Provide evidence to support model & illustrate components, eg, dual-tasking, articulatory suppression tasks, evidence for central executive

Guidance for writing up Unit 3 psych report – Models of memory section

Section 1: AC 1.1 – 1.2 – roughly 2000 – 2100 words.  (All together 3000 words)

Outline each of the three models of memory (approx 500 – 700 words per model – does not have to be an even split):

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

·  MSM:

o  Describe (briefly) key structures/processes (SM, STM, LTM)

o  Briefly explain how model works & it’s main claims (3 separate, unitary stores, emphasis on rehearsal)

o  Use evidence to illustrate/support (eg, studies showing differences between stores, eg, capacity, duration, encoding)

o  Evaluate using evidence, eg, Clive Wearing – shows multiple LTM stores, so cannot be unitary; flashbulb memories don’t require rehearsal; LTM used in STM tasks

o  Overly simplistic; doesn’t explain how different types of info might be processed, eg, visual/acoustic (see WMM); provides good foundation for other models/research; chunking useful technique.

·  WMM:

o  Link to MSM – challenges notion of unitary, passive STM

o  Describe each component (briefly)

o  Provide evidence to support model & illustrate components, eg, dual-tasking, articulatory suppression tasks, evidence for central executive

o  Evaluate using evidence, eg, EVR good with reasoning, bad with decision-making, so more than one central executive?  Reliance on case studies (unique – not generalisable); brain damaged patients – no before/after comparison, brain trauma may influence performance; doesn’t really explain processes; but has good application, eg, dyslexia; advancement over STM

·  LoP:

o  Link to previous models – agrees that memory is active (like WMM), but disagrees with structural models; challenges the MSM’s reliance on maintenance rehearsal

o  Offers alternative view – memory as by-product of processing (therefore long/short-term retention, rather than long/short-term memory stores)

o  Explain levels – shallow vs deep processing

o  Illustrate using evidence, eg, Hyde & Jenkins, Perfetti & Elias, Palmere, et al.

o  Evaluate – no independent measurement of depth – eg, Tyler – depth vs effort; circularity of argument; criticism by Eysenck that model only describes what’s happening, but recent studies explain that elaborative rehearsal enriches memory by linking it into pre-existing network of semantic association.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"