THE MULTISTORE MODEL OF MEMORY
KEYWORDS
SENSORY REGISTER/MEMORY
Definition: Initial stage where sensory information is briefly held.
Types:
Iconic: Visual information
Echoic: Auditory information
Haptic: Touch information
Olfactory: Smell information
Gustatory: Taste information
SHORT-TERM MEMORY (STM)
Definition: Temporary storage for actively used information.
LONG-TERM MEMORY (LTM)
Definition: Permanent memory store with unlimited capacity.
TRACE DECAY
Definition: Memory fades naturally over time if not used or rehearsed.
TRANSFER OF STM TO LTM
Definition: Information is transferred through attention and rehearsal.
FORGETTING THROUGH RETRIEVAL FAILURE
Definition: Inability to access memories due to lack of retrieval cues.
LINEAR DIRECTION
Definition: Information flows step-by-step: sensory register → STM → LTM.
FORGETTING THROUGH DISPLACEMENT
Definition: When new information pushes out old information from STM due to limited capacity.
UNITARY STORE
Definition: Early memory theory proposed memory as a single, undivided system before the Multi-Store Model.
MULTIPLE STORES
Definition: Suggests that memory consists of separate systems (e.g., sensory register, STM, LTM).
REHEARSAL LOOP
Definition: Repeating information in STM to transfer it to LTM.
ENCODING
Definition: Process of converting information into a form suitable for storage.
CAPACITY
Definition: The amount of information a memory store can hold.
DURATION
Definition: How long information lasts in the memory store.
ACOUSTIC ENCODING
Definition: Information processed based on sound.
SEMANTIC ENCODING
Definition: Information processed based on meaning.
VISUAL ENCODING
Definition: Information processed based on appearance or imagery.
A SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SM STM AND LTM
Understanding the Multistore of memory requires understanding each store's features. I have summarised finding below, but if you require further detail, please visit the following page:
TYPES OF MEMORY AND FEATURES OF EACH MEMORY STORE
CAPACITY
Sensory Memory: Very Large (Sperling)
Short-Term Memory: 7 ± 2 (Miller, Jacobs, Baddeley)
Long-Term Memory: Infinite (Anokhin)
DURATION
Sensory Memory: Approximately 200–500 milliseconds, depending on sense modality (Crowder)
Short-Term Memory: 18–30 seconds (Peterson & Peterson)
Long-Term Memory: Infinite (Bahrick)
ENCODING
Sensory Memory: Iconic, Haptic, Echoic, Olfactory, Gustatory (Treisman)
Short-Term Memory: Acoustic and Visual (Baddeley)
Long-Term Memory: Mostly Semantic but also Visual and Acoustic (Baddeley)
THE MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY BY ATKINSON AND SHIFFRIN (1968)
.
MARK SCHEMES FOR THE MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Most specifications and mark schemes for Atkinson and Shiffrin’s (1968) Multi-Store Model of Memory (MSM) require knowledge of:
THE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEMORIES
Sensory Register
Short-Term Memory (STM)
Long-Term Memory (LTM)
KEY FEATURES OF EACH STORE
Coding: How information is represented.
Capacity: How much information can be stored.
Duration: How long information lasts in the memory store.
HOW MEMORY MOVES BETWEEN STRUCTURES
Memory moves linearly via attention (from the sensory register to STM) and rehearsal (from STM to LTM).
HOW MEMORY IS LOST IN EACH STORE
Sensory Register: Lost through trace decay.
STM: Lost through displacement or trace decay.
LTM: Lost through retrieval failure or interference.
ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF THE MSM
The MSM is a structural model.
STM and LTM are unitary stores functioning as single systems.
Information passes between stores in a linear direction.
Rehearsal is critical for transferring information between stores.
DIAGRAMS IN ANSWERS
A well-labelled and sufficiently detailed diagram can achieve full marks, provided it clearly illustrates the structure, flow, and features of the MSM.
OUTLINE ESSAY EXAMPLE (A01)
Before the 1960s, little was known about cognitive processes such as memory. This is because the cognitive revolution was still in its infancy, and the behaviourist tradition that dominated the first half of the 20th century paid no regard to internal processes, believing that the brain, or ‘black box’ as they called it, was irrelevant.
It was assumed that memory was a unitary store in the brain.
