Understanding memory: models, mechanisms and causes of forgetting
This work has been verified by our teacher: 23.01.2026 at 11:54
Homework type: Essay
Added: 17.01.2026 at 17:57
Summary:
Explore memory models, mechanisms and causes of forgetting: learn theories, evidence and practical revision strategies to improve recall and reduce forgetting.
Unit One: Memory
Memory, in psychological terms, refers to the processes by which we encode, store, and retrieve information. Far from being a single, simple system, memory encompasses a range of mechanisms, theories and phenomena explored through decades of research. Understanding how we remember and forget is not only central to academic psychology but also relevant to everyday experience – from learning revision techniques to understanding legal testimony. This essay will describe and evaluate influential models of memory, including the multi-store model, the levels of processing approach, and the reconstructive view, as well as exploring mechanisms of forgetting such as interference and context effects. By integrating theory with evidence and practical considerations, I aim to demonstrate why a multifaceted view of memory is essential.
---
The Multi-Store Model of Memory
One of the earliest and most influential frameworks for understanding memory is the multi-store model, proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968). According to this account, memory is made up of distinguishable parts: sensory memory, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). Information passes through each store in a linear fashion – from fleeting sensory impressions, to the limited capacity of STM, and, with rehearsal, into the near-limitless expanse of LTM.The STM is described as having a capacity of roughly 5–9 items (as noted by Jacobs’ digit span experiment in the late 19th century), a duration of only seconds unless material is rehearsed, and a tendency to code information acoustically. In contrast, LTM can potentially retain material for a lifetime, with capacity limited more by retrieval than storage, and semantic coding predominating. Evidence for the multi-store account can be seen in serial position effects, where people reliably remember words from the start and end of a list (primacy and recency effects, respectively). The primacy effect is attributed to earlier items having been rehearsed into LTM, while the recency effect results from the most recent items still being present in STM.
The multi-store model is strengthened by clinical cases: patients experiencing amnesia after head injury, such as the well-known case of Clive Wearing, often have severely impaired LTM but relatively intact STM, indicating separate systems. However, the model’s simplicity is a double-edged sword. Critics argue that memory is not so neatly compartmentalised – for example, the working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974) demonstrates that STM is composed of multiple components rather than a single box. Furthermore, the model fails to explain how the meaning and depth of processing influences transfer into LTM. Many supporting studies use artificial methods, such as recalling nonsense syllables or digit strings, which lack ecological validity.
Nonetheless, the multi-store approach offers valuable guidance for learning: techniques like ‘chunking’ expand STM capacity, and deliberate rehearsal aids retention, both concepts used in classroom strategies. However, such applications are improved by recognising that mere repetition is less effective than meaningful learning, a point highlighted by the next theory.
---
The Levels of Processing Approach
Challenging the idea that memory depends on separate stores, the levels of processing framework (Craik and Lockhart, 1972) asserts that what matters most is how deeply information is processed at the point of encoding. Processing can be shallow – focusing on surface features like sound or appearance – or deep, where one engages with the meaning.Experiments have asked participants to answer different questions about words before testing recall. For instance, Hyde and Jenkins (1973) found that words processed semantically (e.g., "Is it pleasant?") were remembered better than those processed for superficial features (e.g., "Is it in capital letters?"). This suggests that elaborate, meaningful processing creates stronger memory traces.
The strengths of the levels of processing approach lie in its explanatory power – it accounts for why we remember some things effortlessly (like the gist of a story) and why rote repetition often fails us. It has influenced teaching by encouraging active learning strategies, such as elaboration, linking material to prior knowledge, and self-explanation. Nevertheless, the theory is not problem-free. It can be circular: how do we decide what ‘deep’ means, except by noticing what is remembered? Furthermore, it offers little detail about the mechanisms that translate deep processing into long-lasting memories. While research using classroom material (e.g., learning historical timelines) supports the utility of meaningful study, the effect size can vary based on material and delay.
