1.2.Compare and contrast key research in this area of cognition

This guide will help you answer 1.2.Compare and contrast key research in this area of cognition.

In this guide, we will compare and contrast key research studies within the area of memory in cognitive psychology. The focus will be on studies that have shaped thinking about memory models, particularly the Multi-Store Model (MSM) and the Working Memory Model (WMM).

These studies will include Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968), Baddeley and Hitch (1974), Peterson and Peterson (1959), Miller (1956), and Baddeley (1966), as well as supporting evidence from case studies such as HM and KF.

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) – Multi-Store Model Research

Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed the MSM based on experimental findings and earlier work on STM and LTM capacity and duration.

• Aim – To produce a structural model of memory that explained how information moves between different stores.
• Key Concept – Memory involves three stages: sensory memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory. Information moves from one to another through processes such as attention and rehearsal.
• Findings – Their model incorporated evidence from earlier research such as capacity in STM (Miller) and duration in STM (Peterson and Peterson).

Strengths: Clear description of stages, useful for further research, supported by real-life cases like HM.
Weaknesses: Too simplistic, over-reliance on rehearsal for transfer to LTM, fails to account for the active processing element of STM.

Baddeley and Hitch (1974) – Working Memory Model Research

This research directly challenged the MSM description of STM.

• Aim – To investigate whether STM was a single store or a system of multiple components.
• Method – They used dual-task experiments where participants performed two tasks at once, such as reasoning tasks while remembering a sequence of digits.
• Findings – Participants could complete both tasks with only a small drop in performance, suggesting different types of STM could operate at the same time.

Strengths: Provided strong evidence for multiple STM subsystems (phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad). Explains dual-task performance in real life.
Weaknesses: Central executive still poorly understood; much supporting evidence comes from artificial lab tasks.

Peterson and Peterson (1959) – Duration of Short-Term Memory

This experiment measured how long information stays in STM without rehearsal.

• Aim – To determine the duration of STM when rehearsal is prevented.
• Method – Participants were given trigrams (e.g., XQJ) to remember, then asked to count backwards in threes to prevent rehearsal.
• Findings – Accuracy of recall dropped sharply after 18 seconds.

Strengths: Supports MSM claim that STM duration is brief unless rehearsed.
Weaknesses: Artificial materials (nonsense trigrams) reduce real-world relevance.

Miller (1956) – Capacity of Short-Term Memory

Miller identified the average capacity of STM.

• Aim – To find out how many items STM can hold.
• Findings – On average, people can remember about 7 ± 2 chunks of information. Chunking can improve capacity.

Strengths: Highly influential in forming the MSM model structure.
Weaknesses: Later research suggests STM capacity may be smaller in some contexts.

Baddeley (1966) – Encoding in STM and LTM

Baddeley researched how information is coded (stored) differently in STM and LTM.

• Method – Participants learned word lists that were acoustically similar/dissimilar or semantically similar/dissimilar.
• Findings – STM relied more on acoustic encoding, LTM relied more on semantic encoding.

Strengths: Clear distinction in processing between STM and LTM, supporting structural separation in MSM.
Weaknesses: Words used were artificial, lowering ecological validity.

Case Study Evidence – HM

The case of Henry Molaison (HM) gave powerful evidence of separate memory systems. After surgery to remove his hippocampus, HM could not form new long-term memories, but his STM remained largely intact.

This supports MSM’s claim of distinct STM and LTM stores. It also supports the WMM in showing that STM can function without input from LTM in some tasks.

Case Study Evidence – KF

Shallice and Warrington (1970) studied KF, who had a brain injury that damaged his STM for verbal information but left his ability for visual information intact.

This supports the WMM’s claim of separate STM systems for visual and verbal data. It contradicts MSM’s suggestion that STM is a single store.

Comparing Research Findings

Research Study	Supports MSM	Supports WMM	Key Contribution
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)	Yes	No	Established structural stages of memory
Baddeley & Hitch (1974)	No	Yes	Showed STM is made of separate components
Peterson & Peterson (1959)	Yes	No	Measured STM duration
Miller (1956)	Yes	No	Described STM capacity and chunking
Baddeley (1966)	Yes	No	Demonstrated different encoding for STM and LTM
HM case study	Yes	Partial	Supported separate stores but revealed complexity
KF case study	No	Yes	Provided evidence for multiple STM systems

Contrast Between the Studies

• MSM-related studies often focus on capacity, duration, and encoding using controlled experiments. WMM-related studies use dual-task methods and case studies to examine processing.
• MSM research tends to view memory as a linear flow of information. WMM research views STM as an active workspace with specialised subsystems.
• Case studies like KF challenge the assumptions of MSM but fit with WMM predictions.

Final Thoughts

Key research in memory has advanced through a combination of experimental studies and unique case studies. Early research that supported the MSM gave psychology the foundation for describing memory structure. Later research, like that of Baddeley and Hitch, provided a deeper, more flexible view of STM.

When comparing these studies, it is clear that no single study explains everything about memory. Together, they show memory as both a structured system of stores and an active processing space. This mixed evidence is why modern psychology often integrates elements from both models when explaining memory.