Atkinson & Shiffrin (A&S) (1968) proposed that memory was not a singular store but contained three multi-stores, hence the model’s name, the multi-store model of memory. The three stores were sensory memory (SM), short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM). A&S also proposed that memory was a structural system rather than a process system and that information (or memory) linearly passed between the three stores; for example, SM must first be processed before information could pass to STM and then finally to LTM.
Sensory memory is the first storage system for incoming information and has several sensory registers (SR), e.g., iconic, echoic, haptic, gustatory and olfactory. Each of these registers processes incoming data from one of these five senses. Information received in SM is raw and unprocessed and has a large capacity. The duration of storage, however, is milliseconds, so unless given focused attention, it will fade from SM, never to be retrieved.
Sensory memory is a mental representation of how a person’s environmental events look, sound, feel, smell, and taste; e.g., people do not necessarily pay attention or notice the sounds and sights they continually encounter when conscious. Most sensory data goes unnoticed; for example, a person cannot remember every footstep they take or every sight they encounter. Sensory memory represents the world so that a person gets a sense of time, space and physicality at any moment. But when a sensory memory is noticed or given attention (e.g., a noise, a familiar person, etc.), it then goes into short-term memory, where a person becomes cognisant of the sight or sound; thus, the sensory register is not under cognitive control. If attention is given to a particular sense, then information/sensory data will move to the next store, short-term memory.
Short-term memory is our conscious presence or awareness of the world. Information in STM is fragile, and unless rehearsed, it is still vulnerable to being forgotten due to its limited duration of 18-30 seconds and its finite capacity of 7+ or - 2 items.
If the information in STM is rehearsed and processed deeply enough through maintenance rehearsal - later updated after Craik & Lockhart’s Level of Processing Theory - (LOP) to include elaborative rehearsal - the information can then pass onto the long-term memory store. If information is not (sub) vocalised in the rehearsal loop, it is lost through displacement or trace decay.
LTM is the archive of all memories and is presumed to have unlimited capacity and unlimited duration dependent on the level of processing of the information received. Information retrieval from the long-term store occurs through information passing back through the short-term memory store.
While encoding for long-term memory is mainly semantic and based on meaning, short-term memory is thought to encode acoustically.
THE SERIAL POSITION EFFECT (PRIMACY AND RECENCY EFFECT BY GLANZER AND MURDOCK (1962)
Experimental cognitive psychology
The serial position effect (aka primacy and recency effect) is a cognitive phenomenon whereby people tend to remember the first (primacy) and last (recency) items in a series. This provides evidence for the MSM: people tend to remember the first items because they have longer to rehearse the information and may have paid more attention to it, so it is more likely to be transferred to the LTS. They tend to remember the most recent information because it is still in their STS. Information in the middle may be lost because of the limited capacity of the STS. This can be shown in Glanzer and Cunitz’s famous study.
CASE STUDIES ON AMNESIACS
CASE STUDIES AND COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY is a field of psychology that studies individuals with brain damage or neurological disorders to understand how specific brain areas are linked to mental processes like memory. By examining the effects of brain injuries, researchers gain insights into internal processes, such as how memory is structured and functions.
METHODS USED IN COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
POST-MORTEM EXAMINATIONS (AUTOPSIES)
After death, researchers examine the brain to identify damage or abnormalities linked to memory impairments.
For example, post-mortems on amnesiac patients have revealed damage to the hippocampus, confirming its role in forming long-term memories.
CLINICAL INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS
Detailed assessments of patients’ behaviours and memory abilities reveal specific deficits.
For example, interviews with patients like Clive Wearing demonstrated intact procedural memory (e.g., piano playing) despite severe episodic memory loss.
BRAIN SCANNING TECHNIQUES
Techniques like fMRI, PET, and SPECT allow researchers to observe brain activity in real time during memory tasks.
For instance, scans show the prefrontal cortex is active during short-term memory tasks, while the hippocampus is active during long-term memory recall.
LIMITATIONS OF CASE STUDIES IN MEMORY RESEARCH
LACK OF GENERALISABILITY
Each case involves unique circumstances, and findings may not apply to the wider population.
For example, Clive Wearing suffered memory loss due to encephalitis, but this condition may manifest differently in other individuals, making his case specific to his experience.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Brain injuries often have unique effects. Even patients with similar injuries, such as hippocampal damage, may exhibit different memory impairments.
