Cognitive Theories
8 Mark Sample Questions and Answers
8PS0/01 Paper 1: Social and Cognitive Psychology
Evaluate the working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974).
Paragraph 1 — What the theory says/description (AO1).
The Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) is a cognitive theory of short-term
memory that replaces the single short-term store of the Multi-Store Model with an active
system of subsystems. It was proposed after Baddeley and Hitch conducted the dual test
paradigm experiment. It proposes a central executive (attention controller) that controls
attention and coordinates the two slave systems: the phonological loop which stores
verbal/auditory information and has two sub-components: the phonological store that holds
auditory information, and the articulatory process that rehearses verbal information. And the
visuo-spatial sketchpad which processes and manipulates visual and spatial information,
such as shapes, colours, and spatial layout.. Information is received through our five senses
and flows to the sensory memory store. The sensory register either sends it to the STM or
the information decays. Baddeley later added an episodic buffer to integrate information from
the subsystems and link working memory with long-term memory.
Paragraph 2 — Supporting evidence (AO3).
WMM was proposed after Baddeley and Hitch (1976) conducted dual task paradigm
experiment where participants were asked to perform two tasks at the same time - a digit
span task and a verbal reasoning task. It provided core empirical support that participants
can perform a verbal and a visual task simultaneously with little interference, but
performance declined when both tasks relied on the phonological loop. Participants were
slower when the central executive and articulatory loop were both involved, compared to
tasks requiring only the articulatory loop. This supports the idea of multiple components
within STM and demonstrates the existence of a separate central executive and articulatory
loop, therefore supporting the WMM over its predecessor the multi-store model.
Neuropsychological evidence also supports the model: Shallice and Warrington (1970)
studied a man called KF (brain injury) who showed impaired verbal short-term memory but
relatively preserved visual memory, suggesting separate verbal and visual stores. These
findings support the WMM’s claim that separate short-term stores manage short-term
phonological and visual memories.
Paragraph 3 — Applications (AO3).
Another major strength of the WMM is its practical application to understanding learning
difficulties such as dyslexia. Research shows that many dyslexic learners have weaknesses
specifically in the phonological loop, which makes it difficult for them to store and manipulate
verbal sounds such as letter–sound patterns. Because the WMM identifies this subsystem, it
explains why dyslexic students struggle particularly with phonological awareness tasks. This
has led to targeted educational interventions, such as phonological training and chunking
techniques, showing that the model has real-world usefulness
, Paragraph 4 — Comparison with alternative theory (AO3).
Another strength of the WMM is that it improves on earlier models. Unlike Atkinson and
Shiffrin’s Multi-Store Model, which treats STM as a single passive store, the WMM explains
parallel processing, where cognitive tasks can occur simultaneously, such as listening while
visualising. This makes the WMM more realistic and flexible than the MSM and allows it to
account for complex cognitive activities that the MSM cannot explain.
Paragraph 5 — Limitations of the theory (AO3).
Despite strengths, the WMM has its weaknesses. The central executive is underspecified.
Baddeley described it as an attentional controller but did not specify how it works or how it
can be measured. Baddeley (2003) admitted that “the central executive is the most important
but least understood component of working memory”, which shows the model cannot clearly
specify how attention is controlled. This weakens the explanatory power of the theory
because such a crucial part lacks empirical definition.
(other points. The episodic buffer was added later to solve integration problems, which some
argue is an ad-hoc patch. Many supporting experiments use artificial tasks (lists, digits), so
ecological validity can be limited)
Paragraph 6 — How good the evidence is (AO3)
The evidence for the Working Memory Model is strong, particularly from Baddeley & Hitch
(1976). Their dual-task study showed that participants could perform tasks using different
STM subsystems simultaneously, supporting the model’s separate components. The
controlled lab setting makes the results reliable and replicable, but the artificial tasks may not
reflect real-life memory use, limiting ecological validity. Despite this, the study provides
credible empirical support for the WMM.
