episodic memory being separate comes from
Vicari et al (2007). A case study of a young girl (CL) who suffered brain
damage after the removal of a tumour found deficiencies in the ability to
create new episodic memories. However, she was still able to create
semantic memories supporting the theory that they are separate.

Working Memory Model Evaluation

A major weakness to the working memory model is little is known about the
main component, the Central Executive or how it works and there is
evidence suggesting this is not unitary. Critics argue the Central Executive
may not be a single element and Eslinger et al highlighted this with one
patient, EVR, who had a cerebral tumour removed. While he performed
well on reasoning tasks suggesting his Central Executive was functional,
he struggled with poor decision-making skills suggesting some elements of
his Central Executive was partly damaged. This suggests there may be
other components to the Central Executive which the Working Memory
Model is unable to explain due to it being over-simplified in its theory.
The model is also unable to explain how musical memory works as
participants may be able to listen to instrumental music without impeding
their performances in other acoustic tasks.
Also, it is not fully understood how the link between working memory and
longterm memory works and this is not fully explained either.
Baddeley demonstrated the existence of the visuospatial sketchpad when
participants were given the task of tracking a moving light with a pointer.
While doing this they were tasked with one of two other tasks:
One, to describe all the angles on the letter F and another to perform a
verbal task.
Describing the angles was difficult as both tasks competed for the limited
resources of the visuospatial sketchpad but not the verbal task as that
involved two different slave systems. This demonstrated the limited
capacity of the visuospatial sketchpad but also how it differs from the
Phonological loop which is responsible for auditory tasks.
Objective evidence in support of the Working Memory Model comes from
PET scans which show different parts of the brain become activated when
doing visual and verbal tasks. This suggests the Phonological loop and
visuospatial sketchpad are separate systems supported by biological
evidence. The WMM is only a model for temporary short-term memory and
does not attempt to explain how memory works as a whole including long-
term memory. Therefore the model is incomplete as an explanation which
is a major weakness.
Klauer & Zhao provided support for the visual cache and inner scribe. They
found more interference occurred between two visual tasks compared to a
visual and spatial task suggesting both were separate components with the
visual cache dealing with colour and form and the inner scribe dealing with
spatial relationships.
Pet scans also support these findings with brain activation apparent in the
left hemisphere when doing visual tasks and right hemisphere activity when
doing spatial tasks which support the idea that the VSS is further
subdivided into a separate visual cache and inner-scribe.
Much of the evidence for testing the different components such as the VSS
and the PL have often relied on dual-task techniques where participants
are required to carry out two simultaneous activities. The problem is they
lack external validity and realism due to the artificial setup and they are not
tasks people would usually do in everyday life. Therefore studies that have
tested for the WMM lack mundane realism.
Interference Theory Evaluation
McDonald et al (1931) experimented with participants giving them lists of
adjectives to remember (List A). After learning List A they were given List B
and tasked with learning this. Recall was found to be poorest when List B
was a list of synonyms of List A (12% recall) supporting the case for
confusion to occur between the two memories as interference theory
states.
There is a huge body of work and research which supports retroactive and
proactive interference occurring.
One major weakness with interference theory is the interference effects are
more evident in laboratory-based settings using various memory-based
tasks. These setups lack ecological validity and also mundane realism as
the tasks are rarely indicative of what people would experience in real-life
situations. Therefore it makes it difficult to generalise the findings externally
beyond the laboratory settings or understand exactly how much day-to-day
forgetting can be credited to interference or even forgetting in general.
Anderson (2000) believed interference did play a role in forgetting but it
was difficult to understand exactly how much. Individual differences can
also explain why some people are less affected by proactive interference
when compared to others.
Kane et al (2000) found individuals with bigger working memory spans
were less susceptible to proactive interference when testing recall using
three-word lists compared to individuals deemed to have less working
memory spans. It is unclear whether those with greater working memory
spans have achieved this either through more practice in some form but it
highlights how interference theories cannot be fully generalised to
everyone. Understanding how interference works can offer advertisers real-
world applications for marketing campaigns as they attempt to build brands.
Danaher (2008) found when people were exposed to adverts from
competing brands within a short time frame, participants struggled to
recognise the brands or their message. Considering the millions spent on
advertising this presents a big problem but also provides marketers with
practical ways to overcome this. By ensuring adverts are spaced
significantly far apart from the airing of rival brands or by repeating more on
one day rather than over the weak with rival brands, this can help avoid
dilution of adverts.
Another major weakness for interference theory is it only explains forgetting
when information is similar and can not explain why forgetting occurs in the
majority of real-life situations. Also forgetting due to similarities doesn’t
happen that often either suggesting it is only one part of a bigger
explanation and over-simplified. The fact that there is significant research
support for cue-dependent forgetting suggests other explanations or
processes must be at which and interference theory cannot explain
everything.
Although interference has been proven to occur when trying to remember
information, the theory does not offer any explanation as to what the
cognitive processes are at work to cause this.

