Course: Advanced Topics in Memory Code: 6PSY0045.

Course: Advanced Topics in Memory

Code: 6PSY0045

Overview of Lecture 2

1. Historical background preceding a real-life/ laboratory controversy

2. Key issues involved in this controversyA concept of Ecological Validity

3. Key issues involved in this controversy Examine whether lab results generalise to everyday life

Sir Frances Galton (1822-1911)Publication on mental associations in 1879

Precursor of everyday memory researchalmost 100 years earlier

History of Memory Research

Hermann von Ebbinghaus (1850-1909)

Book “Über das Gedächtnis” (in 1885)

Instigated traditional laboratory research

Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? Paper presented at the 1st Practical Aspects of Memory Conference, Cardiff (U.K.)in M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory. New York: Academic Press.

Banaji, M.R. & Crowder, R. (1989). The bankruptcy of everyday memory. American Psychologist, 44, 1185-1193.

Reasons behind these debates? 1 . Lack of attention devoted to the central concept of the debate - the nature and characteristics of the concept of ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

3. That two approaches are fundamentally different (aims, methods, relation to theory)

2. Implicit assumption that lab results do not generalise to everyday life

DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Ecological Validity refers to an extent to which

(i) a phenomenon can be investigated in a form and in a context that corresponds to its occurrence in everyday life (representativeness aspect)

(ii) the results of a particular study are able to explain (other) similar processes or tasks in everyday life (generalizability aspect)

ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Representativeness - NOGeneralisability - YESEbbinghaus (1985) - savings in re-learningNelson (1978)Bathrick and Phelps (1988)

Jost (1897) - superiority of distributed practice over massed practice(Rea & Modigliani, 1985) - spelling lists and multiplication (Smith & Rothkopf, 1984) - lectures on statistics

In retrospect, Ebbinghaus and Jost’s studies appear to be no less ecologically valid than subsequent studies conducted on highly representative materials and/or settings.

CONCLUSIONS 1

1. Which is more important for ecological validity: Generalisability or representativeness?

Generalisability

2. Is there any difference in the concept of generalisability within the concepts of external validity and ecological validity? Fairly subtle difference

Ecological Validity: Conclusions 2

The present conceptualisation of ecological validity avoids the potential error of automatically classifying all research conducted in the real-world as ecologically valid and all traditional laboratory studies as ecologically invalid.

Studies showing generalisable findings across two contexts

1. Ihlebak, C., Løve, T., Eilertsen, D.E., & Magnussen, S. (2003). Memory for a staged criminal event witnessed live and on video. Memory, 11, 319-327.

2. McVay, Kane, M. & Kwapil, (2009). Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 857-863.

3. Anderson, C.A., Lindsay, J. J. & Bushman, B.J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality?

These papers are available on StudyNet (folder forLecture 2) as additional recommended reading

Ecological movement in early 1980's was greatly encouraged by the findings obtained outside laboratory which did not replicate results obtained in the lab Discrepancies between the laboratory and field studies can often be due to one's inability to take into account some confounding variables present in one context but not in the other

E.g., Parrot & Sabini (1990). Mood incongruency effect

Koriat & Goldsmith (1996) Recall-Recognition Paradox

Does this contradict with Neisser’s claims?

Role of confounding variables? Koriat & Goldsmith (1996)

– Recall-recognition paradox where recall is better than recognition in naturalistic studies and recognition is better than recall in the lab

– Lab results: memory quantity, i.e. total number or percentage of correctly recalled items

– Naturalistic: memory accuracy, i.e., percentage of correct recall/recognition out of total number of items produced or identified

– Koriat & Goldsmith replicated superior recall in the lab looking at accuracy

Summary of Lecture 2

Heated debates due to

– Lack of clarity in the concept of Ecological Validity

– Assumption that lab results do not generalise to everyday life

• Considered examples that dispels this “myth”• Role of confounding variables

– Assumption that two approaches are fundamentally different (aims, methods, relation to theorising)

• To be discussed in Lecture 3

Aims of Lecture 3

To examine the relationship between ecological and traditional approaches to memory research

Are these two approaches fundamentally different (aims, methods, relation to theorising)?

