Over the summer, I was having dinner with my mom, dad, and brother. After discussing our day, my dad started talking about a memory from high school. He was an avid biker in high school, and was telling us about the time he and some friends participated in a big bike race. He recalled this story with so much detail; it was as though it had just happened yesterday. My dad’s face lit up when telling this story, and once he told this story, he kept going. He told us lots of other memories from around this time of his life. He talked about being part of the National Honors Society his senior year of high school, he told us about adventures he and his roommates went on during college, and he told us about working in a movie theater the summer after graduation.

After my dad told his stories, my mom started telling stories from college. She, too, had lots of stories about her college experience. My mom and dad were both so happy, telling these stories from their early adult years. They were going back and forth, recounting these stories from high school and college that seemed to really stick out in their mind.

Once they finished their stories, my brother asked my parents about their childhood. He pointed out that they both spent a lot of time telling high school and college stories, but he wanted to hear stories from when they were in elementary school. My parents looked at each other, thought for a moment, but didn’t have much to say. My mom shared a short story about a beach trip she went on, but it was brief and without much detail. After she shared this, my brother asked my dad if he ever went to the beach as a child. My dad looked unsure and said that he didn’t think so. My brother tried to push them for more stories from their childhood, but neither had much to say. 

In the textbook, the authors discuss something called the reminiscence bump. The  reminiscence bump is, “The enhanced memory for adolescence and young adulthood found in people over 40” (Goldstein, 2015, p. 210). During this dinner conversation, my parents (who are both over 40) displayed the reminiscence bump perfectly. They both had so many memories from high school and college that were incredibly vivid in their mind. They were eager to share these stories with us, and shared them with great detail. This enhanced memory makes sense, because these stories occurred during their adolescence and young adulthood (i.e. the period of time the reminiscence bump predicts they would remember well). Moreover, the reminiscence bump also explains why my parents didn’t remember their childhood as well as their early adulthood. Both parents seemed to have limited memories of what happened to them as children, but phenomenal memories of what happened to them in high school and college. 

The textbook discusses possible explanations for the reminiscence bump. According to the authors, one explanation for my parents’ enhanced memory of their adolescence and young adulthood is the self-image hypothesis, which states that because an individual’s identity develops rapidly during adolescence and young adulthood, they remember this time better (Goldstein, 2015, p. 210). Another explanation is the cognitive hypothesis, which states that the rapid changes individuals experience during adolescence and young adulthood, which are then followed by a period of stability, cause stronger encoding of memories (Goldstein, 2015, p. 210). A final explanation is the cultural life script hypothesis, which states that there is a culturally-defined progression of events that occur in our lives, and that we better organize and recall events that follow this progression (Goldstein, 2015, p. 211). 

Overall, based on what we know about our memory, it should come as no surprise that my parents remembered their adolescence and early adulthood with such detail. The three hypotheses above all provide possible explanations for why my parents remembered these periods of their life so well. It would be interesting to have this conversation again in 25 years (when my brother and I are both over 40) to see if my brother and I also experience the reminiscence bump. 

Goldstein, E.B. (2015). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience, 4th Edition. Cengage Learning. 

Memory is so very unique and complex, not only that but it is also greatly suggestible. People don’t realize how much another’s point of view of an event can alter their own. Not only can memory be changed by point of view but also by simple influence. “Misinformation effect—misleading information presented after a person witnesses an event can change how the person describes that event later”(Goldstein, 2015). This happens so often that one may not even ever notice. I can attest that this has happened to me many times in many different situations. In my last blog, I talked about the event where I was hit by a car. My lawyer had mentioned details to me about the incident that I hadn’t recalled happening but once he did, my recall of that memory changed. When I spoke of the incident after that, I found myself adding on details that he had told me.

The hippocampus is the part of the brain that controls learning and memory. There are other parts of the brain that also deal with memory such as the amygdala etc. With learning how suggestible people are it appears quite easy to create false memories. Although it seems to be easier to create false memories when a person is younger, if you have a hard time remembering events like I do then age doesn’t factor too much into it. Familiarity has the biggest influence on false memories. If you hadn’t heard of the event or memory before then you would of course not recall it happening. However, after hearing of an event/memory and it being brought up again, you would be more eager to say you did remember and even add in details.

