Together with surveys and text-based qualitative methodologies, experimentation forms a trinity of popular research approaches in psychology. The mechanism of experimentation is relatively simple for understanding and application. Firstly, a researcher predicts the relationship between two or more important factors that may affect a real-life situation. Once the prediction stage is over, a researcher conducts operationalization by turning the factors into measurable variables. At this point, they may design a special set-up for measuring the predicted relationship. For instance, a set-up may examine how the volume of sound relates to the perceived loudness of that sound.
In this example, the sound volume is operationalized objectively in decibels, whereas perceived loudness is operationalized via subjective detection thresholds. Likewise, experimentation can serve as a methodology for understanding how human memory works in real-world scenarios. However, successful experimentation for this purpose would require careful preparation, especially at the stages of variable operationalization and data analysis. This paper examines evidence from real-life memory studies to support that fundamental idea. In particular, memory experiments were critically evaluated in order to highlight the shortcomings of the pure laboratory approach and demonstrate solution for making experimentation applicable to real-world settings.
Studying human memory with experiments is more complicated than analyzing basic perceptions of reality. Physical stimuli (loudness of sound or brightness of light) are easier to understand because they have measurement standards. Memory falls into a different category of cognitive perception, so additional tools are needed to measure and operationalize variables. Anzures et al. (2014) assessed children’s memory of the faces of young adults of different races (cited in Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016, p. 110). The experiment did not yield positive results because other appearance parameters essential to remember in real life were not used (Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016).
This approach to studying memory is irrelevant because it does not account for the diversity of memory benchmarks. Using such an experiment will not reveal why memory is selective in remembering a race or a particular appearance. This experiment is not relevant and correct because it has many limitations and cannot be applied to real-world conditions. A narrow perception of appearance results in memory as a cognitive perception not being considered. Consequently, psychological experiments to determine memory benchmarks require using divergent variables rather than a single standardization.
The process of data collection and analysis is an additional stumbling block in experimental studies of the properties and features of memory under real-world conditions. Using one type of quantitative data allows for the standardization of the experiment to facilitate the interpretation of the results. Thirkettle and Stenner (2016) point out that time and distance are different categories of variables, and combining them will not lead to understanding the results. Anzures et al.’s (2014) experiment confirm that scoring for memorization across age groups is meaningless (cited in Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016, p. 112).
Harrison, Ness, and Pike (2016) suggest that this is because memory does not work to a uniform standard in real-world settings. This study should be evaluated with a low level of evidence because there is no ontological relationship between the variables. Natural factors are not perceived, and experiments do not carry key information about how memory works. The actual conditions may affect the memory process, and the use of standardization is not justified. These data confirm that without multivariate analysis, it is impossible to determine the order in which information is perceived and remembered.
Experimental research has advantages over theoretical research because it has solid ontological attributes. According to Thirkettle and Stenner (2016), any experiment is based on positivist philosophy that incorporates four fundamental tenets of determinism, generality, empiricism, and parsimony. Experiments in memory research answer questions about the relationship between factors and consequences: for example, whether accompaniment with sound will help a person’s face be remembered. The experimental approach is more evidence-based and more likely to produce positive results. For memory, the construction of experiments is related to how different variables (stimuli) affect remembering (response to stimuli). This approach is acceptable for research because it allows for a comprehensive study of memory.
Experimentation as applied research is highly valued because it establishes how response systems work under different conditions. Aspects of experimentation must continue to be explored to establish whether memory is a response system or a different cognitive mechanism. Consequently, experimentation as a type of research is the most convenient tool for analyzing memory and its capabilities, allowing for establishing the typical patterns of its operation outside laboratory settings.
An experiment is a reproduction of an actual situation under artificially created conditions, which can be challenging to achieve for memory research. Some experiments are unsuitable for memory research for this reason because they cannot be applied to real-life conditions. Anzures et al. (2014) used inappropriate research tools because they had no connection to reality (cited in Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016, p. 114). The artificial stimuli dominated the actual memory conditions, making the findings irrelevant. The experiment was far from using memory for face recognition in a real-world setting (Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016).
One can evaluate that experiments contribute negatively to perceptions of memory if they do not use real-world attainable research conditions. In the absence of accurate data and simulations of real-world conditions, the results of experiments will harm the evidence base about memory performance. The contribution of research will be limited, so the use of experimental work should be treated with caution. Thus, laboratory experiments must be structured with ecological validity and relevance to environmental conditions for the results to be relevant.
Environmental validity as a phenomenon refers to the applicability of an experiment to real-world environmental conditions. Ness, Kaye, and Stenner (2016) establish that it means approximating laboratory variables to actual environmental circumstances concerning memory. Simulation within an experiment must be possible in life; otherwise, the experiment will not be valid. Therefore, an ORE experiment by Anzures et al. (2014) has relatively low ecological validity since it ignores such real-life variables as hair and clothing cues (cited in Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016, p. 114).
Despite this, the idea of the experiment is not harmful, and its validity can be increased after revising the test conditions. Simulation of the natural world can be achieved with improved computer simulation, providing a high degree of kinship between the laboratory and life. For example, correct face recognition depends on memory and is vital for the criminal justice system’s effectiveness. According to Lindsay et al. (1989), accurate eyewitnesses are believed about 68% of the time compared to 70% for inaccurate witnesses (cited in Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016, p. 128). Consequently, high ecological validity makes the experiment a reliable data source on memory mechanisms.
Finally, the rationale for the conditions of experimental activity, the results of which are complementary to reality, must be taken into account. The experiment ceases to be valid without a proper connection to reality because it cannot be applied to reality. A pure laboratory experiment limits the practical approach to memory research. Havard and Memon (2013) created realistic research conditions by adding three conditions to the standard design (cited in Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016, p. 136).
The researchers conducted only one trial for each participant, used a one- or two-day delay before showing suspects’ faces, and did not instruct participants to memorize faces (Harrison, Ness, and Pike, 2016). It can be assumed that correcting the analysis plan had positive results because ecological validity was improved. The experiment simulated the conditions in which children recognize offenders, so its results can be applied in forensic practice. This experiment can be evaluated as important because it was changed during the process and improved the results. Consequently, with the proper transformation of the experiment and its approximation to actual practice, it is possible to achieve reliable results and transfer them to everyday activities.
In conclusion, one can state that the positivist experimentation method can serve as a viable approach to understanding memory in real-world situations. However, such experiments must possess a high degree of ecological validity, which requires the authenticity of external factors, correct variable operationalization, and multivariable data analysis. The standard laboratory experiments yield results useful only as indirect evidence of memory operation patterns, but they do not provide the possibility of a deep understanding of the topic. While such a contribution may suggest promising directions for future studies, it does not provide a researcher with a sufficient understanding of memory in the real-world context. In this regard, standard laboratory experimentation limits the shape of findings due to the omission of important environmental factors and the introduction of artificial conditions. Only ecologically valid experiments are capable of resolving this issue, providing the findings applicable to understanding memory in real-world settings.
Reference List
Harrison, G., Ness, H. and Pike, G. (2016) ‘Memory in the real world’, in Ness, H., Kaye, H. and Stenner, P. (eds.) Investigating psychology 3. Milton Keynes: The Open University, pp. 101-153.
Thirkettle, M and Stenner, P. (2016) ‘Introduction: critical, creative and credible’, in Ness, H., Kaye, H. and Stenner, P. (eds.) Investigating psychology 3. Milton Keynes: The Open University, pp. 1-49.