On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 07:28:11 -0700 (MST) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> The 7 +/- 2 capacity of short-term memory, thus, seems to be a myth that we
> often promote in our lower-level classes. Is this interpretation correct?
>
This is a 2 part answer (having to do with the value 7 +/-2 and
having to do with the concept of STM) , and I will allow the
real cognitive psychologists to correct and expand on my answer.
1. Is STM a myth?
The *serial* process model of memory (iconic --> stm --> memory)
has been rejected by many. Alan Baddeley is one among many and
provides only 1 of several approaches.
One kind of approach suggests that we think of memory as 1
single system, but that a particular task requires activiation
of portions of the memory system. The portions of the system
that are currently active is/are considered "working memory."
But (like STM) it is of fixed capacity.
2. Is 7 +/-2 a myth?
Here you need to go back to the source, the article by George
Miller (1956). Miller summarizes a series of studies across a
wide variety of tasks (absolute judgment in uni- and
multidimensional identification tasks , memory span,
subsitizing) that lead him to two conclusions:
a) There is a limit on our capacity to correctly
identify or remember the stimuli in a set.
b) This limit is smaller than most people would predict,
about 2.5 bits of alternatives in the task.
The 7 +/- 2 is an empirical generalization.
Ken
----------------------
Kenneth M. Steele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Associate Professor
Dept. of Psychology
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
