Memory Errors and Verbal Overshadowing - Research Paper Example

? Memory Errors and Verbal Overshadowing Teacher               Memory Errors and Verbal Overshadowing Verbal overshadowing is the overshadowing of original memory if “verbal and visual processing do interfere with each other” (Verbal Overshadowing, 2012). Verbal overshadowing has been implicated in the nonperformance of tasks in sports, education, and other areas of knowledge and experience. However, what is the reason behind the idea that talking about how something was done eventually reduces its chances of being performed again just as well? Insights on verbal overshadowing from the time that it was discovered in 1990 up to the most recent findings will hopefully shed more light on the issue. Discussion of Core Ideas in the Articles In the first article by Jonathan W. Schooler and Tonya Y. Engstler-Schooler, the conclusion is clear: “Verbalizing the appearance of previously seen visual stimuli impaired subsequent recognition performance” (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). This means that if one verbalizes or talks about what one sees, he will sooner or later forget the exact thing that he has previously seen. After six years, this theory was revised because the true reason for the theory of verbal overshadowing was discovered. The newly revised theory may be stated in this way: “Verbal overshadowing occurs when there is a marked discrepancy between perceptual expertise and verbal expertise” (Melcher & Schooler, 1996). This statement means that the reason why one fails to recognize previously perceived visual stimuli after verbalizing it was because there was a difference in how it was perceived by the perceiver and how much he knows about the thing he has just perceived. The theory of verbal overshadowing in 1990 is – as previously mentioned – stated as this: “Verbalizing the appearance of a previously seen visual stimuli impaired subsequent recognition performance” (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). This theory was proven by six experiments conducted by the researchers involved. In the first experiment, when the features of the observed face were verbalized by the subjects, these subjects later on failed in a subsequent recognition test. This finding was complemented by the second experiment, where recognition was not impaired because the subjects did not verbalize the description of the face, but instead simply visualized it. The results of the first two experiments simply tell us two things: that recognition of the face is impaired when one verbalizes it through speech or writing, and that this theory of verbal overshadowing applies to the appearance of faces. Moreover, based on Experiments 1 and 2, the original memory seems to have been removed from one’s mind if one resorts to verbalization. Experiments 3 and 4 somehow reinforced the concept of verbal overshadowing by eventually proving that the theory applies to both color and a brief spoken statement. In both experiments, the fact that verbal overshadowing impaired one’s memory of the original color or the original statement can somehow be explained by the idea that verbalizing about the memory somehow replaced the original memory with the new memory constructed from the words used in the verbalization. Thus, it simply means that the more the perceiver of the color talked about the color that he had perceived, the more he tends to replace his original, precise visual memory of the color with the memory that he is slowly constructing from his repeated repetition of the description of such color. Therefore, based on Experiments 3 and 4, the original memory is gone and is simply replaced by newly constructed memory, or one produced by verbal recoding through verbalization. The goal then of Experiments 5 and 6 is to ascertain whether it is really true that the original visual memory is actually gone or replaced in all subjects who failed in the recognition test of the thing they have just seen after they have verbalized about it. The findings of Experiment 6 proved to be significant as it concluded that “limiting subjects’ time to make recognition decisions alleviates the impairment,” or that if one has only little time to make a decision regarding recognition, he can be better at recognizing a face. This statement implies two things: that limiting the time for making a decision concerning recognition of a particular face may actually result in a more precise recognition of such face, and that what determines the impairment is only time. This suggests that impairment of recognition of the real visual stimulus depends on the amount of time given to the individual to think about what he has just seen, which means that if he has little or no time to make decisions about it or to verbalize it, then he would be able to precisely describe his original memory of the object. Therefore, the extent that this original memory will be recognized or not simply depends on the factor of time. Therefore, contrary to what has been suggested by Experiment s 1, 2, 3 and 4, the original memory of the visual stimulus is not lost. Furthermore, if the original memory is not lost, then there must be a reason or reasons for why it should be impaired in people. This was the goal of the 1996 study. The