Most of my cousins and other relatives are a lot older than me because my Nana had my mom when she was in her late forties. With that being said, I obviously wasn’t around for many family events and gatherings. My cousins used to talk about things they did together when they were younger and I always had no idea what they were talking about because I was either not born yet or extremely young. After hearing about some of the events I would then recall it and even add in details even if I hadn’t been there. It is very easy to want to remember something especially if it holds great meaning (like memories with family).

References:
Goldstein, E. Bruce. “Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience”. Cengage Learning, 4th Ed, 2015.

My step-dad, Gary, is a computer engineer who holds a Master’s Degree in computer science and has had a 40-year career in his field. According to Goldstein, he would be considered an expert because he devoted a significant amount of time learning, practicing, and applying gained knowledge to be exceptionally skilled and knowledgeable about his topic (2015). This definition suits Gary perfectly. On the other hand, I am not an expert in computers and consider myself a novice. A novice is someone who hasn’t had the extensive training that creates an expert. If you gave each of us the same problem to solve involving an issue with a computer, due to his expert status, Gary would not only produce the solution faster but with greater accuracy. Is Gary that much more intelligent than me? Is he just better at problem-solving? Cognitive psychologists have figured out what makes experts superior at solving problems than novices, and it doesn’t have anything to do with intelligence.

It’s not surprising that experts possess more knowledge about their subjects and that this knowledge allows them to use it to their advantage during problem-solving. When looking at a computer-related problem, Gary uses his previous experience and expertise to guide his decisions. As a novice, I have little experience and information, so I don’t see the problem the same way. Interestingly, studies have known that experts perform no better at problem-solving if the problem is related to their field but foreign to them. Chess masters who had stored information about game-related patterns were lost when they were randomized, and their performance was no better than the novices (Goldstein, 2015). If the expert can reference specific information that can inform how they solve a problem, they are superior. What other advantages would Gary have?

Psychologists have found that experts rely on previous knowledge and experience and organize that knowledge differently (Goldstein, 2015). It turns out that experts like Gary use their in-depth knowledge of their subject to go beyond the surface features of a problem and explore the underlying principles. Where I would look at the basic parts of a computer and attempt to solve the problem from the outside, Gary would look at the integral structure and what might be going on inside the structure.

Another way that experts excel at problem-solving is time spent analyzing the problem. Gary would take more time to understand the problem and all that it entails, while I would jump right into solving it. Novices don’t have the experience and information needed to understand the problem entirely. The slower, more in-depth analysis of the problem leads to more accurate results than the faster novice’s solution. From experience, I can say this is correct because I have observed Gary solving problems compared to myself, and he is always slow, analytical, methodical, and accurate.

We’ve learned that experts are great at solving problems related to their field of expertise because they possess the well-organized knowledge and experience needed to be successful and accurate. They are methodical and move at a slower, more in-depth pace. However, these advantages only extend to the field of the expert’s training. Psychologists have found that the benefit is reduced to nothing outside of the area where the expert is the authority (Goldstein, 2015). The answer is neither as we circle back to Gary being more intelligent or a better problem solver. Outside of the expert’s field, the novice and the expert seems to be on level ground, demonstrating that knowledge is power.

Works Cited

Goldstein, E. B. (2015). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. Cengage Learning.

Last weekend my husband and I decided to begin decorating our home for the holiday season. This year, unlike last, we wanted to add some decorations to the outside of our home. More specifically, we wanted to add faux evergreen garland and lights around the entryway of our front door. However, in our wanting to be festive, this created a set of problems that we had to overcome in order to properly hang the garland. To better explain and reflect on this week’s lesson, I decided to illustrate this garland journey using the Newell and Simon’s approach to problem solving.

