How Everyday And Laboratory-Based Research Works To Ensure The Latter Is Not Sterile - Essay Example

Introduction Memory research is a study that is aimed at exploring the constructs of the brain that enable a person to remember, and draw information from previous experiences (Memory Research Unit [MRU], 2002). It makes use of a variety of techniques and methods including: laboratory-based, computer-controlled, psychophysiology, web-based, interactive techniques, and naturalistic observation (MRU, 2002).Although laboratory-based research methods guarantee precision and control, the results acquired usually fail to reflect the multitude of variables that affect memory in real life settings (this is the argument)(Minear, n.d.).(In-text citation for the remarks “how did you know that--i need some acknowledgement please...”) Everyday memory approach is a type of research method that involves the study of real-life memories of the subject’s past (McDermott,Szpunar, & Christ, 2009). It employs the use of cue words as a starting point to trigger the recall of a related memory (McDermott et al., 2009). The highlight of this method is that it involves the completion of a task that occurs naturally in the real world (Minear, n.d.). It is usually used by researchers when laboratory research “...is unrealistic, cost-prohibitive or would unduly affect the subject’s behaviour...” (Kendra, n.d.). The advantage of this method is that it permits the study of variables that cannot be manipulated in the laboratory.It strengthens the external validity of the study, and the results obtained are usually generalizable (Kalat, 2008). This technique, however, has its own set of disadvantages among which are less control over study variables, requires longer contact with subjects, as it usually takes longer for people to form a vivid picture of the events they are recalling, and the research usually takes a longer time to finish (McDermott et al., 2009). The use of everyday memory method has been met with many criticisms. Banaji and Crowder (1989) labeled it a “...superficial glitter...that should not be allowed to replace the quest for truly generalizable principles,” while Alterman (1996) found incorporating “...everyday memory to a correspondence metaphor...problematic”. Kvavilashvili and Ellis (2004) defended the said technique and asserted that everyday memory yields sound results and can be generalize as information acquired as representative of the study population. This method is also the method of choice in investigating memories influenced by emotional and reconstructive factors, such as flashbulb memories (Lanciano & Curci, 2010). Despite continuing arguments over the validity of the aforementioned method, its approach draws many researchers because it depicts real-life events and can be applied to the general population (Minear, n.d.). (for the comment “With reference of the above-paragraph is hanging. Can you complete it properly”?) In a laboratory-based method, subjects are asked to learn a list of words from which they will be tested on a few minutes later (McDermott et al, 2009). The concept behind this is that the study-list comprises a micro-event and by understanding the processes involved in recalling and recognizing the micro-events, the mechanism behind how life events are retrieved can be elucidated (McDermott et al, 2009). This method, however, may be biased since some participants aim to do well in order to impress the researcher (--the reason why the method is not sterile--because it is biased) (Kendra, n.d.). Laboratory-based memory research also “...provides a meta-theoretical, theoretical, and conceptual framework to explain educationally relevant phenomena and is designed to provide a simple, logical argument from which a valid conclusion can be drawn (Benjamin, 1990, p. 295). The advantage of this method is that it gives the researcher the power to control conditions that can affect the study as well as to standardize the methodology for future study replication (“Everyday Memory,” n.d.; Blaxter, Hughes & Tight, 2006). However, it is not sterile as it does not apply to the population in general and it does not emulate the events happening in real life (“Everyday Memory,” n.d.). (--why laboratory-based research is not sterile...) Discussion Valentine and Mesout (2008) used a laboratory-based approach to study the effects of stress on memory recall in their paper entitled, “Eyewitness Identification under Stress in the London Dungeon.” The experiment enrolled 56 participants who were visitors entering the Horror Labyrinth in the London Dungeon, and who agreed to answer a set of questionnaires 45 minutes after the tour (Valentine &Mesout, 2008). The participants were asked to complete a state anxiety questionnaire (SAI), a trait anxiety inventory (TAI), and a questionnaire that tested their memory, for both free and cued recall of the ‘scary person’ who they encountered in the labyrinth (Valentine &Mesout, 2008). Independent variables of the study included the participant’s gender, as well as their SAI and TAI scores while the dependent variable was the number of correct descriptors answered by the participant based on free and cued recall (Valentine&Mesout, 2008). Of the 28 participants classified under the ‘low anxiety state’ based on the SAI scores, 21 were correct in identifying the ‘scary person’ while 6 were incorrect, and 1 failed to identify that same person. In contrast, 5 of the 28 participants who were classified under the ‘high anxiety state’ according to the SAI scores correctly identified the ‘scary person’ while 15 gave incorrect identification, and 8 were unable to identify that same person. The results led the proponents to conclude that participants, who were more anxious, were more likely to report more incorrect descriptors than those who were less anxious (Valentine &Mesout, 2008). In addition, more females were classified under ‘high state anxiety’ showing that females were more prone to becoming anxious when faced with stressful conditions than males (Valentine &Mesout, 2008).