main finding of the 1996 study was that: “Verbal overshadowing occurs when there is a marked discrepancy between perceptual expertise and verbal expertise” (Melcher & Schooler, 1996). This conclusion was deduced from the results of a wine tasting experiment, where the respondents were from one of the three groups classified according to their experience with and knowledge of wine: non-wine drinkers, untrained wine drinkers, and trained wine experts. The classification of respondents was based on the question of whether one’s experience in or knowledge of the subject can have any significant impact on one’s ability to recognize this subject in the long run. The experiment consisted of taking the wine knowledge test, tasting the wine, verbally describing the qualities of the wine for 4 minutes, and identifying the same wine that was previously tasted from an array of four types. The results of the 1996 study were fairly surprising since both the non-wine drinkers and the experts did not experience impairment of their original memory of taste due to verbal overshadowing. However, it was the untrained wine drinkers, or the intermediates, whose recognition of the wines was impaired. The Intermediates actually had scores in the wine knowledge test similar to those of novices, but had as extensive an experience in wine drinking and tasting as the experts. The probable reason for this is that, among Intermediates, there was a clear discrepancy between verbal expertise (the fact that they do not know much about wines) and perceptual expertise (the fact that they can distinguish wines by tasting). The effect of the discrepancy between verbal and perceptual expertise in an individual made the Intermediates “uniquely vulnerable to verbalization” (Melcher & Schooler, 1996). This means that Intermediates tend to explain their knowledge of wines and in doing so, they tend to “shift from the stronger foundation of their perceptual expertise to the shakier scaffolding of their developing wine vocabulary” (Melcher & Schooler, 1996). This further means that if Intermediates did not choose to verbalize their thoughts on wines, their focus becomes their developing wine vocabulary, which is actually similar to that of the novices and inferior to that of the experts. If, therefore, these Intermediates, had chosen not to verbalize their feelings, their focus would be their own perceptual expertise – or their great ability to distinguish wine tastes, and so they could have remained precise in their judgment of the wine. On the other hand, with novices and the experts, their poor performance in both the knowledge test and the recognition test actually means that they have nothing to prove anyway, and the same thing is true with the experts. Therefore, there is no discrepancy among the results of the novices and the experts. Critical Analysis Although the two studies conducted their experiments in the most logical manner, there are some things ought to be mentioned. First, if the subjects of the 1996 study, who were given the same tests and who were tested for the same purpose, had yielded different results in terms of wine, how come the subjects of the 1990 study did not yield different results with color and the brief spoken statement? Were they all either experts or novices at identifying and recognizing color and briefly spoken statements, and were there no intermediates during the experiment? However, more importantly, do some variables like taste have the intermediate aspect but colors and spoken statements only have two aspects? It is therefore suggested that the 1996 wine-tasting study be further studied or repeated using a different variable such as color. Six years after the 1996 study was conducted, certain questions still remained unanswered. By 2002, several insights regarding verbal overshadowing were formulated. One of these is that “retrieval-based effects can lead to verbal overshadowing through a manipulation of output criterion on the description task” (Meissner & Memon, 2002). Participants or respondents were more likely vulnerable to overshadowing if they were given an elaborate instruction compared to when they were given only a standard instruction. This means that verbal overshadowing may also be triggered by the type of instruction that is given to an individual. In real life, it means that the procedure for performing a particular task may in fact trigger overshadowing of original memory regardless whether there is verbalization or not. Six years further, in 2008, the role of gender in verbal overshadowing was identified but findings were not clear. According to Talbot et al. (2008), “The effects of verbalization [i.e., verbal overshadowing] were more evident in the female participants.” This is because female respondents and females in general as well, when describing human faces, would normally focus on the internal characteristics of the person whose face is being described. Thus, females would normally describe a person’s face using the verbal statement “She seems like a nice person” (Talbot et al., 2008). Describing the face using references to human behavior or personality seems to be a natural tendency among females and so this natural tendency often leads to verbal overshadowing of the original visual data. Despite this new