WHY CASE STUDIES REMAIN VALUABLE
Despite their limitations, case studies are essential for understanding memory processes that cannot be ethically or practically investigated through experiments. Combined with other methods, such as brain scanning and controlled experimental research, they provide valuable insights into memory systems and their relationship to brain structures.
Students should recognise the importance of case studies in memory research while remaining critical of their limitations, particularly in terms of generalisability.
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY CASE STUDIES USING SCANS
CLIVE WEARING
Type of Accident: Brain infection (encephalitis)
Technique: MRI
Part of the Brain Affected: Hippocampus and surrounding areas
Age It Happened: Mid-40s
Injury: Severe amnesia; unable to form new episodic memories but retains procedural skills (e.g., playing the piano).
How It Was Discovered: Cognitive neuropsychologists assessed his memory deficits through clinical interviews and observations, revealing functional STM and intact procedural memory but complete impairment in forming new episodic LTMs.
How It Supports MSM:
Aligns with the idea of separate memory stores. Clive could briefly hold small amounts of information in STM but could not transfer it into LTM, supporting MSM’s distinction between these memory systems.
Why It Challenges MSM:
Procedural memory (e.g., playing the piano) remained intact, suggesting LTM is not a single, unitary system as MSM claims.
HM (HENRY MOLAISEON)
Type of Accident: Surgical removal of brain tissue to treat epilepsy
Technique: MRI
Part of the Brain Affected: Hippocampus and parts of the medial temporal lobe
Age It Happened: 27
Injury: Unable to form new episodic or semantic LTMs but retained STM and the ability to learn new motor skills (procedural memory).
How It Was Discovered: Clinical observations revealed intact STM but profound LTM deficits. Later MRI scans confirmed extensive hippocampal damage, providing further evidence of memory impairment.
How It Supports MSM:
Confirms separate memory stores. HM’s STM was intact, but the inability to transfer information into LTM reinforces the MSM’s structural distinction between these systems.
Why It Challenges MSM:
The retention of procedural memory contradicts MSM’s unitary view of LTM. This suggests separate subsystems for different types of LTM, supporting more detailed models like the Working Memory Model (WMM).
KF (SHALLICE & WARRINGTON, 1970)
Type of Accident: Motorcycle accident
Technique: CT Scan
Part of the Brain Affected: Left parietal lobe
Age It Happened: Early 30s
Injury: STM impairment for verbal information, intact STM for visual information, and unaffected LTM.
How It Was Discovered: Clinical observations revealed unique memory deficits. Scans later confirmed damage to the left parietal lobe, while the hippocampus remained intact, preserving LTM function.
How It Supports MSM:
Demonstrates the existence of separate memory stores. KF’s ability to access LTM despite impaired STM supports the MSM’s distinction between these systems.
Why It Challenges MSM:
STM deficits were specific to verbal information, while visual STM remained intact. This contradicts the MSM’s claim that STM is a single, unitary store. Instead, it supports the WMM’s proposal of separate components for STM, such as the phonological loop (verbal) and visuospatial sketchpad (visual).
CONCLUSION
These case studies collectively highlight the value of the Multi-Store Model (MSM) as a foundational framework for understanding memory. They support the model’s distinction between STM and LTM but challenge its oversimplification of memory as a single, linear process. The evidence from KF, HM, and Clive Wearing demonstrates the complexity of both short-term and long-term memory systems, supporting the notion of multiple stores and subsystems. While the MSM provides a useful starting point, these findings suggest that memory processes are far more intricate, aligning more closely with models like the Working Memory Model.
COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE AND RESEARCH USING SCANS
Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of cognitive psychology that uses advanced imaging techniques to investigate the neural basis of memory and other cognitive processes in the brain. Unlike cognitive neuropsychology, which often studies individuals with brain damage, cognitive neuroscience focuses on observing brain activity in healthy participants during controlled tasks. This allows researchers to identify specific brain areas and networks involved in memory processes.
BRAIN SCANNING TECHNIQUES IN COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
Measures changes in blood oxygen levels to identify which brain areas are active during specific tasks.
It provides high spatial resolution, making it excellent for localising brain activity.