Retrieval Failure Evaluation

Many studies into retrieval failure due to cue dependent forgetting are
based in the laboratory and lack ecological validity and mundane realism
as they are not indicative of real-world environments or situations of
forgetting.
Also, such explanations are not able to explain why retrieval failure cannot
be explained with cue dependent forgetting for activities such as riding a
bike, suggesting retrieval failure as a theory for forgetting is oversimplified
and incomplete.
Research into retrieval failure and cue dependent forgetting has real-world
applications particularly in the search for missing people and reconstructing
the last known whereabouts.
This was used to aid in the conviction of Danielle Jones killer as a
reconstruction in 2001 prompted witnesses to recall her arguing with a man
which later led to the conviction of her uncle through witness testimony.
This has also helped in cognitive interviews to help people recall
information for witness testimonies. Therefore understanding how cues
affect recall can help us develop ways to improve memory for the benefit of
society.
Support for retrieval failure having more validity than interference theory
comes from Tulving and Psotka (1971).
They showed how interference effects occurred due to the absence of any
cues to aid retrieval. Participants were given word lists to remember with
one condition having category headings and another without. In conditions
without category headings, fewer words were recalled than when headings
were present showing the information was available but simply unable to
be accessed due to the absence of cues.
Research into state-dependent failure such as Overtons (1972) study
raises ethical concerns as they encouraging people to become drunk and
under the influence of substances which can lead to injury or even death
even by accident. Also the level of engagement from participants when
under the influence of alcohol may not necessarily be genuine due to the
way it affects peoples willingness to give honest responses. Some
participants may have deliberately done poorly in some situations or try
harder in others due to how alcohol affects people in unpredictable ways.
Baddeley (1997) criticised the encoding specificity principle as impossible
to test and verify for certain making it unscientific. If a cue aids retrieval
then it could be argued to have been encoded in the memory however if it
does not then it could be argued that it wasn’t encoded in memory as a
cue. The fact that it is impossible to test for an item as having been
encoded or not means we cannot fully test the encoding specificity
principle.
Baddeley’s (1975) study did find supporting evidence for cue dependent
learning and how context cues aided retrieval.
Divers tasked with learning material either on dry land or while underwater
were found to have poorer recall when they were tested on retrieval in a
context that differed from where encoding and learning happened.
For example, testing them for the material they learnt underwater while on
land resulted in poorer retrieval than if they were tested while still
underwater. The same was true vice versa too with better recall shown
when the learning context remained the same as encoding. This supported
cue- dependent failure, however, this was during free recall only. When
given a recognition test and asked to say whether the item on the list was
in the learning list or not, context-based failure effects were not observed
showing how cue dependency can not explain all forms of forgetting.

Misleading information: Post-event discussion

evaluation
The weakness with research into misleading information and post-even
discussion is that such studies are laboratory studies and therefore lack
ecological validity and realism. Due to this, results gained in such settings
may lack external validity and wider generalisation.
The strength of the study, however, is the laboratory condition allowed
researchers to control for extraneous confounding variables and clearly see
the link between leading questions and recall. The laboratory setting has
also made it easier to verify results for reliability through replication and
establish cause and effect relationships between leading questions and
memory recall which would be difficult to do in real-world settings. Repeat
studies have concluded similar findings leading researchers to conclude
leading questions and misinformation can affect recall.
However, the use of students may have been a confounding variable in
itself rather than leading questions as they are not representative of the
range of ages in the normal population and therefore the sample lacks
population validity also. Also, research suggests age may be a confounding
variable in itself when it comes to leading questions with Warren et al
finding younger children were more susceptible to influence to misleading
information than older. Therefore this study may lack internal validity as it
may be more of a measure on how leading questions affects one particular
age group (students) rather than the wider population.
The use of questionnaires is also another possible weakness as questions
can be easily misunderstood by participants or misinterpreted without
clarification. Peoples responses may also be misunderstood by
researchers. More interestingly real-life studies outside the laboratory
setting by Yuille and Cutshall have found that witnesses to real events
tended to have accurate recall even many months after witnessing events
with misleading questions having little effect suggesting previous findings
by Loftus into leading questions may possibly be limited to laboratory
settings. This may be explained due to highly motivated participants
displaying demand characteristics that may not be indicative of real
witnesses.
In real situations arousal, stress, anxiety or concentration may be a
stronger factor in recall than leading questions. Forster et al found
supporting evidence for this in one study where participants who thought
they were watching a real-life robbery and believed their responses would
have an impact on an upcoming trial actually be more accurate in their
recall. Although ethical issues are raised due to the participants being
deceived into thinking what they were watching was real; the findings
suggest leading questions may have some impact in laboratory settings but
in real life, other factors (such as arousal, stress, concentration or
motivation) may mitigate for this and override their effects.