Brief review of the methods used in ecological and traditional approaches Current status of this controversy?

Relationship between two approaches

Difference between the two approaches is mainly methodological:

Traditional approach - Experimental Ecological approach - Non- experimental

Results of recent meta-analysis of traditional and ecological studies revealed an interesting paradox:

Although many researchers advocate the necessity of using naturalistic methods in reality most of the research in both camps is still conducted in the laboratory.

METHODS of MEMORY RESEARCH

What are the methods used inmemory research?

COMPULSORY READING for LECTURE 2Kvavilashvili & Ellis (1999). Methods used in everyday memory research: A brief review ” - On StudyNet in the folder for Lecture 3 AVAILABLE ON STUDYNET


(1) Observation

(2) Self-reports, Questionnaires, and Structured Interviews

(3) Diaries

(4) Experiments (laboratory and field)


(1) Observation

As a technique - in many studies As a design - used infrequently

Restrictions of observation as a design

Observational methods in Coolican, H. (1992). Research methods and statistics in psychology. London: Hodder & Stoughton


(2) Self-reports, Questionnaires, and Structured Interviews - based on introspection and/or self-reports

Debates about the validity of self-reports at the end of 1970's• Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than you can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259• Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251. Summarised in Cohen, G. (1996). Memory in the real world. Hove: Psychology Press. Chapter 1.


(2) Memory Questionnaires

AIMS: To ascertain how memory operates in people's everyday lives.MEANS: Asking people to evaluate their memory performance on the basis of repeated experience with everyday memory tasks. 5- or 7- point rating scales with end-points "very good" and "very poor" or "never" and "very often" or "always".CONTENTS: Questions asked about memory are for Names, faces, poems, songs, geographical layouts, stories and jokes, etc. Or keeping appointments, passing on messages, misplacing things



Herrmann (1984) - Metamemory Questionnaires (MMQs) from Memory Questionnaires (MQs)

MQs test how good one's memory is for factual information, e.g., historical events, names of celebrities, TV shows, salient events, etc.

MMQs assess the degree of subjects' belief in how good their memory is in a variety of everyday situations.

METAMEMORY - awareness or knowledge about one's own memory functioning (Flavell & Wellman, 1977).



Critique of MMQs : (Morris, 1984)

In order to answer questions participants must (1) have initially experienced an appropriate memory failure; (2) realized that the memory lapse had occurred; (3) be able to remember this particular failure when asked about it; and (4) estimate correctly the magnitude or the frequency of this failure. Errors may occur on all these successive stages



(1) have initially experienced an appropriate memory failure;

Difficulty in choosing the appropriate question

Specific: Do you fail to notice the signposts on the road? Do you forget names when introducing people to each other?

General: How often do you misplace things? Do you think you can't think of anything to say?



(2) Realisation that the memory lapse has occurred What counts as an error for one person does not for another person, e.g., remembering telephone numbers

(3) Be able to remember this particular failure when asked about it

Metamemory ParadoxRare memory failures may be reported as occurring more frequently than they actually do Another complication – some people use memory aids



(4) Estimate correctly the magnitude or the frequency of this failure.

(a) restricted range of points even on a 7-point scale

–1––––––2–––––––3–––––––4–––––––5––––––6–––––––7–– Never Once in Now & About Often Very Always a while then half the often time(b) ambiguity about what is meant by 'often' or 'sometimes'(c) difficulty of validating these ratings with objective data


In defence of MMQs : (Morris, 1984)

(1) The same criticisms may be applied to the use and interpretation of many well-established questionnaires used in clinical, organisational, social and personality research.

(2) some of the criticisms may be ameliorated by carefully choosing the questions that apply to the majority of the tested samples and using more refined rating scales.


Additional Criticism- MMQs: Low validity

Low correlations (from .3 to .4) between MMQ scores and scores on laboratory tests of memory. Shletcher et al. 1982 - Short Inventory of Memory Experiences (SIME) Face Recognition r= .30 Forgetting Phone Numbers & Digit Span scores r = .40

Possible Reasons: (i) Inadequate design of a MMQ (ii) Inadequate self-knowledge of people for their memory abilities.Schletcher & Herrman (1981)


Advantages of MMQs:

(a) A source of rich data on wide variety of memory tasks that are difficult to simulate in the laboratory.

