Perspectivas sobre el estudio de la memoria: sus comienzos y su actualidad

Franco Bastias; María Belén Cañadas; Pablo Agustín Avendaño

doi:10.17533/udea.rpsua.v9n1a07

Authors

Franco Bastias Catholic University of Cuyo
María Belén Cañadas Catholic University of Cuyo
Pablo Agustín Avendaño Catholic University of Cuyo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rpsua.v9n1a07

Keywords:

Memory, Trace theory of memory, Theory of remembering, Sociocultural approach, Neurosciences

Abstract

Since its beginning, the scientific study of memory has been guided by two important approaches that offer different ways of conceiving and studding memory. On the one hand, Ebbinghaus understood memory like an isolated psychological faculty. On the other hand, Bartlett appreciated it like a dynamic and social process, which must be studied in the context that it arises. The present article explores and analyzes these perspectives, their heritage and present, in specific critical points. It is pointed out that despite the current interest in a socio-cultural view of memory, neuroscience boom could isolate it again in the laboratory, understand it like an exclusive object of natural sciences, and conceived like an individuated and decontextualized phenomenon.

|Abstract

= 1268 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))

= 564 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Franco Bastias, Catholic University of Cuyo

Degree in Psychology, Conicet doctoral fellow, Research Institute in Basic and Applied Psychology, Universidad Católica de Cuyo, Argentina.

María Belén Cañadas, Catholic University of Cuyo

Graduated in Psychology, research fellow at the Institute for Research in Basic and Applied Psychology, Universidad Católica de Cuyo, Argentina.

Pablo Agustín Avendaño, Catholic University of Cuyo

Graduate in Psychology, research fellow at the Institute for Research in Basic and Applied Psychology, Universidad Católica de Cuyo, Argentina.

References

Anderson, J. R., & Milson, R. (1989). Human memory: An adaptive perspective. Psychological Re-view, 96(4), 703.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brockmeier, J., & Harré, R. (2001). Narrative: Problems and promises of an alternative paradigm. En J. Brockmeier, & D. Carbaugh (Eds.), Narrative and identity. Studies in Autobiography, Self and Culture (pp. 39-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Danziger, K. (2008). Does memory have a history? En Marking the Mind. A History of Memory (pp. 1-23). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York, Dover.

Foucault, M., y Marchetti, V. (2001). Los anormales. Ediciones Akal.

Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate, 12, 351-394.Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a psychology of memory accuracy. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 481-537.

Luria, A. R., & Solotaroff, L. T. (1987). The mind of a mnemonist: A little book about a vast memory. usa: Harvard University Press.

McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343-352.

Olick, J. K., & Robbins, J. (1998). Social memory studies: From “collective memory” to the historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of sociology, 24, 105-140.

Roediger, H. L. (1980). Memory metaphors in cognitive psychology. Memory & Cognition, 8(3), 231-246.

Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American psychologist, 54(3), 182.

Teo, T. (2012). Psychology is still a problematic science and the public knows it. American Psychologist, 67(9), 807-808.

Terdiman, R. (1993). Present past: Modernity and the memory crisis. Cornell University Press.

Wagoner, B. (2009). The Experimental Methodology of Constructive Microgenesis. En Valsiner et al. (eds.). Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 99-121). Springer US.

Wagoner, B. (2011). Meaning construction in remem-bering: A synthesis of Bartlett and Vygotsky.

Theoretical psychology: Global transformations and challenges, 105-114.

Wagoner, B. (2012). Learning and memory. En Harré, R., & Moghaddam, F. (eds.), Psychology for the Third Millennium: Integrating Cultural and Neuroscience Perspectives (pp. 116-138). London, United Kingdom: sage.

Wagoner, B. (2013). Bartlett’s concept of schema in reconstruction. Theory & Psychology, 23(5), 553-575.Wagoner, B. (2015). Collective Remembering as a Process of Social Representation. En G. Sammut, E. Andreouli, G. Gaskell, & J. Valsiner (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations (pp. 143-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wagoner, B., & Brescó, I. (2016). Conflict and memory: The past in the present. Peace and Conflict. Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(1), 3.

Wagoner, B., & Gillespie, A. (2014). Sociocultural media-tors of remembering: An extension of Bartlett’s method of repeated reproduction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(4), 622-639.

Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470-477.

Young, M. (2008). The texture of memory: Holocaust memorials in history. En A. Erll & A. Nünning (eds.), Cultural memory studies: An international and interdisciplinary handbook (pp. 357-365). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.