Final answer:
Glanzer and Cunitz's study is mainly evaluated on its experimental design, evidence for separate memory stores, and its impact on the field of memory research. It includes strengths such as control over variables and replicability but also faces criticisms concerning ecological validity and oversimplification of memory processes.
Step-by-step explanation:
The main evaluation points for Glanzer and Cunitz's study revolve around their investigation into the serial position effect during free recall tasks. The study's most renowned contribution is the evidence it provided for the existence of separate stores for short-term and long-term memory - the multi-store model of memory. Furthermore, the study's methodology allowed for the examination of the recency and primacy effects in free recall by manipulating the presence of a delay before the recall phase.
Key evaluation points include the study's experimental design, which was a controlled laboratory experiment, thereby ensuring a high degree of control over extraneous variables. Additionally, Cunitz's study had a reasonable sample size, which provided substantial data for statistical analysis, adding to the credibility of the findings. However, criticisms of the study often point towards its artificial nature and possible lack of ecological validity, as memorizing lists of words might not reflect real-life memory use.
Another evaluation point is that the study's findings have been replicated and supported by subsequent research, which strengthens the reliability of the results. However, some argue that the complexity of memory processes cannot be entirely explained by the multi-store model, indicating that alternative theories or additional components may be needed to understand memory fully.