Contact: Curt A. Carlson, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX 75429,

Transcription

1 Of Course Memory is Constructive Human Memory: A Constructivist View By Mary B. Howes and Geoffrey O Shea Oxford, UK: Elsevier Inc., pp. ISBN $69.95 Reviewed by Curt A. Carlson, Alex R. Wooten, and Maria A. Carlson Contact: Curt A. Carlson, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX 75429, curt.carlson@tamuc.edu

2 Human cognition is complex, and memory is one of the most difficult aspects of cognition to describe adequately. This difficulty has led to quantitative modeling of everincreasing complexity to represent individual components of cognition, and occasionally entire architectures of cognition (e.g., Eliasmith, 2013). The authors of Human Memory: A Constructivist View take a very different approach by presenting a qualitative analysis of memory functions via personal memory anecdotes. Mary Howes and Geoffrey O Shea frame their arguments in terms of a dichotomy from the history of psychology: empiricism versus constructivism. The meaning of these two terms has changed significantly over the last few hundred years, from Locke s (17 th century) and then Kant s time (18 th century) to the 20 th century, with Bartlett, Piaget, and eventually Loftus and many others. Howes and O Shea define the empiricist view of memory as a set of assumptions that memory is essentially a good representation of reality, with minimal involvement of higher level schematic knowledge structures during encoding or retrieval processes. In contrast, the constructivist view is described as an acknowledgment that all memories, throughout encoding and retrieval processes, are constructed and reconstructed with strong influence from prior memories and knowledge. In other words, empiricists largely trust the veracity of memories whereas constructivists question the ground truth of any memory of sufficient age. Overview The intended audience for this book is advanced undergraduate and graduate students in cognitive psychology, as well as memory experts. Howes and O Shea, however, because of their extremely limited research background, cannot really be considered memory experts in the true sense of the term. This explains much of their approach to this book.

3 Traditional books about memory rely heavily on the empirical literature and are rather light on anecdotes, for good reason: empirical data obviously are much more powerful evidence of memory processes and interpretations. With that said, the extensive anecdotes presented in Human Memory: A Constructivist View based on Howes s various episodic memories are powerful in their concreteness, even if lacking in how much they actually inform the reader on the nature of memory. Her anecdotes nicely illustrate abstract concepts and phenomena, such as long-term memory links and source misattribution. Moreover, several dense, rather nebulous models of human memory (Chapter 3) are explicated well such that even lay readers will be able to understand the material. The authors even go so far as to suggest that non-experts skip Chapter 3, without harming their understanding of the rest of the book. In this way, they cater to laypeople as well as those with some cognitive science background who do not need a refresher on these various models. The figures, though too simplistic for the intended audience, are excellent for laypeople wanting to learn about some basic memory models. Critique There are several highly problematic themes throughout the book. The most egregious is that the authors repeatedly refer to the current state of the field, but rarely support their claims with recent citations. Instead, they depend almost completely on either anecdotes from personal memories or outdated research. We understand the desire to emphasize Bartlett and Piaget, because of their constructivist viewpoint, but the book borders on hero worship for these two at the expense of covering the great number of memory theorists from the second half of the 20 th century (though Endel Tulving and Elizabeth Loftus receive some attention). One result of this historical approach is that current understanding of various memory phenomena (e.g., weapon focus effect, flashbulb memories) is grossly misrepresented.

4 Less problematic, but still a hindrance for the reader, is the use of several outdated, esoteric terms that current cognitive psychologists rarely use, such as header, memory significate, and mushing. An investigation of the reference section revealed that there are almost as many citations over 50 years old (prior to 1964: 62, or 11.1 percent) as there are citations from within the last 10 years (2004 to the present: 66, or 11.8 percent). To further illustrate the extensiveness of this problem, there are almost as many citations over 100 years old (prior to 1914: 12, or 2.2 percent) as there are citations within the past five years (2009 to the present: 18, or 3.2 percent). Again, the authors make it clear throughout the book that they are intending to describe the current state of the field, not provide a historical analysis, yet they only included 18 citations of research within the past five years, for a 228-page book. A related problem is that Howes and O Shea missed a significant literature that would have strengthened their constructivist position. Evolutionary psychology, and in particular a subset of that literature on adaptive memory (Schwartz, Howe, Toglia, & Otgaar, 2014), provides a foundation for explanations of why memory is constructive/reconstructive rather than composed of carbon copies (the so-called hard-line empiricist view). Instead of bolstering their arguments with this kind of empirical evidence, Howes and O Shea depend on anecdotes and research decades old. Another theme is the portrayal of the world of cognitive psychology as composed of empiricists versus constructivists, and that the former are in the majority. No evidence is cited to support the existence of modern-day theorists of either camp, such as surveys of cognitive psychologists opinions on memory. Not only is this dichotomy a gross oversimplification of the true state of thinking in the field, but we would also argue that, on the basis of their definition of these two groups, the vast majority of present-day cognitive psychologists would fall solidly into

5 the constructivist camp. Of course memory theorists acknowledge that memory is highly constructive and reconstructive. Memories are not carbon copies of reality, and this idea, which largely corresponds with the laymen view of memory, is certainly not what current memory experts believe, as is claimed many times throughout the book. Conclusion It is difficult to determine the proper audience for this book. It does not contain a current analysis or synthesis of the field, but neither does it present a purely historical treatment, as some minimal attempt is made to include updated citations. Howes and O Shea state that the book is intended for advanced undergraduates, graduate students, and researchers in the memory field, but constant anecdotes and references to empiricists versus constructivists is just not appropriate for an audience with knowledge of the current state of cognitive psychology. Most of the book, however, is a bit too dense for the purely layperson. The figures are perfect for that audience, though. This book would have perhaps been more pertinent had it come out in the mid to late 20 th century, though simplified a bit for an intended audience of laypeople. References Eliasmith, C. (2013). How to build a brain: A neural architecture for biological cognition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schwartz, B. L., Howe, M. L., Toglia, M. P., & Otgaar, H. (2014). What is adaptive about adaptive memory? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

6 Abstract Reviews the book Human Memory: A Constructivist View, by Mary B. Howes and Geoffrey O Shea. These authors, though lacking the credentials to do so (based on extremely limited empirical research background), attempt to summarize the historical and current state of the human memory literature, with a mind toward contrasting empiricism (the belief that encoded memories represent the real world very well, with minimal interaction with knowledge structures) and constructivism (the belief that throughout encoding and retrieval processing, memories are thoroughly constructed and reconstructed on the basis of schematic knowledge). This goal is pursued primarily by means of anecdotes from the first author s personal memories. Though these are useful to a certain extent as examples of memory concepts (e.g., source misattribution), the authors go far beyond to base entire arguments on such anecdotes. They purport to present a current analysis of the cognitive literature to support their claim that constructivism is the best lens through which to view memory, but instead describe mostly outdated research as a kind of historical account of the conflict between the two theories. The intended audience for the book is advanced undergraduates and graduate students of cognitive psychology, as well as memory experts, but all of these groups would likely understand the current nature of the field much better than what is represented here. This book is best intended for laypeople or perhaps undergraduates interested in the history of memory theory, but it should not be presented as an evaluation of current thinking in the field.