PET (Positron Emission Tomography)
Tracks radioactive tracers injected into the bloodstream to measure metabolic activity in the brain.
It helps identify active brain regions during memory tasks but has a lower resolution than fMRI.
SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography)
Like PET, it uses gamma rays to measure blood flow in the brain.
It is often used in clinical settings to identify dysfunction in patients.
MEG (Magnetoencephalography)
Detects magnetic fields produced by neural activity.
It offers high temporal resolution, making it excellent for studying the timing of brain processes.
STUDIES THAT SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE THE MSM
SUPPORT FOR MSM
Beardsley (1997)
Technique: fMRI
Findings: The prefrontal cortex was active during STM tasks.
Implication: Supports MSM’s claim that STM is a distinct store, as this brain region was not active during LTM tasks.
Squire et al. (1992)
Technique: PET
Findings: The hippocampus was active during LTM tasks.
Implication: Provides biological evidence that a separate system from STM manages LTM.
CHALLENGES TO MSM
Tulving et al. (1994)
Technique: PET
Findings: Episodic memory activated the right prefrontal cortex, while semantic memory activated the left prefrontal cortex.
Implication: Challenges MSM’s claim that LTM is a unitary store, supporting that LTM has distinct subsystems.
Paulescu et al. (1993)
Technique: PET
Findings: Verbal STM tasks activated the phonological loop, while visual STM tasks activated the visuospatial sketchpad.
Implication: Challenges MSM’s view of STM as a single store, supporting the Working Memory Model (WMM) instead.
IMPLICATIONS FOR MEMORY RESEARCH
Support for MSM: Brain scans confirm that STM and LTM involve distinct brain areas, supporting MSM’s claim of separate memory stores.
Challenges to MSM: Scans also show that STM and LTM are not unitary systems, with each having subsystems (e.g., episodic vs. semantic memory, phonological loop vs. visuospatial sketchpad).
Support for WMM: Neuroimaging studies validate the existence of multiple STM subsystems and suggest that the WMM provides a more accurate representation of memory than MSM.
Challenges to WMM: The role of the central executive remains poorly understood and difficult to localise in brain scans.
TAKEAWAYS FOR STUDENTS
BE SPECIFIC ABOUT SCAN TYPES
Clearly state whether an fMRI, PET, or other scan was used and explain its purpose. For example, PET scans measure activity in specific brain areas, while fMRI provides detailed images of which regions are active during tasks.LINK SCANS TO MSM
Brain scans provide support for the Multi-Store Model (MSM). For instance, Beardsley (1997) found the prefrontal cortex is active during STM tasks, and Squire et al. (1992) showed the hippocampus is active during LTM tasks. This supports MSM’s claim that STM and LTM are separate systems.CHALLENGE MSM USING SCANS
Scans also challenge MSM by showing that LTM and STM are not unitary stores. Tulving et al. (1994) demonstrated that episodic memory activates the right prefrontal cortex, while semantic memory activates the left prefrontal cortex. This evidence suggests that LTM has subsystems, contradicting MSM’s oversimplified view of memory as having just one LTM store.USE WMM AS A COUNTER TO MSM
The Working Memory Model (WMM) offers a more detailed explanation of short-term memory than MSM. Paulescu et al. (1993) found that different brain regions are active for verbal tasks (phonological loop) and visual tasks (visuospatial sketchpad). This supports the idea that STM is divided into components rather than being a single store, as MSM suggests.BALANCE YOUR EVALUATION
While brain scans support MSM’s claim of distinct memory systems, they also highlight its limitations, such as its oversimplification of STM and LTM. Evidence from scans often favours models like WMM, which explain the complexity of memory in greater detail. If using scans to support MSM, include counterarguments showing how they also challenge its claims.
WORKING MEMORY SCAN
TULVING et al (1994): participants performed various memory tasks while their brains were scanned using a PET scanner. and showed that episodic memories and semantic memories had different locations in the cortex.
IS MAINTENANCE REHEARSAL THE ONLY MECHANISM TO GET STM INTO LTM?
Why is the problem of rehearsal a weakness?
The memory of your first kiss doesn’t need to be rehearsed to be remembered, as opposed to trying to place a phone number. This suggests the MSM model does not explain how specific memories can be transferred into long-term memory without rehearsal.
