Basic and Applied Memory Research

Volume 1: Theory in Context; Volume 2: Practical Applications

Douglas J. Herrmann, Chris Hertzog, Cathy McEvoy, Paula Hertel, Marcia K. Johnson

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317759676
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Basic researchers unlock the secrets of nature; applied researchers unlock the means by which those secrets of nature can change people's lives. Neither basic nor applied research has an independent impact. These volumes examine the convergence of basic and applied research in the field of memory. Volume 1: Theory and Context, focuses on the methods for understanding and applying basic memory theory, while Volume 2: Practical Applications, expands the understanding of practical memory research by providing in-depth research examples and findings. If the science of memory is to make a significant contribution to society, coordinating our basic and applied efforts and determining how they complement each other become of paramount importance. These volumes will help in this regard--both as textbooks demonstrating how to investigate memory and apply basic memory theory, and as reference sources leading to a better understanding of certain problems in basic and applied memory research. Readers of these volumes will gain a thorough grasp of the way major themes relate to basic and applied research collaboration, how programmatic basic and applied research can be conducted on particular memory problems, and the manner in which basic and applied work in major problem areas has been incorporated into the field of memory. Both volumes present important information that will be indispensable to researchers and students alike.

Chapter One

Convergence of Basic and Applied Memory Research: An Overview of Volume 1

Douglas J. Herrmann

National Center for Health Statistics, Hyatsville, MD

The first International Practical Aspects of Memory Conference was held in Wales in 1978 and the second in 1987. Those conferences were well attended and made evident the lively interest in ecologically valid and applied memory research. The proceedings of those conferences gave a “state of the art account of current research and issues in the field of applied memory” (Gruneberg, Morris, & Sykes, 1988). The success of those conferences, coupled with a continued upsurge in interest in applied memory issues, caused the organizers to decide not to wait a decade until the next conference, and the third conference was held in 1994. Because the first two conferences were held on the east side of the Atlantic, it was decided to hold the next conference on the west side—at the University of Maryland University College. This volume presents the major papers of the conference that examined broad issues concerning basic and applied memory research.

Like the previous conferences, the 1994 conference consisted of many presentations on a wide variety of applied research areas. This conference also featured many invited presentations concerned especially with seeking a convergence between basic and applied memory research, as well as empirical research on practical aspects of memory. The participants of this conference included the leading researchers in the practical aspects of memory, as well as many of the leading basic researchers, from throughout the world.

The invited and submitted papers, as well as the posters, illustrated the relevance of applied issues and findings to many fundamental theoretical issues in memory and to how theoretical ideas might be translated into practical use. In all, over 300 papers and posters were presented (see conference program, edited by Conrad, 1994). As such, this conference was the largest conference on memory held to date, basic or applied or both.

Common, Essential, and Unique Processes

Although basic and applied researchers are equal members on the science team, they do not have the same job descriptions. Basic researchers investigate fundamental processes, and applied researchers apply the knowledge of those processes to particular problems. However, many people do not recognize that this account of the basic and applied collaboration is a gross oversimplification. Basic memory theory almost never can be applied simply by examining the variables addressed by a theory and generating predictions about these variables for the application of interest. Other variables, perhaps unique to the application, have to be accounted for as well.

Typically, basic theory addresses variables common to most or all applications. For example, encoding is a process that must occur in all applications involving memory. Many basic memory theories assume that encoding is affected by the attributes of a stimulus, such as its familiarity or salience (Underwood, 1983; Wickens, 1970). Many memory theories also assume that certain memory mechanisms may be employed to emphasize processing of visual, acoustic, or semantic attributes of the stimulus (Baddeley, 1986; Craik & Lockhart, 1972).

However, in order to apply basic memory theory, the constructs of a theory have to be supplemented with an understanding of certain variables that are unique to an application. Variables that are essential to one application may not be involved or may only partially be involved in another application. For example, some variables that are important to advertising may be different from those variables that are important to memory for instructions given on one’s job. The encoding involved in advertising is often incidental and salient on culturally relevant dimensions that may be identified by unconscious processes. The encoding involved in memory for instructions given on one’s job is typically intentional, salient on social dimensions pertinent to the work situation, and based on a process of identifying what aspects of the communication pertain to the job’s requirements. The unconscious process that identifies culturally relevant dimensions is essential to memory for advertising but not essential to memory for instructions given to an employee at work. Alternatively, the process of identifying what aspects of a communication pertain to a person’s job is essential to memory for instructions given on the job but not essential to memory for advertisements.

In addition to supplementing basic memory theory with applied theory about essential processes, maximally effective application often necessitates consideration of certain variables that have unique values for an application. For example, almost all advertising includes a common set of variables, such as the use of models, music, endorsements, logos, and so on. However, the actual values that these variables will take differs greatly, depending on the identified market. Background music used to add memorability to a Lexus commercial, for a Lexus audience, will differ greatly from the background music used to add memorability to a Geo Prizm commercial. The interaction between this variable (background music) and other variables in the advertising of the product (logo, model, etc.) may differ depending on the unique choice of values selected for each variable.

