Much of the traditional laboratory research on memory conducted in the past century has followed Ebbinghaus (1895) in using tightly controlled experiments that facilitate the quantification of memory (see Baddeley, 1990; Schacter, 1989). This tradition has been strongly criticized in the past two decades, however, most notably by Neisser (1978), who provocatively dismissed the laboratory research of the past 100 years as largely worthless for answering "the important questions about memory," and called for a shift to the "realistic" study of memory. Since Neisser's call, there has been a growing number of studies on such varied topics as autobiographical memory, eyewitness testimony, prospective memory, "flashbulb" memory, memory for action, memory for faces, memory for places, etc. (see, e.g., Cohen, 1989; This new wave of everyday memory research has resulted in a proliferation of research methods that are quite removed from those traditionally employed in the laboratory.

The rift between proponents of naturalistic and laboratory memory research, as well as efforts at reconciliation, may be seen in the lively debate) sparked by Banaji and Crowder's (1989) paper. It is apparent from the commentaries that "everyday memory" is an ill-defined category (Klatzky, 1991), and that the dimensions of the controversy are not simple to specify. In general, the battles appear to be raging on three distinct fronts: what memory phenomena should be studied, how they should be studied, and where.

For some researchers the major issue seems to involve the content ("what") of memory research. This is reflected, for example, in the title of Neisser's (1978) leading paper, "Memory: What are the important questions." Thus, everyday memory research has been characterized by its attempt to understand "the sorts of things people do every day" (Neisser, 1991, p. 35), by its choice of topics having "obvious relevance to daily life" (Klatzky, 1991, p. 43), and in particular, by its concern with the practical applications of memory research (e.g., Gruneberg & Morris, 1992). This is in contrast to the alleged irrelevance of traditional memory research, which has "chiefly focused on explicit recognition or recall of isolated items from lists" (Neisser, 1991, p. 35; but see Roediger, 1991).

Join now!

Other discussions have treated the controversy as being over the proper research policy (the "how" question), that is, about "the most valuable ways of gaining knowledge and understanding about memory" (Loftus, 1991, p. 16; see Banaji & Crowder, 1989; Tulving, 1991). Proponents of the naturalistic study of memory have questioned the ecological validity of much laboratory experimentation (e.g., Aanstoos, 1991), whereas laboratory proponents have stressed the importance of experimental control and generalizability of results. Banaji and Crowder (1989), for instance, argue that because naturalistic research methods often lack experimental control, the "ecological validity of the methods as such is unimportant ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Summary The writer could improve upon this work if they used their own words throughout the essay. Quotes are fine but are not to be over used. Also, by explaining research on memory in the writer's own words it becomes clear that they really understand what they are writing about. Because of the over use of quotes and the copying of chunks of the authors' work, the essay will have to be marked down. The writer, however, appears to have got the gist of the research argument and so a simplification of the writing would improve the score. 3 *