The levels of processing model (LOP) was proposed as an alternative to the Multistore model. Craik and Lockhart (1972) rejected the idea of separate memory structures put forward by Atkinson and Shiffrin. Their model emphasised memory processes rather than structure, like the MSM model. The LOP model was based on the idea that the strength of a memory trace is determined by how the original information is processed.
Craik and Lockhart didn’t think that STM transferred to LTM by simply maintaining or rehearsing a new memory repetitively via silent or via vocal repetitions.
Craik and Lockhart believed that maintenance rehearsal was a type of memory rehearsal that was useful in maintaining information in short-term or working memory. Because this usually involves repeating information without thinking about its meaning or connecting it to other details, it is not usually transferred to long-term memory. An example of maintenance rehearsal would be repeating a postcode mentally or aloud until the number is entered into the satellite navigation unit for a journey. The postcode is held in working memory long enough to activate the Satnav but never transferred to long-term memory. The postcode will no longer be remembered an hour or even five minutes after the journey.
Although maintenance has the potential for immediate recall, Craik and Lockhart believed it had little effect on recall in long-term memory. They thought that memory duration depended on the importance of the information that needed to be processed, which would determine which encoding route an individual would use. For example, if the data only needs to be used temporarily, a person will use maintenance rehearsal in working memory. But, if the information needs to be used later, most likely, a person will use elaborative rehearsal. The data is processed deeper in elaborative rehearsal and can move to long-term memory.
Craik and Lockhart proposed that LTM memory encoding involves multiple processes operating at different levels. They believed that maintenance rehearsal was an intermediate level of processing, basically processing a term by sound (not meaning) at the same level at which it entered the brain, e.g., hearing a number or repeating a number. As a result, they believed this process would require little attention.
ELABORATIVE REHEARSAL
Craik and Lockhart reasoned that elaborative rehearsal was the deepest level of memory processing. Elaborative rehearsal is a valuable type of memory that transfers information into long-term memory. This type of rehearsal is effective because it involves thinking about the meaning of the information and connecting it to other information already stored in memory. For example, in this case, you could remember that 1066 is your best friend Gloria’s house number, but it is also the year of the Battle of Hastings.
It goes much deeper than maintenance rehearsal because of its depth of processing; it requires the learner to engage with new information to create meaningful connections to previously learned things, thus leading to the latest information being committed to long-term memory.
HOW TO APPLY ELABORATE REHEARSAL TO YOUR OWN LEARNING - you might as well!
An effective way of encouraging elaborative rehearsal is by engaging with the material in multiple ways. For instance, discussion or study groups allow discrete information to be more personal by attaching stories and creating meaningful connections to things already learned. Elaborative rehearsal strongly supports learning, especially in its attention to meaningful connections across different concepts and pieces of information. More specifically, elaborative rehearsal is extremely beneficial when remembering larger pieces of information such as sentences or other larger chunks.
A LIST OF RESEARCH STUDIES THAT CAN BE USED FOR EVALUATION
Remember, when you use research studies for A03, you only cite the Findings and Conclusions.
When using research studies for A03, focus on findings and conclusions. Below is a list of studies relevant to evaluating the MSM, categorised with UK spelling and titles in capitals.
TYPES OF RESEARCH
Cognitive psychology employs four primary empirical methods to investigate mental processes, each contributing unique insights. Historically, cognitive neuropsychology emerged as the first approach, focusing on individuals with brain damage. Researchers examined how specific behaviours were affected by lesions in particular brain regions, initially using post-mortem studies (autopsies) before the advent of advanced scanning technologies.
Following this, experimental cognitive psychology developed, utilising laboratory and sometimes field experiments to investigate cognitive phenomena under controlled conditions, ensuring replicability and precision.
The most recent approach, cognitive neuroscience, examines the neural mechanisms underlying cognition in neurotypical individuals using tools like functional MRI and EEG, bridging the gap between brain activity and cognitive function. Together, these methods offer a comprehensive framework for understanding human cognition.
EXPERIMENTAL COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
STUDIES ON THE CODING, CAPACITY, AND DURATION OF MEMORY STORES
JACOBS (1887) - CAPACITY OF STM
Findings: The average STM digit span is 7 ± 2 items.
Conclusion: Supports MSM’s claim that STM has limited capacity.