The Benefits of Convergence of Basic and Applied Research

This conference called for convergence between basic and applied research because it did not appear to be productive for basic and applied researchers to debate which kind of researcher was most useful to society. Because a convergence between basic and applied research had not been attempted before in the memory field, effort was taken to identify the basis for such a convergence. We believe that the convergence of basic and applied research requires consideration of the variables of interest to basic and applied research: common processes, essential processes, and unique processes. Basic research stands to benefit from a knowledge of applied research in two ways. Theoretically, an awareness of research that attempts to apply basic findings can reveal that processes thought to be basic are actually ones that are essential to some but not all applications. Likewise, an awareness of many areas of applied research can reveal processes that are so common across applications that they can be regarded as basic, and hence worthy of study by basic researchers. Methodologically, an awareness of applied research can reveal variables with large effects on memory that basic researchers can control in their studies, rather than let them vary, and hence reduce noise in their data (Mullin, Herrmann, & Searleman, 1993).

Alternatively, applied research can benefit from an awareness of basic research. Theoretically, applied researchers—who are trained in basic research—can benefit by frequently brushing up on the developments of basic theory. An awareness of basic research can sensitize applied researchers to take account of basic processes of which they otherwise might be unaware, improving the efficacy of their interventions. Methodologically, the more that an applied research knows of basic theory, the more able he or she is to control or measure variables that otherwise might confound applied research.

Thus, successful application requires firm understanding of basic memory theory, supplemented with extensive knowledge about the unique issues present in each application. The research presented in this volume focuses on how basic and applied research inform one another. Several chapters focus on the major themes or issues that must be considered as we seek a convergence between basic and applied memory research (including the chapters by Kihlstrom; Morris & Gaineberg; Bahrick; and Gruneberg, Morris, Sykes, & Herrmann). Other chapters illustrate how a convergence might be achieved by presenting the authors’ work and the work of others that combine basic and applied methods to study a particular applied problem (including the chapters by Johnson; Landauer & Dumais; Rabbitt & Yang; Jacoby, Jennings, & Hay; and Baddeley). Finally, 11 chapters review the basic and applied literature in many major areas of psychology in order to discover how basic and applied research can be integrated and collaborate more effectively.

Thus, this volume is the first text of its kind to present the fundamental knowledge of theory and method to students, teachers, and researchers on how to apply basic memory research. Each chapter presents information on a wide variety of topics that will be useful to researchers and teachers alike. Anyone who reads the entire text will possess a thorough grasp of the major themes pertaining to basic and applied collaboration, how programmatic basic and applied research can be conducted on a particular memory problem, and the basic/applied work in many of the major problem areas in the field of memory. We believe that this knowledge will equip the reader to go beyond what has been done previously and to achieve better understanding of the science of human memory.

After reading this volume, we encourage you to read Volume II, Basic and Applied Memory: Research on Practical Aspects of Memory. The second volume provides 33 chapters that will test your understanding of the fundamental concepts covered in the first volume and further enrich your understanding of practical memory research.

References

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Basic Books.

Conrad, F. (1994). The Third Practical Aspects of Memory Conference. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, University College.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.

Gruneberg, M. M., Morris, P. E., & Sykes, R. N. (Eds.). (1988). Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Mullin, P., Herrmann, D. J., & Searleman, A. (1993). Forgotten variables in memory research. Memory, 15, 43.

Underwood, B. J. (1983). Attributes of memory. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Wickens, D. D. (1970). Encoding categories of words: An empirical approach to meaning. Psychological Review, 77, 1–15.

Chapter Two

Memory Research: The Convergence of Theory and Practice

John F. Kihlstrom

Yale University

Concern for the practical aspects of memory can be traced back at least as far as Bartlett’s (1932) critique of Ebbinghaus (1885). As we all know, Ebbinghaus had hoped to do for memory and the other higher mental processes what Fechner (I860) had done for sensation and the lower ones (frankly, I loathe these terms, because they perpetuate what I consider a false distinction, but they do provide a convenient shorthand). By his invention of the nonsense syllable, and his enforcement of what Bartlett (1932, p. 8) called “a perfectly automatic attitude of repetition in the learner,” Ebbinghaus hoped to prove Kant wrong, and to show that the mind could in fact be studied with the tools of modern science. And to some extent, he was successful. The establishment of what amount to psychological laws of repetition and decay was quite an achievement for 1885.

But Bartlett was unhappy, to say the least, with Ebbinghaus’ reliance on the nonsense syllable and the method of reproduction. Commenting on Ebbinghaus’ attempt to strip his stimulus materials of any possible variation in meaning, he wrote: “Once more [the first time was with Fechner] the remedy is at least as bad as the disease. It means that the results of nonsense syllable experiments begin to be significant only when very special habits of reception and repetition have been set up. They may, then, throw some light upon the mode of establishment and the control of such habits, but it is at least doubtful whether they can help us see how, in general, memory reactions are determined” (1932, p. 3).