8 Mark Sample Questions and Answers
8PS0/01 Paper 1: Social and Cognitive Psychology
Evaluate the working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974).
Paragraph 1 — What the theory says/description (AO1).
The Working Memory Model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) is a cognitive theory of short-term
memory that replaces the single short-term store of the Multi-Store Model with an active
system of subsystems. It was proposed after Baddeley and Hitch conducted the dual test
paradigm experiment. It proposes a central executive (attention controller) that controls
attention and coordinates the two slave systems: the phonological loop which stores
verbal/auditory information and has two sub-components: the phonological store that holds
auditory information, and the articulatory process that rehearses verbal information. And the
visuo-spatial sketchpad which processes and manipulates visual and spatial information,
such as shapes, colours, and spatial layout.. Information is received through our five senses
and flows to the sensory memory store. The sensory register either sends it to the STM or
the information decays. Baddeley later added an episodic buffer to integrate information from
the subsystems and link working memory with long-term memory.
Paragraph 2 — Supporting evidence (AO3).
WMM was proposed after Baddeley and Hitch (1976) conducted dual task paradigm
experiment where participants were asked to perform two tasks at the same time - a digit
span task and a verbal reasoning task. It provided core empirical support that participants
can perform a verbal and a visual task simultaneously with little interference, but
performance declined when both tasks relied on the phonological loop. Participants were
slower when the central executive and articulatory loop were both involved, compared to
tasks requiring only the articulatory loop. This supports the idea of multiple components
within STM and demonstrates the existence of a separate central executive and articulatory
loop, therefore supporting the WMM over its predecessor the multi-store model.
Neuropsychological evidence also supports the model: Shallice and Warrington (1970)
studied a man called KF (brain injury) who showed impaired verbal short-term memory but
relatively preserved visual memory, suggesting separate verbal and visual stores. These
findings support the WMM’s claim that separate short-term stores manage short-term
phonological and visual memories.
Paragraph 3 — Applications (AO3).
Another major strength of the WMM is its practical application to understanding learning
difficulties such as dyslexia. Research shows that many dyslexic learners have weaknesses
specifically in the phonological loop, which makes it difficult for them to store and manipulate
verbal sounds such as letter–sound patterns. Because the WMM identifies this subsystem, it
explains why dyslexic students struggle particularly with phonological awareness tasks. This
has led to targeted educational interventions, such as phonological training and chunking
techniques, showing that the model has real-world usefulness
, Paragraph 4 — Comparison with alternative theory (AO3).
Another strength of the WMM is that it improves on earlier models. Unlike Atkinson and
Shiffrin’s Multi-Store Model, which treats STM as a single passive store, the WMM explains
parallel processing, where cognitive tasks can occur simultaneously, such as listening while
visualising. This makes the WMM more realistic and flexible than the MSM and allows it to
account for complex cognitive activities that the MSM cannot explain.
Paragraph 5 — Limitations of the theory (AO3).
Despite strengths, the WMM has its weaknesses. The central executive is underspecified.
Baddeley described it as an attentional controller but did not specify how it works or how it
can be measured. Baddeley (2003) admitted that “the central executive is the most important
but least understood component of working memory”, which shows the model cannot clearly
specify how attention is controlled. This weakens the explanatory power of the theory
because such a crucial part lacks empirical definition.
(other points. The episodic buffer was added later to solve integration problems, which some
argue is an ad-hoc patch. Many supporting experiments use artificial tasks (lists, digits), so
ecological validity can be limited)
Paragraph 6 — How good the evidence is (AO3)
The evidence for the Working Memory Model is strong, particularly from Baddeley & Hitch
(1976). Their dual-task study showed that participants could perform tasks using different
STM subsystems simultaneously, supporting the model’s separate components. The
controlled lab setting makes the results reliable and replicable, but the artificial tasks may not
reflect real-life memory use, limiting ecological validity. Despite this, the study provides
credible empirical support for the WMM.