MILLER (1956) - CAPACITY AND CHUNKING
Findings: STM holds 7 ± 2 items, but chunking increases information retention.
Conclusion: Demonstrates STM has limited capacity and highlights rehearsal processes.
PETERSON & PETERSON (1959) - DURATION OF STM
Findings: STM lasts 18–30 seconds without rehearsal, shown by poor recall of nonsense trigrams over time.
Conclusion: This supports MSM’s claim that the duration of STM is short without rehearsal.
BAHRICK ET AL. (1975) - DURATION OF LTM
Findings: Participants could recall the names and faces of classmates decades later.
Conclusion: It confirms that LTM is long and distinct from STM.
BADDELEY (1966) - CODING OF STM AND LTM
Findings: STM codes acoustically (sound), while LTM codes semantically (meaning).
Conclusion: Supports MSM’s idea that STM and LTM are separate stores with distinct encoding mechanisms.
SERIAL POSITION EFFECT
MURDOCK (1962) - PRIMACY AND RECENCY EFFECTS
Findings: Better recall of the first (primacy) and last (recency) items in a list compared to the middle items.
Conclusion: Supports MSM, as early items are rehearsed into LTM, while recent items remain in STM.
GLANZER & CUNITZ (1966) - SERIAL POSITION EFFECT
Findings: Delaying recall disrupts the Recency Effect (STM) but not the Primacy Effect (LTM).
Conclusion: Demonstrates distinction between STM and LTM.
COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE: BRAIN IMAGING STUDIES
BEARDSLEY (1997) - BRAIN AREAS FOR STM
Findings: The prefrontal cortex is active during STM tasks.
Conclusion: Supports MSM by identifying distinct brain areas for STM processing.
SQUIRE ET AL. (1992) - BRAIN AREAS FOR LTM
Findings: The hippocampus is active during LTM tasks.
Conclusion: Demonstrates biological evidence for separate LTM storage.
COGNITIVE NEUROLOGY: CASE STUDIES
CLIVE WEARING
Findings: Could not form new episodic LTMs but retained procedural memories (e.g., piano playing).
Conclusion: Supports MSM’s distinction between STM and LTM but challenges the idea of a unitary LTM store.
HM (HENRY MOLAISON)
Findings: Could not form new episodic LTMs but retained STM and procedural memories.
Conclusion: It supports MSM’s distinction between STM and LTM but challenges the idea of a single LTM store.
KF (SHALLICE & WARRINGTON, 1970)
Findings: Poor STM for verbal information but intact STM for visual details and LTM.
Support: STM and LTM are separate stores.
Challenge: STM is not unitary, contradicting MSM’s claims.
CHALLENGES FROM ALTERNATIVE MODELS
TULVING (1972) - TYPES OF LTM
Findings: LTM consists of episodic, semantic, and procedural memory.
Challenge: Disputes MSM’s view of LTM as a unitary store.
COHEN & SQUIRE (1980) - DECLARATIVE VS NON-DECLARATIVE MEMORY
Findings: LTM divides into declarative (episodic/semantic) and non-declarative (procedural) memory.
Challenge: LTM is more complex than MSM suggests.
CRAIK & LOCKHART (1972) - LEVELS OF PROCESSING
Findings: Deeper, elaborative rehearsal improves memory retention better than maintenance rehearsal.
Challenge: MSM’s reliance on maintenance rehearsal cannot explain LTM transfer.
BADDELEY & HITCH (1975) - DUAL-TASK EXPERIMENTS
Findings: STM can simultaneously handle verbal and visual tasks, suggesting multiple components.
Challenge: Contradicts MSM’s claim that STM is a single store.
BADDELEY & HITCH (1975) - WORD LENGTH EFFECT
Findings: STM recall is better for shorter words than longer words.
Challenge: Highlights STM’s complexity beyond MSM’s simplicity.
PAULESCU ET AL. (1993) - STM COMPLEXITY
Findings: Different brain regions are active during verbal vs visual STM tasks.
Challenge: Suggests STM has multiple subsystems, undermining MSM’s single-store view.
TULVING ET AL. (1994) - LTM COMPLEXITY
Findings: Episodic and semantic memories involve distinct brain areas.
Challenge: Refutes MSM’s unitary view of LTM.
