Compare and Contrast any two theories of Memory.
...component tasks is where- a group of people are read out twenty words, one after the other and at the end asked to remember them all. It is found that the words remembered are: a few at the beginning, with most of the middle words forgotten, the highest level of memory being at the end. This is known as the Primacy and Recency effect. The Primacy Effect is referring to the few words at the beginning which are remembered. (This is due to the fact these words are more likely to have been stored in our LTM), where as The Recency Effect is referring to the words at the end that have been remembered. (This is due to the fact these words are more likely to have been retrieved from our STM). (Gross, 1996) Studies of coding can be trying to remember a telephone number. We may say it over and over in our heads so that it can stay in our STM, obviously a number used frequently would move to our LTM. Chunking could be another form, where we chunk large numbers into a few small chunks of numbers in order to help us remember and store in our STM. (Gross, 1996) In the study of brain-damaged patients, two examples were looked at. The case of HM (based on Blakemore 1988) where epileptic fits were suffered. The hippocampus was removed on both sides of the brain, improving the epilepsy but leaving him with severe anterograde amnesia. The other case of Clive Wearing (based on Blakemore 1988, Baddeley 1990) where a brain infection was suffered, attacking his hippocampus, destroying it, also destroying parts of his cortex. Both patients suffered anterograde amnesia, and according to Parkin (1987) there is enough evidence to suggest that in both cases their STM remained normally functioning. These findings have been interpreted by Atkinson and Shiffrin as a distinction between STM and LTM. (Gross, 1996) Criticisms of this theory have also taken place. The idea that information goes into our LTM via rehearsal has been seriously questioned. The reason being, studies investigating alternative methods for memory have shown results suggesting repetition may not be a good method at all. A study reported by Bekerian and Baddeley in 1980 investigating people’s memories as new radio frequencies were introduced to the BBC in the 70’s. Although broadcast hundreds of times, when questioned, people did not recall them. Several other studies took place also, all pointing towards the failure of repetition. (Hayes & Orrell, 1987) Other criticisms have been that there must be more to the memory than simply STM and LTM, different levels in between for instance, rather than just two compartments. This will be looked at in the following theory. Levels of processing by Craik and Lockhart (1972) is the second theory we shall discuss. This theory argues that there is more to the memory than simply STM and LTM, but different levels at which information is processed. These levels consist of a shallow level, an intermediate level and a deeper level of processing. When we receive information, according to Craik and Lockhart (1972) it is stored at one of these levels. At which level depends on how well we take in the information. They also suggest that rather than rehearsal, converting information into a different form will ensure a deeper level of processing. People usually have no problems using their memory to store material of great interest, but find difficulty in using it for subjects of no interest. If we change the form of the information we wish to remember, Craik and Lockhart (1972) point out after much research, this will ensure a deeper level of processing, making information easier to recall. (Gross, 1996) This theory proved an influential approach during the 1970’s, but later went out of favour. Most Psychologists believe there is truth in this theory but point out that it is oversimplified. (Eysenck 1984, 1986). Levels of processing has been a good contribution to memory and our trying to understand it (Parkin 1987), but even Craik and Lockhart (1972) suggest, it may not be a theory, but a way of interpreting information already known. (Eysenck 1984, 1986). An argument against this theory could also be, the theory does not define the depth of each level of processing, only to say how deep each level is, depends on how much is remembered and stored, and how much is remembered depends on which level it is processed, so it is a kind of circular theory, rather than having a more solid approach. (Gross, 1996) As we lo...