Teachers now routinely encourage students to summarise, illustrate, and question content, recognising that such approaches foster deeper learning. However, this emphasis on meaning also connects to the notion that memory is shaped by prior experience and expectation, as discussed next.
---
Reconstructive Memory and Schemas
The reconstructive view of memory, prominently advanced by Sir Frederic Bartlett in the early 20th century, challenges the notion that memory works like a tape recorder. Instead, recall involves actively reconstructing experiences, drawing on existing schemas – frameworks of prior knowledge, belief, and expectation.Bartlett’s seminal study, "War of the Ghosts" (1932), had British participants recall an unfamiliar Native American tale. He found that details were altered or omitted to fit the reader’s cultural background – unfamiliar names were replaced, and supernatural elements were often rationalised. Subsequent retellings drifted further towards the participant’s own cultural norms, illustrating how schemas guide what is remembered and how it is structured.
Further support comes from experiments on eyewitness memory: when two people witness the same event, their memories often differ, shaped by their expectations or biases. This model explains not just errors, but their systematic nature – for example, eyewitnesses may remember a criminal’s appearance based on stereotypes rather than actual detail.
One major strength here is the model’s ecological validity. It explains everyday phenomena, like disagreements about past events or misremembering a familiar story. Yet, the research methods can be criticised: storytelling tasks may exaggerate reconstruction, and it is challenging to measure the influence of schemas objectively. Moreover, individual differences in expertise or cultural knowledge can moderate these effects.
For real-world applications, especially in the legal system, this model is invaluable. The susceptibility of memory to suggestion underpins modern forensic practices, such as the cognitive interview, designed to reduce suggestibility and maximise accurate recall. In schools, understanding reconstructive memory highlights how misconceptions can persist unless actively corrected.
---
Forgetting: Interference and Context Effects
Despite our best efforts, forgetting is a universal experience. Two leading explanations are interference theory and context-dependent memory. Interference theory distinguishes between proactive interference (old information disrupting new learning) and retroactive interference (new learning overwriting old). In classic A-level studies, students who learned two lists of similar words had poorer recall than those who learned unrelated lists, indicating that similarity increases interference.Such confusion is common in everyday life – for instance, using a new phone number but accidentally giving out an old one, or mixing up French and Spanish vocabulary when both are studied together. Strategic solutions, such as spacing study sessions and avoiding similar material back-to-back, can mitigate interference.
Context-dependent memory focuses on the settings in which learning and recall take place. Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) study with divers learning words on land or underwater found recall was best when learning and testing matched contexts. State-dependent effects, where mood or intoxication matches between encoding and recall, further illustrate how both internal and external cues affect memory.
Both explanations have strengths – they predict when and why forgetting occurs and have practical value. Revision advice now often includes practising recall in varied locations and simulating exam conditions. However, some findings are limited to artificial tasks or extreme context changes (e.g. underwater vs. on land), raising questions about real-world generalisability. For meaningful or well-integrated material, context effects tend to be smaller.
Understanding forgetting is vital for students and professionals alike. In the classroom, varying study settings and spacing out learning yield more robust memories. In legal contexts, awareness of context effects can improve witness interviews.
---
Comparative Evaluation and Methodology
Each model addresses a different aspect of memory. The multi-store model excels at describing structures and capacity, but is weaker on meaning. The levels of processing account, in contrast, highlights the importance of meaningful engagement, though it lacks detail about storage mechanisms. The reconstructive approach explains why memory is error-prone and shaped by prior knowledge but pays less attention to capacity or encoding procedures. Interference and context theories reveal how forgetting is contingent on similarity and retrieval cues.Whereas laboratory studies provide precise control, they sometimes lack ecological validity; real-world tasks are more complex, and individual differences – in age, IQ, culture, or motivation – further complicate generalisation. Ethical considerations, such as avoiding distress when probing for forgotten material, are also vital. Recent advances, including neuroimaging and naturalistic memory studies, hold promise for integrating these insights and improving practice.
---
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in