MARK SCHEME FOR THE MULTI-STORE MODEL
MARK SCHEME MSM EVALUATION (A03)
Possible discussion points:
Practical starting point for memory research, the first model to incorporate three different stores
Evidence supports the three stores' coding, capacity, and duration, e.g., Baddeley, Jacobs, Sperling, Bahrick et al.
Evidence that supports the functional separation of the stores, e.g. Glanzer and Cunitz
Evidence that challenges the unitary nature of STM and LTM, e.g. Shallice and Warrington
Evidence suggests that rehearsal is not the only method of transfer from STM to LTM/ distinction between maintenance and elaborative rehearsal.
Critical comparisons with alternative models, e.g. working memory.
Only credit methodological evaluation of studies if this is used to discuss the strengths/limitations of the model.
Credit other relevant material
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER…..
ESSAY EXAMPLE /EVALUATION A03 -
STRENGTH: EVIDENCE FOR SEPARATE STORES OF MEMORY
The main strength of the MSM comes from the support that at least three separate memory stores exist.
Abundant research supports the multi-store premise that memory is not a singular entity. For example, experimental cognitive psychology studies demonstrate significant differences between sensory memory (SM), short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). For instance, Miller found that STM has a limited capacity of 7±2 items, whereas LTM has a virtually unlimited capacity, with no known upper limit even into old age. Similarly, Peterson and Peterson showed STM has a short duration of 18–30 seconds, while Bahrick demonstrated that LTM can retain memories for decades, such as recalling classmates’ faces 50 years after graduation. Finally, Baddeley showed STM encodes information acoustically, whereas LTM encodes semantically, further supporting the distinction between these stores.
This evidence strongly supports the MSM’s claim that memory is divided into distinct stores, demonstrating apparent differences in capacity, duration, and encoding between STM and LTM. These findings align with the model’s structure and reinforce the idea that memory processes occur in separate, specialised systems.
These capacity, duration, and encoding differences strongly support the MSM’s claim that memory consists of distinct stores. However, studies such as Miller, Peterson and Peterson are often criticised for lacking mundane realism, as memorising trigrams or digits does not reflect typical memory use in real-life contexts. Despite this, it has been argued that similar findings regarding capacity and duration are observed in real-world memory tasks, bolstering the ecological validity of this research and supporting the MSM.
THE SERIAL POSITION EFFECT
Research by Glanzer and Cunitz further supports the MSM through the serial position effect, demonstrating how memory recall depends on the position of information in a list. Participants consistently recalled more words at the beginning and end of a list than in the middle. This is explained by the primacy effect, where words at the start are transferred to LTM through rehearsal, and the recency effect, where words at the end are held in STM, which lasts around 30 seconds. Words in the middle are typically forgotten due to displacement, as they are not rehearsed or retained in either store.
This finding aligns with the MSM's assertion that information moves linearly from STM to LTM via rehearsal. However, the reliance on rehearsal as the primary mechanism for transferring information has been criticised, as other factors, such as emotional salience or depth of processing, can also facilitate memory retention without explicit rehearsal.
CASE STUDY SUPPORT: KF
The field of cognitive neuropsychology provides further support for the MSM through case studies of individuals with memory impairments. For example, Shallice and Warrington (1970) reported the case of KF, who experienced brain damage from a motorcycle accident. KF’s STM was severely impaired, particularly for verbal information, yet his LTM remained intact.
This supports the MSM by showing that STM and LTM are distinct systems, as damage to one store did not affect the other. However, KF’s case also challenges the MSM’s simplicity. His STM deficit was specific to verbal information. In contrast, his ability to process visual information remained intact, suggesting that STM is not a single store but consists of separate verbal and visual information components. This undermines the MSM’s assumption of a unitary STM. Moreover, KF’s findings may not be generalised to the wider population as a single case study due to potential individual differences.
NEUROIMAGING EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGES
Evidence from cognitive neuroscience supports the MSM by demonstrating that STM and LTM involve distinct brain regions. For example, Beardsley (1997) found that the prefrontal cortex is active during STM tasks, while Squire et al. (1992) showed that the hippocampus is active during LTM tasks. This provides biological evidence for the separation of STM and LTM, supporting the MSM’s structural framework.
