Psychology, 5/e   Wortman, Loftus & Weaver
	Online Learning Center

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How can I improve my memory for tests?

A list of general principles for improving memory can be found at the end of Psychology (5E), Chapter 7; those same principles apply to memory for tests.

The most common way in which I am asked this questions by students is some form of, “how can I remember things for exams using the least amount of effort possible?” The unfortunately reality, however, is that memory for most things REQUIRES effort and study (and consequently, time). Anything which cuts short this effort is likely to impair memory, not help it. To the extent memory shortcuts are be employed to pass tests--rather than learn and comprehend the material--defeats the entire purpose of education.

The two most important principles are probably these: do your own work when studying; and avoid rote memorization: attempt to truly comprehend the material by working toward a deeper understanding of concepts. To elaborate, those who study from friends’ notes, or use study guides INSTEAD of studying miss the really important part of studying. Having books which are underlined or notes which have been retyped and organized will not generally improve memory. Rather, the real benefit is in PREPARING the notes. It’s the PROCESS of reading the text and figuring out the important parts (which are then underlined), or reading a section and rewriting them in your own words which is beneficial. Anything which makes studying “easier” most probably does a significant portion of this work for you. Instead, use notes or study guides to EVALUATE YOUR OWN WORK. If your notes are different, or if you missed highlighting an important point, a study guide can point this out and help you restudy.

Rote memorization does work for some things, but it is an inefficient and often short-lived solution. You would be better advised to learn by seeing how new material relates to things you have previously learned, or giving yourself a framework which can make remembering easier. Unrelated bits of information are extremely likely to be forgotten. The same information put into a context of things you already know stands a much greater chance of being remembering.

3. I have seen ads for “memory enhancers.” Sometimes these are vitamins or supplements, and sometimes they are “systems” which include books and/or video. I’d like to unleash my "mega-powered" memory, as the ads suggest I can, but do these work?

Like many such ads, there is a grain of truth to some. Certain kinds of memory difficulty is related to poor nutrition, and vitamins may help. (For example, Korsakoff’s syndrome is a profound memory disturbance seen primarily in long-term alcoholics, and results from a chronic thiamin [vitamin B-1] deficiency.) But for the vast majority of us the vitamins will have no discernible effect. If you are looking for a memory-improvement drug, look no further than your kitchen: MODEST amounts of caffeine--no more than the amount in 3-4 cups of coffee-- often improve many aspects of cognitive functions-. The gains are rather small, though, and too much caffeine will reverse any benefits.

The study/mnemonic systems do work for some kinds of information, but they require considerably more effort and practice than is often suggested by the ads. Furthermore, they are most beneficial in aiding rote memory, which we have already seen to be a poor tool to enhance long-term memory and meaningful comprehension. One final aside: while there may be a grain of truth to the prototypical “memory aids” products, the same cannot be said for most speed-reading programs. They may help you SKIM material, but they cannot improve reading speed much faster than 500 wpm. The limiting factor in reading is NOT cognitive, but lies in the limitations of our eyes: when reading we cannot move our eyes more than 5-6 times per second, and the amount we can see in one eye fixation is limited by the receptors in the retina. (The cones, those receptors which mediate detailed vision, are almost entirely concentrated in the fovea, the central part of the retina. The acuity of peripheral vision, then, is quite poor.) You CANNOT increase the frequency of your eye movements fast than 5-6, and you CANNOT improve the acuity of your peripheral vision--to do that, you’d need to grow more cones in the retina, which of course is impossible.

4. I have seen stories of people who go to jail because of alleged abuse. But those making the charges claim to have repressed memories of that abuse for many years, and have only recently recovered them. Does memory really work that way? And how can one distinguish cases where the abuse was real from those where the memory was fabricated?

The answer to the last part of the question is one of the most frustrating in all memory research. Because the events in question happened (or were alleged to have happened) many years prior to the accusation, there is virtually no way to determine what did or did not happen. In the past 5 years or so, however, memory researchers have made an extensive study of so-called “false memories,” and most have come to the conclusion that repression, as it is commonly portrayed, does not exist. The oft-cited analogy of memory as a videotape is frankly wrong, and creating memories for events that did not occur is considerably easier than most people--including many memory researchers--believed. In the early 1990s, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, a non-profit group dedicated to providing assistance and support of families affected by allegations of abuse, was formed in Philadelphia. The FMSF has grown rapidly, and now has tens of thousands of members

In May of 1998, the Scientific and Advisory Board of the FMSF--which include 2 of the authors of Psychology (5E), Elizabeth Loftus and Charles Weaver--produced a statement on the controversy surrounding repressed and recovered memories. The Scientific and Advisory Board states, in part:

• “there is no reliable way to distinguish true from false memories, one other than by external confirmation. · Reassert does not support the existence of repression as it is commonly portrayed
• Treatment approaches utilizing so-called “recovered memory therapies” do not benefit distressed individuals. · “Recovered memory” procedures are likely to produce serious harm to the patients and their families
• The major United States mental health professional association should act to prevent its members from contributing to this public health problem [as of this writing, no organization has taken such action]

The problem of sexual abuse of children is very real, and its effects devastating. But there is ample reason to doubt the veracity of memories which are produced in the context of recovered memory therapies.

Copyright ©1999 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
For further information about this site contact mhhe_webmaster@mcgraw-hill.com.