MSM ERQ

Multi-Store Model (MSM)

The MSM, proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968), describes memory as a linear system involving three distinct stores: Sensory Memory (SM), Short-Term Memory (STM), and Long-Term Memory (LTM). Information flows through each store in a fixed order, and encoding, attention, and rehearsal are essential processes for memory retention and transfer.

Sensory Memory

Sensory Memory has a very brief duration and large capacity but fades quickly unless attended to.

Short-Term Memory (STM)

STM has a limited capacity (around 7 items) and a duration of about 30 seconds.

Long-Term Memory (LTM)

LTM has potentially unlimited capacity and duration, and encodes information semantically.

Aim of Milner's study on HM

To investigate the effects of hippocampal damage on memory formation, specifically the relationship between brain structures and different types of memory.

Method used in Milner's case study of HM

A longitudinal case study involving observations, interviews, cognitive testing, and memory tasks, used over many years to assess memory functioning after surgical removal of hippocampal tissue.

Findings of Milner's study

HM could not form new long-term explicit memories but had intact short-term memory. He could also learn new procedural skills without remembering the learning process, suggesting separate memory systems.

Support of Milner's study for MSM

HM's ability to retain STM but not transfer information into LTM supports the MSM's claim that memory consists of distinct and structurally separate systems.

Strength of Milner's study

It was a longitudinal and detailed investigation, offering in-depth insights into the biological underpinnings of memory.

Weakness of Milner's study

Researcher bias may have influenced interpretation—Milner may have focused on results that supported the MSM, selectively confirming theoretical assumptions.

Aim of Glanzer & Cunitz (1966)

To test whether STM and LTM are separate systems using the serial position effect (primacy and recency) in word recall.

Method used by Glanzer & Cunitz

Participants were given lists of common nouns to recall either immediately or after a delay with a distraction task. Researchers measured which words were remembered based on position.

Findings of Glanzer & Cunitz

Participants showed a primacy effect (better recall of early words) and recency effect (better recall of late words). Delayed recall reduced the recency effect but not the primacy effect.

Support of Glanzer & Cunitz for MSM

It shows evidence for separate memory stores. Early words were encoded into LTM, while recent words were still in STM. Disruption of STM with a distraction task removed the recency effect.

Strength of Glanzer & Cunitz

It was a highly controlled lab experiment with strong internal validity and replicable findings.

Limitation of Glanzer & Cunitz

The task of recalling word lists is artificial and lacks ecological validity—it may not reflect real-life memory processes.

Holistic discussion support for MSM

Both studies support the MSM's idea of structurally separate stores. HM's amnesia shows that STM and LTM are separate, while Glanzer & Cunitz provide experimental evidence of this distinction through recall patterns.

Limitation of the MSM

The model is reductionist. It treats memory as a passive and linear process and does not account for emotional, social, or meaningful influences on memory encoding.

Researcher bias impact on MSM

In qualitative studies like Milner's, researcher expectations may influence interpretation of findings, leading to confirmation bias that reinforces the MSM rather than objectively testing it.

Criticism of MSM

It fails to account for interaction between memory stores, parallel processing, or alternative types of memory (e.g., procedural), reducing its explanatory power.

Final conclusion about MSM

The MSM remains influential and foundational in memory research, but it must be evaluated critically, especially in light of methodological limitations and the complexity of human memory processes.