There are several models of memory; representations of how memory works. The multi-store model of memory is an explanation of how memory processes work and was first described by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968 (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2003). In this model there is a third memory store alongside the STM and the LTM known as the sensory memory (SM). The SM is information collected by the senses – eyes, ears, nose, fingers etc. This data is only stored in the SM briefly and will transfer to the STM if an individual’s attention is focused on the sensory store. The second step is to transfer information from the STM to the LTM which according to Atkinson and Shiffrin, happens through rehearsal. This model is illustrated in the following diagram:
In 1974, Baddeley and Hitch (s-cool) suggested an alternative model to explain STM called the working memory model. They believed that the STM was not solely one store but a number of different stores, particularly two which are controlled by a central system called the central executive. They propose that there is one store for visual processing – the visuo-spatial sketchpad and one for processing sounds – the phonological loop. The visuo-spatial sketchpad deals with what information looks like and how it is laid out. The phonological loop deals with sound and was further subdivided by Braddeley in 1986 into the phonological store and an articulatory process. The phonological store holds spoken information. The articulatory process rehearses the information from the phonological store and can also convert written data to acoustic data so the phonological loop can deal with it. This model is illustrated with the following diagram:
Chunking is a way of organizing information into familiar groupings. The term chunking was devised by Miller in 1956. (Coon & Mitterer, 2009) His study, the magic number seven, showed that the capacity of the STM is around seven items, give or take two items. Miller showed that if we chunk together a string of twenty letters or numbers into seven meaningful items, we could remember them where we could not remember twenty items for immediate recall.
My directional hypothesis is that the participants given the grouped words (list A) will remember more words in a recall test than those given the ungrouped words (list B)
My null hypothesis is that any difference between the two groups will be down to chance
Method
I used a laboratory experiment for my research as it is most appropriate to the study of memory. A laboratory experiment is performed in a controlled environment where the researcher has direct control over the variables. The independent variable in my experiment is which list of words each participant received. There were two lists containing the same words. In list A, the words were grouped into categories while in list B the words were randomised. The dependant variable in my experiment is the number of words recalled by each participant through a simple memory test.
For my experiment I compiled a list of twenty words which could be grouped into five categories. I then created two different formats for the list, one where the words are randomised and one where the words are grouped together in their categories. I chose simple, familiar words that I believed would be relatively straightforward to recall. There is a copy of these lists in the appendix.
I used an opportunity sample to conduct my research, inviting my friends, family and work colleagues to participate in the experiment. This has resulted in a range of ages and genders taking part in the study. All participants live in the same area and are all employed with varying levels of educational achievement.
I followed the BPS ethical guidelines whilst designing and conducting my experiment. I gained both verbal and written consent from the participants by reading out a prepared speech (see appendix) detailing the study I was intending to perform and highlighting what was needed of them. I then asked them to initial the consent form (see appendix), which also protects the participant’s right to anonymity. Participants were given the right to withdraw during the brief (see appendix). As this experiment involved an element of deception - participants were unaware of the different formats of the lists, all participants were fully debriefed after completing the task.
I approached participants and asked them to take part in my research (see appendix). I then requested that they join me in quiet conditions, generally a dining room with no noise interruptions such as the television or radio. After gaining consent from each participant I read them the brief (see appendix). Each participant then completed the task outlined in the brief and I recorded the number of words they recalled. I then verbally debriefed the participants, explaining that everyone had a list of the same words, but there were two different formats. I subsequently showed them the two different lists and explained the aim and expected outcome of the experiment. I informed them that the results would be used to write up a report for my course and that they would remain anonymous, as they had only initialled the consent form rather than giving their full names. I then invited the participants to ask me any questions that they may have about the experiment.
Results
The above table and graph show that there is a significant difference in the number of words recalled depending on which list of words the participant received. The findings support my directional hypothesis that the participants given the list of grouped words will score higher on a memory test than those given the ungrouped list of words. I will therefore reject my null hypothesis that any difference is down to chance.
Discussion
My research has shown that participants who were given the grouped list of words performed much better at recall than the participants given the ungrouped list of words. This has led me to accept my directional hypothesis.
This experiment illustrates the use of rehearsal in STM as outlined in the multi-store model of memory and the working memory model theories that are defined in the introduction.
My experiment could have been improved in several ways. A larger sample group would have given better results as it would be easier to generalise the findings to everyday situations. During my experiment, the participants performed the task in groups of between two and four, at different times on different days and in different places. These can be considered as confounding variables which could be combated by having a voluntary sample at an organised venue as this may enhance the experiment. The experiment would be easy to replicate as it is standardised.
References
Cardwell, M., & Flanagan, C. (2003). Psychology AS The Complete Companion. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (2009). Psychology: Modules for Active Learning (eleventh ed.). CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Flanagan, C. (2000). Revise AS Psychology. London: Letts Educational.
s-cool. (2010). Psychology A-level: Human Memory. Retrieved 04 27, 2010, from S-cool: http://www.s-cool.co.uk/alevel/psychology/human-memory/models-of-memory.html#working-memory-baddeley-hitch-1974
Appendix
Cat
Dog
Rabbit
Hamster
Piano
Guitar
Drums
Violin
Apple
Pear
Lemon
Banana
Vodka
Gin
Whisky
Rum
Red
Yellow
Green
Blue
Apple
Blue
Piano
Cat
Gin
Lemon
Guitar
Green
Pear
Rabbit
Whiskey
Violin
Yellow
Rum
Dog
Banana
Hamster
Drums
Red
Vodka
Consent
I am conducting some research for my Psychology course on memory. Would you mind taking part in a quick memory test?
Please initial this consent form to say that you have agreed to take part
Brief
You will be given a list of words. For one minute and a half you will read through the list and try to commit the words to memory. You will then turn the list over and have two minutes to write down all the words that you can remember.
If you feel that want to withdraw from the experiment at anytime I encourage you to do so, it will not affect the experiment in any way.
Please initial the top of your word list.
Results
List A – 16, 16, 19, 19, 19, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, Mean – 18.9 Median – 19.5 Mode - 20
List B – 14, 16, 16, 16, 16, 17, 17, 17, 18, 19, Mean – 16.6 Median – 16.5 Mode - 16
by
skidadle (student)
