11

PSYCHOLOGY Y1
Worksheet: Evaluating MSM

Name: Breanna Liao Score:

Level: Year 1 Date: April 22, 2022

Evaluate the Multi-Store Memory Model using the TEACUP method. (5 points each)

 Testable – Can the theory/model be tested through research?

 Empirical Evidence – Are there (adequate) studies that supports the theory/model?
 Application – Can the theory/model be used to explain human behavior(s)?
 Constructs – Are the constructs in the theory/model clearly operationalized? Can
they be measured?
 Unbiased – Is there a bias in the theory/model? Does it support one side of an
argument?
 Predictive Power - Can it predict human behavior?

Note: Include research studies to support your claim.

Criterion Comments (Answers should be explained and justified)

Testable
The origin of the Multi-Store Memory Model was from a research by
Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968. Since this model is rooted from a
research, it is testable through more research as well. Various
components of the model can and should be tested to verify the
explanation of the proponents of the model regarding memory and its
transfer. Some research studies would dive deeper into a specific kind
of memory in the model, such as the sensory (iconic) memory from the
research of Sperling (1960), along with the short-term and the long-
term memory from the research of Glanzer and Cunitz (1966). Other
research studies would test the model from the outside, not utilizing the
components within, such as Craik and Tulving (1975) and Craik and
Lockhart (1972) in further developing the long-term memory using the
levels of processing that they have researched upon as well. With the
data and results brought by Atkinson and Shiffrin, these researchers
were challenged to test the model to ensure that information flows
through and as memory in a deduced way. It has set a foundation for

1|
 further research into memory and the model itself. The Multi-Store
Memory Model can be tested through research, since the different
components are clearly defined, such as the sensory memory simply
storing information and not processing it, short-term memory having a
limited capacity, and long-term memory being able to store information
for indefinite periods of time, that researchers are able to go in depth
and clarify these components in an applicable manner.

There are a number of research studies that support the model, most of
these simply tested the model through its components in terms of
memory and its transfer. The Multi-Store Memory Model contains the
sensory memory, in which information could be processed to be short-
term memory if provided with attention, and become long-term memory
if repeatedly rehearsed. A few of the research studies that support the
model are stated above, namely Sperling (1960) and Glanzer and
Cunitz (1966). The results of the study of Sperling (1960) showed
support to the model in terms of our information being in the sensory
memory, wherein it fades away of not given attention to. Meanwhile,
the study of Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) supports the idea in the model
wherein the short-term memory can be transferred to long-term if
Empirical
information is being rehearsed. In addition to this, the study of Peterson
Evidence
and Peterson in 1959 supports how the short-term memory is easily
forgotten and differs from the long-term memory in terms of its time of
disappearance. GA Miller’s study on the chunking method empirically
justifies the capacity of the short-term memory, being 7+-2 chunks.
Lastly, the case study of HM also supports the idea brought by model
that the short-term memory and long-term memory are different, given
that HM, the participant of the study, could not transfer new information
from his STM to his LTM after his operation to alleviate his case. The
Multi-Store Memory Model is supported by empirical research,
highlighting the components once again of the model.

https://studylib.net/doc/9511356/studies-that-support-msm

Application
The Multi-Store Memory Model can be used to explain human
behaviour to a certain extent. Although it is one of the first to propose
the basic structure of memory, it does not necessarily exhibit the
processes to which applies to a good number of human behaviour. The
sensory memory of the model does explain how humans use their
senses, namely sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, to take in
information and store it within the specified memory. It also highlights
how we humans use our attention to transfer the information we receive
from our senses to a memory we will remember in the short period of
time. The study of Sperling (1960) promotes this human behaviour of
humans to sense their surroundings and bring attention to them to be

2|
 remembered or else it will fade away, because the participants in the
study were only able to recall the characters that they have attended to
(row). We humans are said to be able to remember this information
through the process of chunking in the short-term memory, we divide
the information we have into parts to be able to remember them. This
capacity of the short-term memory which serve as how humans behave
towards the information that will be processed was empirically justified
by GA Miller’s “The Magical Number Seven.” Eventually, the support of
Glanzer and Cunitz on the separation of the STM and LTM also
promoted the human behaviour when we tend to recall the first
(primacy effect) and last parts (recency effect) of a certain list, which is
called the serial position effect. Eventually, we use this whenever we
wish to create an impactful part whenever we communicate with others,
to eliminate bias in research, and to natural behave around people.

