The theory was developed by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1928, however since then there has been discovered many holes in the theory. A study performed by Eysenck and Keane in 1995 describes the model as oversimplified, believing that there are many weaknesses in the model. An example of that is the way we store the data, there are evidence pointing towards that we usually use a lot of our senses in order to perceive stimulus input, thus it is impossible for the memory to separate the information according to our senses (i.e. by which senses the data was perceived) because a lot of time, we perceive the information with help of our visual and acoustic senses jointly. This is also linked with the study performed by Craik and Lockhart in 1972 that shows no understanding of the necessity of dividing the STM and LTM into two sections, the two psychologists meant that there was no clear distinction between the STM and LTM; therefore it wasn’t that easy to separate the two stores. Instead of the STM and LTM, Lockhart and Craik presented a new model that replaced the Multi Store Model. Lockhart and Craik meant that instead of the three stores the stimulus has to pass by; there might be three steps in which we interpret the stimulus, the first step is the Shallow level where we interpret the stimulus according to its surface meaning or according to its structure. Then the stimulus, if proven important enough to be stored further, passes to the next step where we interpret the data according to its acoustic sound, this area is called the acoustic level. The final area in which the data is stored, more or less forever, is the Deep level. Here we interpret the stimulus according to its deeper meaning. The deeper meaning might vary between people as we judge the deep meaning of something according to different variables depending on gender or culture.
This theory has been criticised many times since it came out. Tyler (1979) questioned the ability of depth to store the memories; he rather interpreted the storing input as a fruit of the processing effort that leads to storing of the input. He carried out an experiment where he gave two anagrams to solve, an easy one and a harder one. After some time the participants were told if they remembered any of the anagrams. According to the Lockhart and Craik theory, both anagrams should be remembered equally as they have the same amount of deep meaning for both of them, however the study showed that the harder anagrams where more remembered than the easier anagrams. The experiment proves Tyler’s point that it is actually the amount of effort put into the process that stores the stimulus input more deeply rather than the deep meaning of it.
Evidently, there are many different explanations as to how we perceive and store stimulus input in our surrounding; however there is also a cultural variable to consider. Cole and Sribner (1974) discovered a great variety in the processes mentioned above in relation to different cultures. They performed an experiment with children participants from Liberian tribes in order to see and measure their ability of learning. The participants were showed a number of different words repeatedly; the researchers expected that the children will show evidence of learning more words every time they repeated the test, however after 15 tries the children only remembered two new words in addition of the ten words they could remember from the first test, unlike the children in the United States where they showed evidence of rapid learning. Later analysis of the study revealed that the difference was due to the inability of the Liberian children to group the word in sections and thus remembered easier, an ability that helped the US children greatly. It was evident that the school learning helped the US children to categorise the words and thus remembered easier.
This study shows that the learning codes that we have discovered and discussed in our western world in ages aren’t universal, but they depend greatly on the cultural and background of the people. As clearly as it is, we use different processes in learning and one rule of learning cannot be applied on all human beings.
In conclusion, memory is a complex process of storing and learning the stimulus input we perceive from our environment, one important aspect to consider in our study of memory is that human beings are different and we never learn in the same way.
