one of which is potentially retrievable, comes from research on recognition
memory. In some recognition experiments, subjects are shown thousands of
detailed pictures, such as magazine advertisements, and weeks to months later
are given a recognition test in which they must discriminate theoldpictures
fromnewones (e.g., Standing, 1973). In one of these experiments, subjects ’rec-
ognition accuracy was 87% after one week (Shepard, 1967), while in another
experiment recognition accuracy was 63% after a year (chance performance
would be 50%) (Standing, Conezio, & Haber, 1970).
However, it also possible to design such experiments so that a person’s rec-
ognition accuracy is not much better than chance, only minutes after viewing
pictures (Goldstein & Chance, 1970). Critical to performance in recognition
experiments is the similarity between theoldstimuli and thenewstimuli used
as foils (Dale & Baddeley, 1962; Pezdek et al., 1988). Whenoldandnewpictures
closely resemble one another, recognition accuracy is poor. But when theold
andnewpictures are dissimilar, subjects need not remember very much about a
set of pictures to distinguish betweenoldandnewones. Note that pictures of
advertisements used in the high-accuracy memory experiments are relatively
dissimilar from one another.
Still, the high percentage of correct responses in some recognition experi-
ments does make the important point that we have much better memory for
our experiences than we might ordinarily think. How good our memory seems
to be for any given event depends critically on how we are tested. As I will
discuss later, performance is usually better on recognition than on recall tests
and is better the more cues there are in the environment to prompt memory.
But it would be a mistake to assume that if a more sensitive test improves
memory scores, then all experiences must be stored in, and therefore poten-
tially retrievable from, memory.
Autobiographical Memory Another kind of finding sometimes used to support
the notion that nearly all experiences are potentially retrievable comes from
individuals who have for years kept records of details of important autobio-
graphical experiences and later tried to recall some of those details (Linton,
1978; R. T. White, 1982, 1989). These individuals seem to remember something
aboutnearlyalltheeventstheyrecorded.
Typical of this research is a study done by Willem Wagenaar (Wagenaar,
1986). Each day for six years Wagenaar selected an event or two and recorded
what happened, who he was with when it happened, the date it happened, and
where it happened. He tested his memory for an event by reading some details
about the event (e.g., ‘‘I went to a church in Milano’’) and trying to recall other
details (e.g., ‘‘I went to see Leonardo da Vinci’sLast Supperon September 10,
1983’’). He found that even years afterwards he was able to recall at least one
detail of about 80% of the events he recorded.
Does his research contradict the constructionist theory that predicts forget-
ting of most events? I think not. First of all, Wagenaar deliberately selected
salient, distinctive events to record; he avoided mundane events. The con-
structionist theory predicts good memory for distinctive events. It is interest-
ing to note that after about one year, Wagenaar was able to recall accurately
slightly less than 50% of the details of even these distinctive events. Further-
Memory 325