|
|
|
Gingrich and
Soli (1984) studied framing effects and found that the whole process of
making a decision in framing problems entailed successively evaluating
several alternatives and the results of each evaluation must be remembered
and compared. They believed this procedure placed heavy demands on
working memory, and errors, as measured from the linear programming optimal,
resulted. When information presented to the respondent is inadequate,
then even higher levels of demands are placed on the working memory and
errors are at high risk to occur. Rather than believing this phenomenon
was a result of framing effects, they believed it to be an error in the
transmittal of the appropriate amount of information for a subject to compute.
In order to understand Gingrich and Soli's interpretation of framing effects,
I searched past theories on Memory.
One of the
original models of memory was the modal model introduced by James in 1890
(Healy & McNamara, 1996). This guiding framework for research
in the area of memory distinguished between primary
and secondary memory. James described primary memory as that which
is held only for a moment in our conscious mind and secondary memory was
held in our unconscious and was considered permanent (Healy & McNamara,
1996). From the time when this original model predominated, many
researchers have been involved in the investigation of our memory processes.
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) added another element to the memory dichotomy
– sensory memory. The sensory memory was thought to have separate
registers for different senses, including visual, auditory, and haptic.
Also included in their theory of memory were various control processes;
most popular was the rote rehearsal process. This process was described
in terms of a rehearsal buffer in the short-term memory storage.
Each stimulus item referred to a fixed-capacity rehearsal buffer and displaced
a randomly selected item already there when the capacity was full.
As long as the item was in the buffer, information about it was transferred
to the long-term memory. The amount of information transferred was
a linear function of the time in the buffer. When information was
needed, information items from the buffer were initially extracted, and
then further searches were made of the long-term memory storage if more
information was required.
An important
element of this modal model was that it assumed that an item could be retained
in the short-term buffer as well as in the long-term buffer at the same
time. Further to this, the recall of any particular item, including
the most recent ones, could be retrieved from the short-term storage and
the long-term storage. Of great interest to researchers of memory
were the effects of such variables with the presence of a distracter task,
the rate of item presentation and the list length of items. According
to the modal model, there was an advantage in which order the items were
presented. Items were stored linearly in the buffer. The most
recent items were stored at the top of the buffer, and the more mature
items were stored at the bottom or the centre of the buffer. The
recency effect implied that the most recently presented items were at the
top of the buffer and could be easily accessed for quick recall.
There was also an advantage of the items presented to an individual first
because these items stayed in the buffer longer than the items following
them, so more information could be transferred to the long term memory
storage. This was called the primacy effect (Healy & McNamara,
1996).

The recency items
could be eliminated by a distracter task, while the primacy and middle
items could not (they were too far down in the buffer to be affected by
a distracter task). As the buffer started out empty, items that were
put into it were not displaced by subsequent items until the buffer was
full (Healy & McNamara, 1996). Therefore, the first items presented
to an individual would remain in the buffer until too many items were presented
that caused the buffer to become full. Then the primary and middle
items would be in jeopardy. The rate of presentation and the list
length affected the primacy and middle items. A fast presentation
rate led to lower levels of recall for prerecency (primacy and middle items)
positions because rapidly presented items remained in the buffer for a
shorter time and, thus, less information was transferred about them to
long term storage. The level of recall for prerecency positions was
lower for a given item in a long rather than short list because subjects
were assumed to make a fixed number of searches of long-term storage, so
that the probability of retrieving a particular item was lower when there
were more items. The recency items were not affected by either rate
of presentation or list length because they were recalled largely from
the top of the buffer rather than from long term storage.
In more recent
research on memory, Anooshian (1998) suggested that there was a contrast
between memory successes and memory failures that appeared to reflect the
distinction between implicit and explicit memory. She provided an
example of how she and her daughter strolled down the rows in a grocery
store containing flour, sugar and other baking goods. Her three-year-old
daughter told her that these things (ingredients) could be put together
to make cookies. Anooshian was surprised by her daughter’s comment
because she couldn’t remember ever baking cookies at home. When she
questioned her daughter about how she knew this bit of information, her
daughter responded, “I don’t know why I thought of it… it just ‘popped
into my head’ while we were walking…sometimes things just pop into my head
like that.” Then later, her daughter revealed where the information
had originated in another comment, “You know mom, Mr. Rogers makes cookies
that way.” Then Anooshian realized they had watched Mr. Rogers bake
cookies on his television show a few days prior shopping at the grocery
store. This, Anooshian suggested, demonstrated how there were many
levels of memory processes working simultaneously. Anooshian’s
(1998) research concentrated on the unconscious influences of memory on
different memory retrieval processes, including implicit and explicit processes,
when individuals are generally aware and conscious of their surroundings
and task demands.

Memory is a complicated
concept. As shown by Anooshian’s example of her daughter’s conscious
and unconscious memory recollections. Memory entails selecting from
among many relationships provided as background facts, retrieving the most
appropriate among many principles that could be applied to such relationships,
and finally applying the principles coherently. Interference could
occur at any point during this process (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995).
Two of types of interference are visual and memory illusions. Visual
illusions imply that the sensory data is there before us, yet we can still
be misled. Illusions persist even when we know that our interpretation
is incorrect. A good example of memory illusion is the picture
that made use of the negative and positive space on a page.
From one perspective,
if looking at the negative colors of the image, two faces appear to be
staring at each other. However, when looking at the image through
the positive perspective, there appears to be a large white vase with a
large foot base, on the center of the page. This is an optical illusion
that can be seen from the negative perspective, the positive perspective,
or from both perspectives. Rarely do people see both perspectives
simultaneously. Sometimes, in fact, individuals are told about the
existence of the alternate image, but can still see only one image (negative
or positive, whichever perspective they view the image from).
Framing effects are also visual illusions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1986).
An option can be phrased positively or negatively, and the outcome can
change due to the phrasing of the option rather than true differences that
exist.
Another type
of obstruction is memory illusion. This is simply that the
sensory data is no longer available. Based on our memories we make
judgments that may be in error. Memory errors are even more difficult
to become aware of because we often cannot compare our memory to the actual
event. This is a similar interpretation to Gingrich and Soli's (1984)
interpretation of how the working memory can be put under higher levels
of demands when the information presented to the respondent is either inadequate
or in error and does not make sense to the respondent because they are
missing the comparable information in their own memory. Fuzzy-trace
theory can also be used to explain memory phenomena in a variety of tasks.
 |