(--I did not change anything here because this is just a summary of a current laboratory-based study that is to be used to highlight that laboratory-based research is not sterile) In the study, the memory component under investigation was that of the working memory. The underlying biologic process of stress, however, was not considered as one of the variables as this is important in explaining how a cause led to a certain effect. (--critic to the study) In brief, working memory refers to a neurologic process that affords temporary storage and controls of information that can be utilized for complex cognitive tasks such as understanding language, learning, and reasoning (Baddeley, 1992). Brain functions that require the use of working memory include high-order thinking skills such as language usageand executive functions such as planning, monitoring, contemplating, as well as adjusting thoughts and behaviors (Birnbaum et al., 2004). These processes can be localized in a certain area of the brain called the prefrontal cortex (Birnbaum et al., 2004). In a study by Birnbaum et al. (2004), it was found out that neurons in the prefrontal cortex were sensitive to an intracellular signaling enzyme called protein kinase C. Norepinephrine, a substance released during stress, is a known activator of protein kinase C (Birnbaum et al., 2004). Birnbaum’s study establishes a link between biology and stress that creates a world of doubt on the purpose, and on the conclusion drawn by Valentine and Mesout’s experiment; as they did not consider the physiologic process that accompany stress, as well as its effect on the different body systems. (--critic to the cited study) Working memory, as well as other cognitive processes, can be explained biologically by tracing the events that led to a cognitive function in the laboratory. However, the different factors that molded the brain and influenced the way it works at present cannot be covered by the strict conditions in a laboratory-based research. Klein and Boals (2001) found out that people who experienced more “...life event stress...” scored lower in the operation span task by Turner and Engle (1989). However, Lewis, Nikolova, Chang, and Weekes (2008) asserted that stress does not decrease working memory; in fact, it causes an increase in the manipulation component of working memory. According to the Processing Efficiency Theory proposed by Eysenck andCalvo (1992), stress heightens the mental processes designed to increase the quality with which a task is performed. However, stress also reduces the efficiency with which person stores and processes information regarding a concomitant task in the working memory stores (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992). Carl Rogers asserted that cognitive psychology (laboratory-based memory research) has low ecological validity and fabricates an artificial environmentdue tothe rigid control imposed on its variables (as cited in S. McLeod, 2007). B.F. Skinner further asserted that the concern of cognitive psychologists in the processes governing the stimulus-behavioral-response is unscientific, as this cannot be measured and therefore does not exist (as cited in S. McLeod, 2007). Laboratory-based research detaches memory from the emotional aspects associated with it. Although the human brain has been frequently likened to that of a computer, the latter, however, cannot perceive the emotions that people feel. According to Lanciano and Curci (2011), the stronger the association of an emotion to a particular event was, the more vivid the event was recalled. An emotional event strengthens the attention focus to its details that tends to fade over time and as the emotion fades, the event details become less vivid (Lanciano&Curci, 2011). In addition to the aforementioned variables not covered in a laboratory-based research, individual differences in cognitive functioning also exist and these create a problem with regard to the generalizability of the conclusion drawn. According to Danemanand Carpenter (1980), individual differences, like for example in reading comprehension, mirror differences in working memory especially in its processing and storage functions. MacLeod (1979) identified the following as sources of individual differences that can affect a person’s memory: attention, short-term storage capacity, short-term storage search, cognitive processes in short-term storage, episodic long-term storage, and semantic long-term storage. According to Matsukara (2007), attention can aid in “...selectively encoding items into visual memory,” as well as affects items already stored in visual memory. In a study conducted by Rajaram, Srinivas, and Travers (2001), it was found out that undivided attention enhances memory performance in an explicit stem cued recall test. Haarmann (2003) found out that there is a significant difference in the volume of semantic short-term memory that individuals can store. In addition, Jarrold and Towse (2006) concluded that the individual capacity to store and recall information is dependent on the efficiency with which individuals processed (i.e. read and understood) the words. Different people are constructed differently, and therefore treat cognitive information differently. According to Kirchhoff (2009), the ability to create and recall episodic memories vary widely since brain activity differs among individuals during encoding and retrieving information which in itself is the essence of, and the reason for the difference in memory performance. This explains why Albert Einstein did better than his contemporaries or why Kim Ung-Yong’s IQ of 210 is the highest one recorded so far (Takroori, 2010). All these are testament to the fact that brain power differs among individuals. Conclusion Memory is a multivariate concept that is affected not only by a single variable, but by a multitude of factors that can have a profound of an effect as the variable manipulated in the laboratory. Variables such as developmental factors that contribute to a well developed brain structure and a keen memory, emotional factors that contribute to the detailed reminiscence of a certain event, as well as individual differences in memory perception and storage, have an impact and a profound effect on a person’s memory. All these differences in cognitive processing cannot be addressed in a laboratory-based memory research. The aim of this type of study is merely to comprehend the underlying processes of memory and to later add the social and visuospatial factors that accompany it (McDermott, 2009). The controlled environment in the laboratory creates an ideal setting that in reality does not exist (Cohen & Conway, 2008). It manipulates and excludes some of the variables in order to obtain an accurate data. (--justification for the conclusion and claim that laboratory-based research is not sterile.) Although the underlying processes of retrieving data from memory can be traced experimentally, the uniqueness of every individual, the many factors affecting perception and behavior, as well as the variability of cognitive functioning, may pose a problem to the sterility as well as the generalizability of the conclusion drawn from the experiment. References Alterman, R. (1996). Everyday memory and activity.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 189-190. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory.Science, 255 (5044), 556-559. Banaji, M., & Crowder, R. (1989).The bankruptcy of everyday memory.American Psychologist, 44 (9), 1185-1193. Benjamin, M. (1990). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: Exploring mutual benefits to memory research and the educational setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 295-320. Birnbaum, S., Yuan, P., Wang, M., Vijayraghavan, S., Bloom, A., Davis, D., ...Arnsten, F. (2004). Stress interferes with working memory. The Signal Transduction Knowledge Environment, 2004 (257), tw396. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2006).How to research (3rd ed.). England: McGraw-Hill. Cohen, G., & Conway, M. (2008).Memory in the real world (3rded.). USA: Psychology Press. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual difference in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450-466. Everyday Memory.(n.d.).In Medicine Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://medicine.jrank.org/pages/1136/Memory-Everyday.html Eysenck, M., &Calvo, M. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Journal of Cognition and Emotion, 6 (6), 409-434. Haarmann, H. (2003). Individual differences in semantic short-term memory capacity and reading comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 320-345. Jarrold, C., &Towse, J. (2006). Individualdifferencesinworkingmemory. Neuroscience, 139, 39-50. Kalat, J. (2008). Introduction to Psychology. USA: WadsworthCengage Learning. Kendra, C. (n.d.). What is naturalistic observation? Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/naturalistic.htm Kirchhoff, B. (2009). Individualdifferencesinepisodicmemory: Theroleofself-initiated encodingstrategies. TheNeuroscientist, 15 (2), 166-179. Klein, K., & Boals, A. (2001).The relationship of life event stress and working memory capacity.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15 (5), 565-579. Kvavilashvili, L., &Ellis, J. (2004). Ecologicalvalidityandtwentyyearsof real-life/laboratorycontroversyinmemoryresearch: Acritical (andhistorical) review. HistoryandPhilosophyofPsychology, 6, 59-80. Lanciano, T., &Curci, A. (2010). The emotional and reconstructive determinants of emotional memories: An experimental approach to flashbulb memory investigation. Memory, 18 (5), 473-485. Lanciano, T., &Curci, A. (2011). Memory for emotional events: The accuracy of central and peripheral details. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 7 (2), 323-336. Lewis, R., Nikolova, A., Chang, D., & Weekes, N. (2008).Examination stress and components of working memory.Stress, 11 (2), 108-114. MacLeod, C. (1979). Individualdifferencesinlearningandmemory: Aunitary informationprocessingapproach. JournalofResearchinPersonality, 13, 530-545. McLeod, S. (2007).Cognitive Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive.html Matsukura, M. (2007). Attention effects during visual short-term memory maintenance: Protection or prioritization? Perception and Psychophysics, 69 (8), 1422-1434. McDermott, K., Szpunar, K., & Christ, S. (2009). Laboratory-based and autobiographical retrieval tasks differ substantially in their neural substrates. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2290-2298. Memory Research Unit. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/mru/index.html Minear, D. (n.d.). Memory, everyday. Retrieved from http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eoa_03/eoa_03_00260.html Rajaram, S., Srinivas, K., & Travers, S. (2001). The effects of attention on perceptual implicit memory. Memory and Cognition, 29 (7), 920-930. Takroori, Q. (2010). The world’s top 8 smartest people. Retrieved from http://palscience.com/science/the-worlds-top-8-smartest-people/ Valentine, T., &Mesout, J. (2008). Eyewitness Identification Under Stress in the London Dungeon. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23 (2), 151-161. Read More