Then, after several pages of detailed criticisms of Ebbinghaus’s method, Bartlett continued:

I have dealt at this length with the nonsense syllable experiments, partly because they are generally regarded as occupying a supremely important place in the development of exact method in psychology, and partly because the bulk of this book is concerned with problems of remembering studied throughout by methods which do not appear to approach those of the Ebbinghaus school in rigidity of control. But most of what has been said could be applied, with the necessary change of terminology and reference, to the bulk of experimental psychological work on perceiving, on imaging, on feeling, choosing, willing, judging, and thinking. In it all is the tendency to overstress the determining character of the stimulus or of the situation, the effort to secure isolation of response by ensuring simplicity of external control. (1932, p. 6)

Of course, we now know that to some extent Ebbinghaus got a bad rap (Gorfein & Hoffman, 1987; Roediger, 1985; Slamecka, 1985; Tulving, 1985). Ebbinghaus had a much broader vision of memory, and a fuller appreciation of the constraints he had imposed on his own research, than he is sometimes given credit for. Ebbinghaus’ achievement was not the invention of the nonsense syllable or the method of savings or even the discovery of the law of repetition; his real achievement was to show that the mind could be the object of scientific investigation, and that the combination of controlled observation and quantitative analysis could reveal the laws of mental life.

And it is also clear that Bartlett’s real target was not poor Ebbinghaus himself, but rather the doctrine of associationism under which he labored. Bartlett wasn’t really unhappy with the nonsense syllable. After all, he realized, as indeed Ebbinghaus did as well, that despite what the experimenter did to strip his or her materials of meaning, the subject—who after all was continually engaged in “effort after meaning” (Bartlett, 1932, p. 20)—would just put it right back in again. No, Bartlett’s real target was the prevailing emphasis on the overwhelming importance of stimulus determination. Thus we get Bartlett’s own doctrine, by which he attempted to save the mental in psychology against the onslaught of associationism and its evil twin, behaviorism: “The psychologist, of all people, must not stand in awe of the stimulus” (1932, p. 3).

Bartlett and his allies lost that fight, as we all know, and psychology very quickly settled down to tracking the functional relations between stimulus and response (a task that is, to some extent, still carried out by our connectionist colleagues). Fechner’s Law turned into Stevens’s Law. Animal learning was taken to be a satisfactory model for the human case, and was studied with a focus on the effects of different schedules of reinforcement. The study of human memory was converted into the study of verbal learning, with a concentration on interference and transfer in the acquisition of paired associates. And what we now know as the Journal of Memory & Language (JML) began life as the Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior (JVLVB).

The Legacy of the Laboratory

Of course, things began to change in the 1960s. In fact, the signs of change were already evident in the 1950s. From my own point of view, the signal event in the cognitive revolution in psychology—at least so far as the study of memory was concerned—was the discovery of category clustering. Bous-field (1953)—who was also one of the first to rediscover the charms of the method of free recall—observed that subjects tended to recall list items in a different order than that in which they had been presented. This was bad enough for classical association theory, but then Bousfield showed that subjects clustered list items according to superordinate, conceptual relationships that could not be predicted by the associative links between items. Bousfield’s subjects were certainly not in awe of the stimulus (and neither was Bousfield, who understood perfectly well the implications of his finding). Rather, they were imposing structure on the stimulus—a structure that resided in their minds, not the environment. Of course, Bousfield built categorical relations into his word lists, and a determined environmentalist could simply say that his subjects were picking up on that structure. It was left to Tulving (1962) to clinch the point, when—in a paper that we now know he had difficulty getting published—he showed that subjects would organize a list of words into some sort of narrative (or possibly image-based) structure even...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Convergence of Basic and Applied Memory Research: An Overview of Volume 1
• 2. Memory Research: The Convergence of Theory and Practice
• 3. Practical Aspects of Memory: The First 2,500 Years
• 4. Synergistic Strategies for Memory Research
• 5. The Practical Application of Memory Research: Practical Problems in the Relationship Between Theory and Practice
• 6. Fact, Fantasy, and Public Policy
• 7. How Come You Know So Much? From Practical Problems to New Memory Theory
• 8. What Are the Functional Bases of Individual Differences in Memory Ability?
• 9. Dissociating Automatic and Consciously Controlled Processes: Implications for Diagnosis and Rehabilitation of Memory Deficits
• 10. Applying the Psychology of Memory to Clinical Problems
• 11. Implicit Memory and Perceptual Brain Mechanisms
• 12. Memory and Attention
• 13. A Combinatorial-Binding and Strength (CBS) Model of Memory: Is It a Better Framework for Amnesia?
• 14. Management and Rehabilitation of Memory Problems
• 15. Failures of Autobiographical Remembering
• 16. Practical Aspects of Emotion and Memory
• 17. The Aging of Practical Memory: An Overview
• 18. Collaborative Memory and Aging
• 19. Study Strategies, Interest, and Learning From Text: The Application of Material Appropriate Processing
• 20. Memory Expertise
• 21. Updating the Scientific Validity of Three Key Estimator Variables in Eyewitness Testimony
• Author Index
• Subject Index