However, further neuroimaging studies have raised questions about the MSM’s oversimplification. For instance, Paulescu et al. (1993) demonstrated that different brain areas are activated during verbal and visual STM tasks, suggesting that STM comprises multiple subsystems. This finding directly contradicts the MSM’s assertion of a single STM store, indicating that memory processes are more complex than the model accounts for.
CHALLENGES TO LTM AS A UNITARY STORE
The MSM’s assumption that LTM is a single store has been challenged by evidence suggesting multiple subsystems. For example, Schacter et al. proposed four types of LTM: semantic memory (knowledge), episodic memory (personal experiences), procedural memory (skills like riding a bike), and perceptual-representation systems (PRS) (stimulus recognition). Support for this distinction comes from Spiers et al., who studied 147 amnesiac patients and found varying levels of impairment across these LTM types.
The case of Clive Wearing further illustrates this point. Despite severe damage to his episodic memory, Wearing retained his procedural memory, as evidenced by his piano ability. These findings suggest that LTM consists of multiple systems rather than a single, unified store, challenging the MSM’s oversimplified structure.
CRITICISM OF REHEARSAL AND LINEARITY
Another criticism of the MSM is its emphasis on rehearsal as the primary mechanism for transferring information from STM to LTM. Research by Craik and Lockhart (1972) demonstrated that rehearsal is not always necessary for long-term retention. For instance, emotionally significant events like a first kiss are vividly remembered without deliberate rehearsal. Craik and Lockhart proposed the Levels of Processing theory, which suggests that more profound, more meaningful processing leads to better memory retention than shallow, repetitive rehearsal.
Additionally, the MSM assumes a linear flow of information, where STM always precedes LTM. However, Logie (1999) argued that STM often relies on LTM for processes like chunking. For example, grouping words like “dog, rose, and cat” into categories such as “animals” and “plants” requires retrieving meanings from LTM. Ruchkin et al. supported this with brain scans showing greater activity for real words than pseudo-words, indicating that LTM is involved in STM tasks. This suggests a more dynamic interaction between memory stores than the MSM accounts for.
CONCLUSION
The Multi-Store Model was a pioneering framework that revolutionised the study of memory by introducing the idea of distinct memory stores. It provided a solid foundation for understanding memory processes and inspired extensive research. However, evidence from experimental studies, case studies, and neuroimaging highlights its limitations, particularly its oversimplification of STM and LTM as unitary stores and its reliance on rehearsal and linearity. While the MSM remains a valuable starting point, more nuanced models, such as the Working Memory Model and Levels of Processing theory, offer a more comprehensive explanation of the complexity of human memory
POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS FOR THE MULTI-STORE MEMORY MODEL INCLUDE:
Outline the multi-store model of memory (6 marks)
Evaluate the multi-store memory model (6 marks AS, 8-10 marks A-level)
Outline and evaluate the multi-store model of memory. 8 marks
Outline and evaluate the multi-store model of memory (12 marks AS, 16 marks A-level)
Outline what psychological research has shown about short-term memory according to the multi-store memory model. 4 marks
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
A researcher investigating the multi-store memory model tested short-term memory by reading out loud sequences of numbers that participants had to repeat aloud immediately after the presentation. The first sequence was made up of three numbers: for example, 8, 5, 2. Each participant was tested several times, and each time, the sequence length was increased by adding another number.
Use your knowledge of the multi-store memory model to explain the purpose of this research and the likely outcome.4 marks
After the study was completed, the researcher decided to modify the study by using sequences of letters rather than numbers.
Suggest one 4-letter sequence and one 5-letter sequence that the researcher could use. In the case of each sequence, give a justification for your choice. Use a different justification for each sequence. 4 marks
Psychologists conducted a case study of Patient X, an individual who developed severe amnesia following a car accident. Patient X has difficulty storing new long-term memories, though his short-term memory and memory for events before the accident are unaffected.
Evaluate the use of case studies, like that of Patient X, in psychological research.5 marks
Briefly explain how the experiences of Patient X could be interpreted as supporting the multi-store memory model. 2marks
The question below 3 marks
The multi-store model of memory has been criticised in many ways. The following example illustrates a possible criticism.Some students read through their revision notes lots of times before an examination, but still find it difficult to remember the information. However, the same students can remember the information in a celebrity magazine, even though they read it only once.
12.Explain why this can be used as a criticism of the multi-store model of memory. 4 marks
