LTM and STM

• Glanzer and Cunitz - Study into STM and LTM.
• Glanzer and Cunitz:

  • Aimed to prove STM and LTM were different stores.
  • Participants given 21 common words
  • They remembered the first few (primary) and last few words (regency)
• Types of LTM:

  • Semantic
  • Episodic
  • Procedural
• Encoding in the LTM is usually semantic, but sounds smells and emotions can trigger the LTM.
• Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)

  • Aim - Investigate if LTM and STM are different stores.
  • Procedure - List of 21 common words given and participants asked to recall as many as possible.
  • Results - Participants remembered more words at the start and end, with a dip in the middle.
  • This is called Primacy and Recency.
• Glanzer and Cunitz said the words at the start had been transferred to the LTM through rehearsal, whereas the words at the end were still present in the STM.
• Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)

  Strengths

  • Reliability - lab conditions
  • Temporal validity - still used today

  Limitations

  • Only focuses on iconic stimuli
  • Reductionist - simplified
  • Primacy and Recency tested at the same time
  • Artificial setting - low ecological validity
• Chronic alcoholics sometimes develop Korsakoff’s syndrome which has severe effects on the LTM but little effect on the STM. Suggests they are different stores.
• In the case of KF, who suffered brain damage, his LTM was in tact while his STM had difficulties.
• Baddeley used brain scanning technology to find different patterns in brain activity when participants were asked to recall from LTM and STM.
• A limitation for case studies being used as proof for the different stores is that most of them have brain damage, making the findings not generalisable.