memory notes

Using PEA format evaluate Bartlett’s (1932) Theory of Reconstructive Memory

Strengths	Weaknesses
P: It could be argued that Bartlett created a testable way to measure the influence of schema \n E: Bartlett conducted his research using folk stories and images, often asking participants to remember them hours, days or even years later. \n A: High validity of study gives the theory credible support.	P: Reconstructive memory has been criticised because schemas cannot be observed directly. \n E: Schemas are not tangible, so they cannot be directly measured. \n A: This is problematic because how can scientists objectively (know for certain) that it is the person’s schemas that are causing this change to memory and not because of some process.
P: The theory has real world application. \n E: Bartlett investigated how individual schemas change the recall of pictures and stories. \n A: The theory has helped the police understand that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.	P: Bartlett’s work has been criticised for being subjective, which is considered unscientific. \n E: He analysed each story and picture himself and gave his own interpretation of the pictures and stories the participants recalled. \n A: This means the results may be biassed.
P: The theory has high generalisability. \n E: Bartlett conducted his research using folk stories and images, often asking participants to remember them hours, days or even years later. \n A: Remembering stories is a realistic use of memory.	P: Bartlett was not particularly scientific in his procedures. \n E: He was interested in each participant’s unique memories, rather than the use of standardised procedures and controls. \n A: This may weaken the research that was used to form the theory.

Strengths	Limitations
P: There is supporting research to the multistore model. \n E: In Peterson & Peterson’s study, the participants were asked to spell out a nonsense trigram after different duration. With the 3-second interference interval, participants could remember just over 50% of the trigrams accurately. This dropped to less than 10% from 15 seconds onwards. \n A: This shows that your short term memory has a limited duration (of about 18 seconds) and also shows the importance of rehearsal.	P: The model is oversimplified. \n E: For example, the Working Model of Memory proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) showed that STM is more than just one simple unitary store and comprises different components. \n A: This implies that both STM and LTM are more complicated than previously thought.
P: There is supporting evidence for the multistore model. \n E: For instance, in the 1950s, Scoville performed a surgery on H.M. 's brain, removing his hippocampus. However, after the surgery, his LTM was unable to form new memories, as new information failed to be transferred to his LTM. \n A: The evidence supports that STM and LTM are two distinct stores because only his LTM was affected by the removal of his hippocampus.	P: Rehearsal is considered too simple an explanation to account for the transfer of information from STM to LTM. \n E: For example, people are able to recall information which they did not rehearse like swimming yet unable to recall information which they have rehearsed like reading your notes while revising. \n A: This indicates that rehearsal may not be essential to the transfer of information into LTM, and it is much less important than Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) claimed.

Strengths

Limitations

P: There is supporting research to the multistore model. \n E: In Peterson & Peterson’s study, the participants were asked to spell out a nonsense trigram after different duration. With the 3-second interference interval, participants could remember just over 50% of the trigrams accurately. This dropped to less than 10% from 15 seconds onwards. \n A: This shows that your short term memory has a limited duration (of about 18 seconds) and also shows the importance of rehearsal.

P: The model is oversimplified. \n E: For example, the Working Model of Memory proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) showed that STM is more than just one simple unitary store and comprises different components. \n A: This implies that both STM and LTM are more complicated than previously thought.

P: There is supporting evidence for the multistore model. \n E: For instance, in the 1950s, Scoville performed a surgery on H.M. 's brain, removing his hippocampus. However, after the surgery, his LTM was unable to form new memories, as new information failed to be transferred to his LTM. \n A: The evidence supports that STM and LTM are two distinct stores because only his LTM was affected by the removal of his hippocampus.

P: Rehearsal is considered too simple an explanation to account for the transfer of information from STM to LTM. \n E: For example, people are able to recall information which they did not rehearse like swimming yet unable to recall information which they have rehearsed like reading your notes while revising. \n A: This indicates that rehearsal may not be essential to the transfer of information into LTM, and it is much less important than Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) claimed.

Use the GRAVES to create PEA evaluation points of Bartlett’s study

Strengths of the study	Limitations of the study
P: A strength of Barlett’s study is that he used a naturalistic way to test memory \n E: For example participant had to recall a story which is an everyday task \n A: The effect of this is that his study has high ecological validity and can be used to explain how memory can be distorted when people are presented with unfamiliar information in the real world.	P: A weakness of Bartlett’s study is that he did not give each participant the same amount of time to recall or read the story. \n E: For example, he allowed each participant to read the story at their own normal reading pace. \n \n A: The effect of this is that some participants may have read the story more frequently than others and potentially be able to recall more of the passage. This study may not be as scientific as possible. Normally an experiment should follow strict timings and a standardized procedure.
P: The data of the study were gathered using qualitative analysis. \n E: The real nature of reconstructive memory can be understood through its meaning. \n A: At the time of the study, the use of statistical analysis was not commonplace for psychologists, and it was probably appropriate for him to use qualitative analysis to see how individuals changed their version of the story over time.	P: The use of a story as a recall material can be considered to be both a strength and a weakness \n E: The story was unfamiliar, it was illogical and contained strange words and concepts. \n A: This is significant because remembering the story was not an everyday task or a realistic use of memory. Normally, memory is used to deal with everyday experiences, which are not affected by cultural expectations.
P: This study can be applied to real-world situations. \n E: Bartlett’s study explains the problems with eyewitness testimony. An eyewitness might swear on oath that they had seen a particular person but was challenged by later evidence. \n A: It points out that human memory isn’t always accurate and can be altered due to some influences.	P: The results of the study were biased and Bartlett’s own beliefs may have interfered with the way the data were interpreted. \n E: Determining whether what counted as accurate recall and what isn’t is objective. \n A: This is important since he believed that recall would be affected by cultural expectations so the results may be biased.

Task 3: Using PEA format Evaluate Peterson & Peterson’s experiment

Strengths of the experiment	Weaknesses of the experiment
P: Peterson & Peterson’s study was highly controlled.(internal validity) \n E: The experiment took place in a laboratory, and the researcher eliminated noise and other factors. The independent variable was carefully controlled. \n A: The experiment was carried out in a systematic way and that cause and effect can be determined.	P: Peterson & Peterson’s study is argued to lack validity. \n E: Peterson & Peterson used a sample of 24 psychology students. \n A: The psychology students have more knowledge of memory (they may have encountered MSM before and demonstrate demand characteristics) than most everyday people, so the experiment may not be really measuring what it intends.
P: The results have some application to the real world \n E: The study demonstrates how interference in the form of verbal distractions can affect our ability to retain information. \n A: This implies that when we are revising for an exam or trying to memorise a shopping list before we go to the shop, we should take care to avoid distractions	P: Furthermore, it could be argued that Peterson & Peterson’s study has low levels of ecological validity. \n E: In this study, participants were asked to recall three-letter trigrams, which is unlike anything people would want to memorise in their everyday lives. \n A: This indicates that there is a limited usefulness beyond the experiment and that it is unable to conclude if information can be remembered for a longer duration when the information is more relevant.
P: The study has ethics \n E: The students who took part in the study were required to participate in research experiments as part of their course. \n A: The particip-ants are fully aware they participated in a psychological experiment. Therefore there are no ethical issues about the study.	P: Participants may lack generalizability \n E: the memory of psychology students may be different to that of other people, especially if they had previouslystudied strategies for memory improvement. \n A: This a problem as the results may not reflect the memories of everyday people.