(b) Helps to identify areas of memory functioning that have been neglected in laboratory research

(c) Importance for applied settings, e.g., assessing and evaluating the outcome of memory rehabilitation programmes in patients with brain injury

Advantages of MMQs (cont.):

(d) Important conclusion drawn from MMQ data: People’s memories are not entirely "good" or "bad”

Herrmann and Neisser's (1978) - 8 factors rote memory, retrieval failures, absentmindedness, memory for names, people, conversations, places and errands.Sehulster (1988) - 3 factors memory for verbal information memory for personal experiences memory for actions, plans and intentions

Interesting point - (Underwood et al., 1978) Separate factors for free recall, cued recall, digit span and verbal discrimination.


(3) Diaries

Participants are provided with structured diary booklets in which they have to record (using specific scales or questions) every time they experience a certain memory process/phenomenonLimitations:

Passive form of data collection, lack of control on extraneous variablesInconvenience of carrying a diarySelf-selection, i.e., willingness to keep a diary is related to the subjects' educational level (Carp & Carp, 1981)


(3) Diaries

Advantages Obtained data is much more reliable than those obtained in the questionnaire studies (e.g., no heavy demands on memory like in MMQs)

Allows to investigate processes and phenomena which are very difficult or impossible to induce in laboratory conditions (particularly those that are not under direct control of participants, e.g., involuntary autobiographical memories, slips of action etc.)

(3) Diaries (continued)

Particularly popular in early stages of everyday memory research

Aimed to ascertain an overall picture of memory functioning in general

Prospective memory - (Crovitz & Daniel, 1984; West, 1984; Terry, 1988).Tip-of-the-tongue State (Reason & Lucas, 1984; Burke et al., 1991)Autobiographical memory studies The first stage - a diary study The second stage - an experiment (Barclay & DeCook, 1988; Brewer, 1988; Conway et al. 1996)


(4) Experiments

Field vs. Lab Experiments

FIELD EXPERIMENTS

Rationale behind introducing the field experiment

(a) Artificiality of experimental situation in the lab(b) Some memory phenomena are very difficult, sometimes even impossible, to model in the laboratory (E.g., PM)

Types of Field Experiment (a) Artificial Field Experiment (artificial tasks and the participant knows what phenomenon is investigated) (b) Natural Field Experiment

Disadvantages : Lack of control and thus lack of INTERNAL VALIDITY

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS

Most Frequently used method

Advantages(i) Allows the manipulation of IVs and recording the effect of this manipulation on DVs(ii) Controls for extraneous, confounding variables via counterbalancing, randomisation, etc.

QUESTION - Does a typical laboratory experiment in everyday memory research differ substantially from one conducted within traditional approach?

4 TYPES of EXPERIMENTS

4 TYPES of EXPERIMENTS

Differences

1. Within traditional approach more type 1 experiments are conducted and within everyday approach more type 2 experiments are conducted

2. In traditional approach, encoding and retrieval stages are examined within a single experimental session. In everyday memory studies there may be a considerable time intervals between an encoding and retrieval phase, and psychologists may use different tools of data collection at these stages.

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

The real-life/laboratory controversy was driven by an implicit assumption that there were some crucial differences between ecological and traditional approaches but memory psychologists have repeatedly failed to identify a clear set of variables that would distinguish them from each other.

Current status of Controversy

Contemporary research practices in memory appear to lie on a continuum: only the end points of which correspond to the ecological and traditional approaches in the "pure" form.

Most of the current research strives towards the middle section of this continuum.

Current status of Controversy

Is the controversy over?

Possibly, but…

Kingstone, A., Smilek, D. & Eastwood, J. D. (2008).Cognitive ethology: A new approach. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 317-340.

Questions to think about for exam preparation

Course: Advanced Topics in Memory Code: 6PSY0045.

Documents

Transcript of Course: Advanced Topics in Memory Code: 6PSY0045.