The bankruptcy of everyday memory.

Abstract

A new approach to the study of memory has emerged recently, characterized by a preoccupation with natural settings and with the immediate applicability of research findings. In contrast, the laboratory study of memory relies on experimental techniques for theory testing and is concerned with the discovery of generalizable principles. Although both approaches share the goal of generalizability, they differ sharply in the evaluation of how that goal is best accomplished. In this article, we criticize the everyday memory approach, arguing that ecologically valid methods do not ensure generalizibility of findings. We discuss studies high in ecological validity of method but low in generalizibility, and others low in ecological validity of method but high in generalizibility. We solidly endorse the latter approach, believing that an obsession with ecological validity of method can compromise genuine accomplishments.