Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)

Multi-store Model of Memory

Who were the participants in Glanzer and Cunitz's studies?

Army enlisted men – 240 in Study 1 (independent samples), 46 in Study 2 (repeated measures).

What sampling method was used?

Random assignment to conditions in Study 1; same group tested in different conditions in Study 2.

What was the aim of Glanzer & Cunitz Study 1?

To investigate how time intervals and repetition affect recall (primacy effect).

What was the aim of Glanzer & Cunitz Study 2?

To see how delay (distraction) affects the recency effect (STM).

What design did Study 1 use?

Independent samples design.

What design did Study 2 use?

Repeated measures design.

What method was used in Study 1?

Participants heard 8 word lists (20 words each), with varying intervals (3s, 6s, 9s) and repetition. Then had 2 mins to recall words.

What method was used in Study 2?

Participants saw 15 lists of 15 words, followed by either immediate recall, 10s delay, or 30s delay using a distraction task (counting).

What did Study 1 find?

Longer intervals = better recall (esp. primacy); repetition helped only at 3s rate; no change in recency.

What did Study 2 find?

Immediate recall = both primacy and recency; 10s delay reduced recency; 30s delay eliminated recency. Primacy stayed the same.

What do these results suggest about memory?

There are separate memory stores: STM supports recency, LTM supports primacy.

What strengths do these studies have?

High control, strong internal validity, supports Multi-Store Model, standardised procedures.

What are the limitations of the studies?

Low ecological validity, all male army sample (not generalisable), artificial task, potential practice effects.