MEMORY
What does it mean to “remember” something? Psychologists
who study memory have developed several approaches for thinking about the
workings of the human memory system. Despite numerous views on how memory
works, a common feature of most models is that memory is a “constructive”
rather than a reproductive enterprise. That is, memories are not simply
passively recorded by our senses, then stored in their natural form in a brain
bin that preserves their initial quality; not are memories mechanically accessed
in their original state at the time of remembering. Rather, because of the
constructive nature of memory, reports may be inaccurate because of a number of
factors that intrude at the time of the initial recording (encoding) of the
event, during the storage of the event, or at the time of the retrieval of the
event.
One of the primary factors that affects the quality of
memories is our previous knowledge, our assumptions, and our biases about the
world. The classic demonstration of this relationship was provided over 60
years ago by Sir Frederick Bartlett of Cambridge University. He demonstrated
that when individuals are asked to remember interesting but unusual episodes,
they often refashion these so that they make sense to them, given their values
and expectations (Bartlett, 1932). For example, adults read a story about North
American Indians called “War of the Ghosts” and then were asked to recall the
story several times. Bartlett’s European subjects changed certain features of
the passage that were inconsistent with their prior expectations and
understanding. For example, his subjects omitted a supernatural aspect of the
story, and recalled canoes as boats. Bartlett’s study, and hundreds of
demonstrations since then, showed that what one remembers is in part influenced
by one’s emotional as well as cognitive perspective of the event. Thus, current
conceptualizations of memory underscore the fact that it does not resemble a
tape recorder or camera—devices that store and retrieve information
veridically. Instead, our memory system is an active part of a larger cognitive
and social system that constantly interacts with what we know and expect. As
long as experiences are in accord with our expectations, there is usually no
problem. But when there is a mismatch between what we expect and what we
actually experience, it is not uncommon for this to be resolved by the former
intruding into our recollection of the latter.
The likelihood that we can remember an event from our
past depends on the skill with which we execute a complex set of processes,
initially during the event in question, then later at the time of its
retrieval. Psychologists who study human memory usually discuss these processes
in terms of a flow of information from one stage of the memory system to
another. The three main stages of the system are encoding, storge, and retrieval.
These are briefly described below. For a more detailed view, the reader should
consult any one of a number of excellent treatises on the human memory system
(e.g., Baddeley, 1990; Klatzky, 1980; Schneider & Pressley, 1989;
Zechmeister & Nyberg, 1982).
Encoding
The first phase of the memory system is called encoding.
This refers to the process by which a trace of an experience becomes registered
in memory. There is selectivity in what gets encoded into the storage system in
the first place. In part, this selectivity reflects the limited attentional
resources of the human organism; we cannot attend to everything at one time,
and as a result, she may have no attentional capacity left over to attend to
peripheral information such as what songs were played on the radio or what
signs were posted along the side of the road. Thus, not everything that is “out
there” gets attended to. And nothing gets stored in permanent memory unless it
is first attended to.
There are a number of factors that can potentially
influence what enters the memory system, and these same factors may also
influence how strongly a trace becomes encoded. These include the amount of
prior knowledge about the events (usually, the more knowledge the more easily
events are encoded), the interest value or salience of the events, the duration
and repetition of the original event, and the stress level at the time of
encoding the original event . . .
Storage
In the second phase of the memory system, encoded events
enter a short-term memory store. Not all the memories survive the short- term
memory’s limited storage capacity, but those that do survive enter a long-term
memory store. At one time, this stage was assumed to be passive; the contents
of an encoded event were thought to be dormant in storage until such time as
they were retrieved. This view is almost surely wrong, and we now have some
good evidence that encoded information can be transformed, fortified, or lost
while it resides in storage (Brainerd, Reynard, Howe, & Kingma, 1990).
The passage of time, the number of times that the event
has been re-experienced, and the number and types of intervening experiences,
which have also become encoded and stored, can have a strong impact on the
strength and organization of the stored information. Thus, memories can
increase or decrease in strength as a function of how long they have been
stored (usually shorter delays result in better recall) and of the number of
times that the original event has been recalled (in some cases, repeated recall
strengthens the memory; at other times it weakens it). It is also true that
knowledge and expectancies can change the composition of memory during the
storage phase, thus transforming the trace to make it more consistent with
one’s attitudes and expectations. Finally, intervening experiences may at times
serve to solidify the initial memory (when these are congruent with the initial
trace); at other times these experiences may compete with and interfere with
the stored memory if they are inconsistent with the original encoded event.
There have been challenges to some of these general
claims. Of importance for our topic is the claim that certain types of
memories, specifically those of emotionally arousing events, are not subject to
many of the general principles just cited. Some argue that these memories are
highly resistant to decay, whereas others argue that there may be repression of
memories that are terrifying. . . .
Retrieval
The final step in remembering involves the retrieval of
stored information. It is not necessarily the case that there is perfect
retrieval of stored memories. In fact, there are times when the contents of the
memory system are simply not retrievable. A variety of cognitive as well as
social factors influence the retrievability of stored memories, although the
nature of their influences is not static: Some of these factors at times
enhance recall, whereas at other times the same factors may decrease the accuracy
of the recall. We will now consider some of these factors.
The condition of the original memory trace is important;
traces that have undergone some decay will be harder to retrieve than those
that retain their original strength. In some cases, retrieval of a memory may
be facilitated when the conditions for retrieval parallel those of encoding.
One of the better examples of this principle is provided by Godden and
Baddeley’s study of state-dependent learning (1975). Deep-sea divers were asked
to learn (encode) lists of words while they were beneath the sea. Their later
retrieval of those words was better when they were beneath the sea compared
with when they were on land. In recent replications of this work, it has been
shown that divers retrieve lists encoded on dry land better when they are put
back on dry land, and they retrieve lists encoded under water better when they
are put back under water (Martin & Aggleton, 1993).
An extension of this finding is that when an interviewer
provides cues that may reinstate the encoding context, accuracy of recall
improves. There are various types of cues that can be given. Some involve
reminding the subject about parts of the actual event, whereas other types of
cues may involve inducing emotional or cognitive states at retrieval that match
those present at the time of encoding. Although these techniques may facilitate
the recall of actually experienced events, they may promote false recall if an
event was never experienced . . .
There are also may constructive factors that enter into
the retrieval stage. For example, when asked to recall a faded event, we may
use our knowledge about what “typically” happens to fill gaps in our memory. A
more specific term for this phenomenon is script-based knowledge, which
refers to our expectations and predictions of how events in the world are
sequenced and related to each other. According to Hastie (1981), “The
memorability of an event increases when the event is relevant to expectations and
beliefs about hat event.” But . . .the relationship between script-based knowledge
and retrieval is not straightforward. If an event is highly congruent with our
script-based knowledge, then it is likely to be retrieved. However, if an event
is highly incongruent with our script-based knowledge, it is also likely to be retrieved—presumably
because of its bizarreness.
Finally, there are a number of higher-level (consciously
deployed) factors that influence how well children and adults can recall
events. These include a number of intuitively obvious factors as the degree to
which the individual is motivated to retrieve old memories, the degree to which
the individual wishes to cooperate with the examiner, and the degree to which a
person understands what is important to recall. (Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie
Bruck, Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s
Testimony [Washington D. C.: American Psychological Association, 1995],
40-44)
Further Reading:
Steven C. Harper, First
Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2019)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com