Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T00:00:43.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hypothesis testing in experimental and naturalistic memory research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Daniel B. Wright
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, City University, London, EC1V0HB, United Kingdom, d.b.wright@city.ac.uk

Abstract

Koriat & Goldsmith's distinction between the correspondence and storehouse metaphors is valuable for both memory theory and methodology. It is questionable, however, whether this distinction underlies the heated debate about so called “everyday memory” research. The distinction between experimental and naturalistic methodologies better characterizes this debate. I compare these distinctions and discuss how the methodological distinction, between experimental and naturalistic designs, could give rise to different theoretical approaches.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable