Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseWhile Atkinson and Shiffrin's Multistore Model was groundbreaking when it was proposed in 1968, it didn't take long for psychologists to spot some serious problems. Think of it like the first mobile phone - it was amazing at the time, but we quickly realised it had major limitations that needed fixing!
The model suggested that memory works like a simple computer system with three separate stores: sensory memory, short-term memory and long-term memory. Information flows in one direction from one store to the next. However, research has shown that memory is far more complex and flexible than this simple model suggests.
Key Definitions:
The biggest criticism is that the model treats memory like a simple filing system. In reality, memory is more like a complex network where different parts work together in sophisticated ways. The model suggests that short-term memory and long-term memory are completely separate, but evidence shows they actually work together constantly.
Psychologists have identified several key problems with the Multistore Model. Let's explore each one and see why they matter for our understanding of how memory really works.
The model treats short-term memory as one simple store, but research shows it's actually made up of different components that handle different types of information.
Handles sounds and speech. Try repeating a phone number in your head - that's your phonological loop working!
Deals with visual and spatial information. When you imagine walking through your house, this system is active.
Controls and coordinates the other systems. It's like the boss that decides what gets attention.
These researchers asked people to do two tasks at once - remember numbers whilst doing reasoning problems. According to the Multistore Model, this should be impossible because short-term memory would be completely occupied. However, people could do both tasks reasonably well, proving that short-term memory must have separate components for different types of information.
The Multistore Model claims that rehearsal (repeating information) is the main way to get information into long-term memory. However, research shows that the type of processing matters much more than the amount of rehearsal.
There are two types of rehearsal:
Studies show that elaborative rehearsal is much more effective for creating lasting memories, even if you do less of it. This suggests that how we process information matters more than how much we repeat it.
Participants were asked to remember word lists. Some words were rehearsed many times (maintenance rehearsal), whilst others were processed for meaning (elaborative rehearsal). The results showed that words processed for meaning were remembered much better, regardless of how many times they were repeated. This directly contradicts the Multistore Model's emphasis on rehearsal quantity.
The model treats long-term memory as one big storage unit, but research reveals it actually contains several different types of memory that work in completely different ways.
Memories you can consciously recall, like facts and personal experiences. This includes semantic memory (facts) and episodic memory (personal events).
Memories that influence behaviour without conscious awareness, like skills and habits. You don't consciously remember how to ride a bike - you just do it!
After brain surgery to treat severe epilepsy, HM lost the ability to form new explicit memories but could still learn new skills (implicit memory). He could learn to draw whilst looking in a mirror, getting better each day, but had no memory of practising before. This shows that different types of long-term memory use different brain systems - something the Multistore Model cannot explain.
The Multistore Model suggests information always flows in one direction: sensory → short-term → long-term. However, research shows that long-term memory can directly influence what we perceive and remember, without going through short-term memory first.
For example, when you hear a familiar song, you might immediately recognise it and remember associated experiences without consciously processing it through short-term memory. This shows that memory systems interact in complex ways that the linear model cannot explain.
Because of these problems, psychologists developed new models that better explain how memory really works. These newer models are more complex but much more accurate.
Developed by Baddeley and Hitch to replace the simple short-term memory concept with a more complex system of interacting components.
Craik and Lockhart's theory focuses on how deeply we process information rather than which memory store it goes into.
These models see memory as a network of interconnected nodes that can activate each other in complex patterns.
Understanding the limitations of the Multistore Model is crucial because it shows how science progresses. When evidence contradicts a theory, scientists don't just ignore it - they develop better theories that can explain the new findings.
The criticisms of the Multistore Model have led to much better understanding of memory, which has practical applications in education, therapy and everyday life. For example, knowing that elaborative rehearsal works better than maintenance rehearsal can help students study more effectively.
Modern understanding of memory has revolutionised education. Instead of encouraging students to simply repeat information (maintenance rehearsal), teachers now focus on helping students understand meaning and make connections (elaborative rehearsal). This leads to much better learning outcomes and explains why modern teaching methods are so different from old-fashioned rote learning.
The Multistore Model wasn't wrong - it was just incomplete. Like the first map of a new territory, it gave us a basic understanding but missed many important details. The criticisms and evidence against it have led to much richer, more accurate models of memory that better explain how we actually remember and forget.
This process of criticism and improvement is exactly how science should work. By understanding what was wrong with earlier models, we can appreciate how much our knowledge has advanced and continue to build even better theories in the future.