As a whole, the Multi-Store Memory Model explains how an individual

would take in information that he/she wishes to remember for a long
time, may it be in memorizing, studying, work, etc. However, it does not
explain how we are able to recall information stored in our long-term
memory, per se, and the overall transfer of our memory. There are
various pieces of information of different forms that we receive daily,
these cannot simply be explained by the model. Can the Multi-Store
Memory Model explain our behaviour in recalling prior or stuck
knowledge? How about in cases of what we call “déjà vu?” How about
in cases where a long-term memory suddenly could not be recalled by
an individual due to a very long period of time? With this, the model
could be simply explain human behaviour based on the capacity and
duration to which information stays in a specific memory or the linear
direction information flows, as based in the model.

Constructs
The constructs within the Multi-Store Memory Model, which would
include the memory storages and the conditions that the pieces
information go through, are operationalized depending on the research
studies that support the model. Even so, it lacks clarity in measurement
as a whole.

The Multi-Store Memory Model can be measured depending on the

duration and capacity of each memory. For example, the sensory
memory has a capacity of 1 second for iconic and 2-5 seconds for
echoic. Our short-term memory can only take 7+-2 chunks of
information for around 30 seconds. The long-term memory, however,
still has an unidentified capacity and the duration in which information
can be stored is said to be virtually unlimited. Meanwhile, the conditions
to which information had to go through, namely attention, rehearsal,
transfer, and retrieval, are difficult to exactly operationalize. Using the
research studies tackled, we can observe how they have

3|
 operationalized the constructs from the model.

The study of Sperling (1960) used the visual information provided to

support the operationalization of the sensory memory; they presented a
tachistoscopic image of a grid of alphanumeric characters for only 50
milliseconds. Given the short amount of time, the participants will have
the put their attention into this for it to be transferred to the short-term
memory. On the other hand, the study of Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)
shows the hopes of the operationalization of the STM and LTM, along
with how the primacy and recency effect contributed to the repetition
and embedding of words into the such memory of the participants.

The study of Craik and Lockhart in 1972, along with Craik and Tulving’s
in 1975, attempts to further measure and define the constructs with the
Multi-Store Memory Model by adding the levels of processing, which
add depth in the information and memory flow. Although the results of
all these research studies exhibits a clearer operationalization and
understanding of the components of the model. Overall, the Multi-Store
Memory Model still needs depth in its components, which could be
catered by other models proposed by researchers, such as Baddeley
and Hitch (1974).

Unbiased
The Multi-Store Memory Model is undoubtedly biased due to two
reasons: its nature and the research studies that support it. The model
itself has its limitations, which makes it biased to an argument that
memory is simply a storage and that people only can process
information from their senses to a memory which will store it
indefinitely. It eliminates the possibly that information could flow from
the long-term and be applied in response to our surroundings using the
other forms of memory. Additionally, it generalizes the forms of
information we receive into the STM and LTM. Do all forms of
information taken using our senses direct themselves to the STM only?
Do they not have other ways to be processed? This is why the levels of
processing was proposed to counter the biases of the Multi-Store
Memory Model. Even so, it is only representative of the individuals to
are given situations where they have to memorize and remember a
certain piece of information using their senses, attention, and rehearsal.

This leads us to the bias brought by the research studies that support
the Multi-Store Memory Model. Majority of the experiments, such as
Sperling (1960), conducted for this model are tests, which could bring
bias among the participants to feel a little pressured, tense, and forced
to do their best and show their utmost focus into the said task or test.
Additionally, some of these research studies catered to a specific group
of people only, an example would be Glanzer and Cunitz (1966), who
had males in military as participants. In case researchers will conduct

4|
 experiments not only regarding the Multi-Store Memory Model but also
other matters, they must consider the representativeness of the
participants they will choose to the target population. As humans with
the capability to get information and process them, we must all be
included as the target population of the study of Multi-Store Memory
Model.

The Multi-Store Memory Model cannot predict majority of human

behaviour as much as it tries to. Primarily, the model focuses on
memory; therefore, other forms of human behaviour will not be
associated to the model, such as breathing and emotions felt by us.
Although given the research studies that are in support to have assured
the functionalities of the model, namely when given a certain task we
Predictive
are to take note of them (Sperling, 1960) and focusing on these will
validity
retain the information (Glanzer and Cunitz, 1966). Additionally,
researchers can simply hypothesize but not predict the human
behaviours for any models. Rooting back to how the model was made,
we cannot predict how the Multi-Store Memory Model influences
human behaviour but rather use empirical evidences to be made to do
so.

5|