Concepedia

Abstract

Some twenty years ago, Carmichael, Hogan, and Walter published a study on memory for figures which was especially interesting because it threw light on a controversy that was started by Wulf's report of systematic changes in memory traces.1 Carmichael and his associates showed simple line drawings to their Ss with a spoken name for each drawing, each of two groups being given a different name for the same figures.2 When S was then asked to draw what he had seen, comparison proved that the reproductions had been selectively influenced by the different labels. This result made plausible the suggestion, if it did not confirm it, that assimilation of one memory to another, or to an archetype, might be a fairly simple associative matter.