Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T07:19:13.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Methodological and substantive implications of a metatheoretical distinction: More on correspondence versus storehouse metaphors of memory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 1998

Asher Koriat
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel 31905 akoriat@psy.haifa.ac.il psy.haifa.ac.il/~iipdm mgold@psy.haifa.ac.il
Morris Goldsmith
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel 31905 akoriat@psy.haifa.ac.il psy.haifa.ac.il/~iipdm mgold@psy.haifa.ac.il

Abstract

In response to Cohen, we point out that many of the assessment difficulties raised by the correspondence metaphor stem from the assessment of memory in meaningful, real-life contexts rather than from the assessment of memory accuracy per se; these difficulties are equally troublesome for the assessment of memory quantity in such contexts. Moreover, the need to focus on particular aspects of memory performance – correspondence-oriented or quantity-oriented – does not preclude the development of useful and general theoretical models. In response to Shanon, we argue that (1) the distinction between the correspondence and storehouse metaphors of memory is metatheoretical, not substantive or methodological, (2) the correspondence metaphor is compatible with both a “representationalist” view of memory and a more “direct” view, and (3) as an epistemological strategy, metaphorical pluralism is both acceptable and desirable.

Type
Authors' Response
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

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.)