Many experiments tested how long information could last in the short-term memory, Jacobs/miller for example conducted an experiment with letters, they randomly listed 15 letters and asked participants to recall all 15 in order, other participants were then asked to recall 5 chunks of three word but with the same letters, they then put the letters into recognisable words and asked different participants to remember. They found that people could only remember seven plus or minus two; this was then called the magic number seven. Peterson and Peterson also conducted an experiment testing the short term memory and the multi-store model. Participants were shown three letters like CXK of LDH. They were asked to count back three seconds from a given number and every three second were asked to repeat the letters. They found that 80% of people remembered after three second and 10% of people remembered after 18 seconds. They concluded that information disappears from short-term memory when rehearsal is prevented.
Glanzer and Cunitz also conducted an experiment testing short-term memory. The participants were given a list of words presented one at a time group 1 were asked to recall words immediately after been presented but group 2 were given distracting tasks after the words and counted backwards in threes from 30 seconds they were then asked to recall words . Glanzer and Cunitz found that group 1 was remembered more than group 2.
Baddeley carried out an experiment to test both short-term and long-term memory. He used 5 acoustically similar and 5 acoustically dissimilar words and 5 semantically similar and 5 semantically dissimilar words. He modified this to fit the long-term memory by changing 5 words into 10 words and prevented the participants from rehearsing by distracting them after each word. He found and concluded that acoustic similarity had no effect on recall but that words with similar meaning were poorly recalled. He concluded that long-term memory codes were mainly semantically.
Bahrick conducted an experiment to test long-term memory. He asked 392 US graduates to recognise classmates’ pictures, they were then asked to match names to pictures with no picture cue. Participants performed well up to 34yrs better on recognition that recall. There was a dip on all types of memory after 47yrs but this might have been because of ageing or disease.
HM: suffered severe epilepsy and lost half of his brain due to brain surgery although this helped his epilepsy he lost most of his short term memory and cant learn new information. This backs up the multi-store model as he cant learn new information which means the information has to go through the short-term memory to get to the long-term memory
KF: was in a motorcycle accident. He can learn new information but can only remember one number/item/ word at a time. This goes against the multi-store model because if his short-term memory can only store one thing but he can learn new information that can be stored in his long-term memory then this shows that memory does work in a flow chart.
Clive Wearing: has a viral infection, can recognise his wife but has no recollection of her visit a few seconds after she’s gone, he can still play the piano. This also goes against the multi-store model because if he can enter his long-term memory to recognise his wife and play the piano. But cant remember things that happened seconds ago then his memory doesn’t work in a flow chart manner.
The multi-store model in some cases works but others like Clive wearing and KF doesn’t apply. However the multi-store model has a lot of research to support it and build on and most researchers agree that short-term memory and long-term memory. On the other hand is far too simplified and these are artificial studies and not realistic. Not all events need rehearsal for example flashbulb memories go straight to long-term memory.
In conclusion the multi-store model is supported by artificial, laboratory studies and might not reflect how memory works in everyday life. As well as this studies have been conducted that go completely against the studies previously conducted. Researchers have now looked to new models to explain memory processes more fully.
