Evaluating research investigating the multi-store model

CONTROLLED RESEARCH (STRENGTH): One strength of research investigating memory is the high level of control used in laboratory studies. For example, Peterson and Peterson used standardised trigrams, retention intervals and a counting task to prevent rehearsal. Similarly, Baddeley carefully controlled the similarity of the words and the interval before recall. This reduces the influence of extraneous variables and makes it more likely that differences in recall were caused by the variables being investigated. Therefore, these studies have high internal validity and can be replicated to test the reliability of their findings.

CONVERGING EVIDENCE (STRENGTH): Another strength is that evidence about memory comes from both controlled laboratory studies and case studies. Laboratory studies, such as those conducted by Baddeley and Peterson and Peterson, provide carefully controlled evidence about coding and duration. Case studies of individuals with amnesia, such as Clive Wearing (see below), provide detailed evidence from real-life memory impairments. As these different research methods produce broadly consistent findings, this convergence increases confidence in the validity of conclusions about memory.

ARTIFICIAL TASKS (LIMITATION): One limitation is that many studies used artificial memory tasks. For example, Baddeley asked participants to recall lists of unrelated words, while Peterson and Peterson required participants to remember meaningless trigrams. These tasks do not reflect how people normally use memory in everyday life, where information is often meaningful and connected to existing knowledge. Therefore, participants may have behaved differently from how they would in real-world situations, reducing the ecological validity of the findings.

PARTICIPANT VARIABLES (LIMITATION): Another limitation is that some studies used an independent groups design. For example, Baddeley used different participants in the conditions involving acoustically similar and dissimilar words, as well as semantically similar and dissimilar words. Differences in recall may therefore have resulted from participant variables, such as differences in memory ability, rather than the type of words presented. This reduces internal validity because the findings may not accurately show the effect of acoustic or semantic similarity on memory.