information, the study has yet to find out whether the same quality of using internal characteristics to describe a face has the same effects on male respondents who have a similar natural tendency. Nevertheless, one very important concept was established by the study of Talbot et al. (2008): “When the participant considers the reasons for their perceptions, their thoughts about the perception are disrupted.” In the study, the reason why women used references to internal characteristics when describing faces was that they used the facial expressions or facial contours as a reason for one’s possessing certain internal qualities. In real life, the concept means that if one tries to find out the answer to why a certain thing happens or why he was able to perform well in one thing, then chances are, his next performance will then be impaired. Verbalization involves analytical or critical thinking which will naturally disrupt the natural flow of performance of action, and this will most likely impair the next performance. One should therefore not ask why he was able to dance well during the party because he might not be able to do it again. The implications of overshadowing may also reflect in forensic science, where faces of criminals are immediately described by witnesses, thus impairing their recognition of these criminals after the verbal description (Meissner & Memon, 2002). This is such a big problem for the police and for the witnesses as well, because there seems to be no way for a witness to reveal the truth about the criminal’s identity except to verbalize them. However, one practical method that may work is asking the witness to make the sketch of the criminal’s face himself in order to avoid verbalization that will lead to verbal overshadowing. In sports, it is basically the same thing and verbalization is not even necessary for verbal overshadowing to occur since too much analysis of the situation will itself result in an overshadowing of the original skills. Golfers who describe one’s putting skill after execution and those who think too much about why they were able to perform well both “incredibly” disrupt one’s performance in the sport (Overthinking disrupts golf putt, 2009). This means that not only in golf but also in other sports, one should refrain from analyzing or describing one’s methods of play over and over again or even just once, since it might most likely not happen again if one does so. The explanation is simple: If one verbalizes or analyzes the execution of an act, “the brain [focuses] more on language centers rather than on brain systems that support the skills in question” (Overthinking disrupts golf putt, 2009). Further insight on verbal overshadowing was given by Lehrer (2010), who somehow implies in his New Yorker article “The Truth Wears Off” that once a thing is merely repeated for the sake of finding out more about such a thing, the results will eventually become different, or the original truth will eventually “wear off.” This then becomes a problem with replications in scientific experiments because there is a good chance that analyzing and verbalizing the original results will eventually destroy their chances of occurring again, unless perhaps new respondents are hired for the experiment. In real life, however, the implications could be worse, like if one keeps talking about why he likes someone, he might not be able to like that person in the same way again the next time he sees her. Could verbal overshadowing then be the basis of failures in marriages and relationships, or is it just too much analyzing and verbalizing of one’s positive feelings until these feelings eventually wear off? Further research is indeed needed. Verbal overshadowing affects almost all areas of life from learning to sports to all other tasks that require mental or physical performances, and possibly even to relationships. Verbal overshadowing happens not only after verbalizing something or explaining it but also after analyzing one’s performance too much especially finding out why it happened. Since many questions are left unanswered, further research is needed in order for us to see how concepts on verbal overshadowing could eventually help individuals live better lives and have better performances. References Lehrer, J. (2010). The Truth Wears Off. Retrieved from The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all Meissner, C. A. & Memon, A. (2002). Verbal Overshadowing: A Special Issue Exploring Theoretical and Applied Issues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 869-872. Melcher, J. M. & Schooler, J. W. (1996). “The misremembrance of wines past: Verbal and perceptual expertise differentially mediate verbal overshadowing of taste memory.” Journal of Memory & Language, 35(2), 231-245. Overthinking disrupts golf putt. (2009). Retrieved from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7859385.stm Schooler, J. & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 36-71. Talbot, B. H., Gifford, J. L., Peterson, E., Sitake, P. & Stevens, E. (2008). The Verbal Overshadowing Effect: Influence on Perception. Intuition, 4, 12-18. Verbal Overshadowing. (2012). Retrieved from the University of Southampton: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~svs1/1005/verbalovershadowing.html Read More