Evaluating How Anxiety Affects Eyewitness Testimony

Criticisms of research into how anxiety affects eyewitness testimony point
to the fact that studies have been conducted in laboratory settings and
therefore lack ecological validity due to their controlled nature. Participants
are usually motivated and eager to engage in the study which may be
unrealistic of real-life witnesses and motivation in itself may, therefore, be a
confounding variable. Therefore the possibility of demand characteristics is
very possible with such laboratory studies.
The benefit of these key studies being conducted in the laboratory,
however, was that such experiments can be easily replicated for validity
and reliability checking as well as limiting confounding and extraneous
variables to establish cause and effect relationships between anxiety and
eyewitness testimony.
Due to the ease of replication other studies have found similar findings
showing the findings of Deffenbacher and Loftus are reliable. However
again the replicated studies tend to be within artificial settings which could
be affecting results and lack external validity and wider generalisation to
real-world situations which is again limited.
Yuille & Cutshall’s study contradicts laboratory findings highlighting the
importance of stress in eyewitness testimony. Witnesses to a real-life
violent crime such as a gun shooting were found to have remarkable
memories of the stressful situation even after observing the gunman be
killed. Even those re-interviewed 5 months later were found to have
accurate recall with even misleading questions which were inserted into the
questioning having no effect. One thing to note however was the witnesses
who experienced the most stress were closest to the event and this may
have aided their accurate recall. Therefore proximity to events itself may be
a confounding variable in such research studies. This study illustrated that
in instances of real-life stressful situations recall may be accurate even
months later. Also, misleading questions, as illustrated, tended to have less
of an effect in real-life situations compared to Loftus & Palmer’s laboratory
study on misleading questions and stress may be a stronger mitigating
factor in recall.
Studies that have subsequently found stress/anxiety to aid recall were likely
to have experienced the first increasing levels of stress in the Yerkes-
Dodson curve while those suffering from poor recall may be due to them
being within the second part with over-arousal resulting in poor recall
performance. Such studies involving violence (Loftus/ Clifford) to heighten
anxiety levels also raise ethical concerns due to the possible psychological
harm they can cause from observing such events. Other research suggests
age is also a mitigating factor which could be a confounding variable
beyond simply anxiety and this needs to be considered also.
There is also research evidence to suggest the Yerkes-Dodson curve is far
too simplified to explain how anxiety affects eyewitness accounts. Fazey &
Hardy (1988) proposed Catastrophe theory which may better explain the
conflicting findings of how anxiety affects EWT on a 3- dimensional scale.
This includes performance, physiological arousal and also cognitive anxiety
too. This model proposes that as physiological arousal increases beyond
the moderate optimum level, unlike the Yerkes-Dodson curve where there
is a steady decline, they observed a drastic drop in performance which they
proposed is caused by increased mental anxiety and worry. However,
trying to distinguish whether a person felt anxiety or stress in itself would be
difficult and subjective.

Cognitive Interview Evaluation

Köhnken et al’s meta-analysis of 53 studies found the cognitive interview
increased recall on average by 34% when compared to standard interview
methods showing it is effective and has validity.
This also has real-world applications especially in the world of law
enforcement where the police can use this to glean more information from
witnesses that may prove crucial to solving crimes and reduce miscarriages
of justice.
An important criticism to note was that most of the studies involved in
Köhnken meta-analysis consisted of college students and within laboratory
settings.
The group of students are not representative of the wide age ranges in the
population and therefore the sample lacks population validity as the results
gained may only be representative of that particular age range being
affected by the cognitive interview.
Also with student participants age could be a confounding variable as
research in other studies has found memory recall to be affected by this
and therefore the study may lack internal validity and not be accurately
measuring the effects of the cognitive interview completely but rather how
one interview technique affects a certain age range of people.
The students involved may also have been motivated participants which
again is not always indicative of real witnesses and this may affect recall
and limit the cognitive interviews application.
The laboratory settings lack ecological validity too as although they may
help in replicating the study to test for reliability and control for extraneous
variables to establish cause and effect relationships, the setting itself lacks
mundane realism due to its artificial setup.
Fisher et al found supporting evidence for the cognitive interview in real-
world studies when 16 police officers interviewed 47 people twice who were
victims of crime themselves or witnesses.
7 officers were trained to use the cognitive interview while 9 used standard
interview methods and formed the control group.
Results found the cognitive interview gained 47% more facts overall
compared to the standard interview and concluded it was beneficial for
improving EWT.
This study used real police officers and real witnesses meaning the study
had high external validity to real-world application.
A possible weakness is the control group of officers may have been
demotivated due to not receiving training which may have affected their
motivation levels and performance in the standard interview negatively.
However, although the cognitive interview was effective in gaining more
information it was also found to increase the amount of incorrect
information given from witnesses.
This is a major limitation as interviewers may not always know what is
factual or not as the cognitive interview does not guarantee the accuracy of
information recalled.