Newell and Simon’s approach starts with the initial state, or “conditions at the beginning of the problem” and concludes with the goal state, or “the solution to the problem” (Goldstein, 2015). The initial state to my garland problem was how to hang it securely onto the door frame. The operator, or how we would achieve my goal state, was using some sort of fastener/s to attach the garland to the frame. However, the garland must be able to withstand inclement weather (primarily wind) and remain taught without sagging. The goal state to our problem was a beautifully hung evergreen garland with lights to frame the door.

Before trying to accomplish the goal state of the problem, we had to look at the entire problem space, or all the possible steps between the initial and goal state (Goldstein, 2015). These possible steps that are taken between the initial and goal states are known as intermediate states (Goldstein, 2015). In viewing the entire problem space and all possibilities it was easier to decide on the most efficient steps and subgoals to reach our goal state. Carefully strategizing the most direct route to our goal state is known as means-end analysis (Goldstein, 2015).

The first intermediate state was using either nails or 3M command hooks and attaching them to the wooden door frame. Thinking of my subgoal, to withstand inclement weather, we decided to use nails over the command strips for more stability. The second intermediate state was using an additional fastener to fulfill my second subgoal of keeping the garland taught. We decided to attach zip ties to the actual garland prior to hanging it on the nails. The third intermediate state was using an additional zip tie and wrapping it around the nail as well as through the zip tie on the garland, therefore avoiding any sagging.

After all the steps were completed, we finally arrived at the goal state to our problem. We achieved a stable, perfectly hung, festive evergreen garland around our front door. In having a means-end analysis strategy in place, we avoided additional intermediate states and met all our subgoals. It has been up for almost a week and still holding on strong even through the wind gusts we’ve been experiencing!

Works Cited

Goldstein, E. B. (2015). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. Cengage Learning.

In the 1930s, psychologist Karl Duncker did a famous “candle experiment”. He gave participants a candle, a box of thumbtacks, and a pile of matches, and asked everyone to use these tools to fix the candles. On the wall behind the candle, and make sure that the wax oil on the candle does not drip on the table. In the beginning, many experiment participants were racking their brains and trying their best to fix the candle on the wall as much as possible, either using pushpins, or using the wax oil after the candle was melted, but they all failed without exception. After 5-10 minutes, the participants gradually “cracked” the mystery-that is, first use the thumbtacks to fix the cartons containing the thumbtacks on the wall, and then place the candles in it, which can perfectly solve this problem. This is not a difficult question, but in the beginning, many participants paid too much attention to the precondition of “fixing the candle to the wall”. In the subconscious mind, the thumbtack box can only be used to hold thumbtacks, thus ignoring the other role that the thumbtack box can play-candle loading. And this is what we call a kind of Functional Fixedness, that is, overemphasizing the original function and meaning of things, thus falling into a deadlock of linear thinking. At this time, the easiest way to crack is to jump out of the inherent thinking mode and creatively solve this problem.
Function fixedness refers to the preparation for a specific activity. It can make us quite proficient in certain activities, and even realize automation, which can save a lot of time and energy; however, the existence of psychological stereotypes will also limit our thinking and make us only use conventional methods to solve problems. Seek other “shortcut” breakthroughs, which will also bring some negative effects on solving the problem. It will not only have a certain impact when thinking and solving problems but also will be affected by psychological stereotypes in the process of understanding and communicating with others. In general, the formation of functional fixation should be said to be a good thing. For example, at work, you can immediately judge the method to deal with this matter according to your work experience. It will be handy and work efficiency will be greatly improved. Psychologist Meyer studied the role of sets in problem-solving in 1930.  In his experiment, some participants got directional cues through the use of guidance, while others did not get directional cues. Therefore, most subjects in the former can solve problems, while almost none of the subjects in the latter can solve problems. This can be said to be the help of set to solve the problem. Another example is to practice piano from the age of six and perform on stage until the age of sixteen. The purpose is to form a powerful combination. He started practicing violin at the age of ten and standardized his fingering at the age of twenty one. Ten years is to form a standardized set. In this sense, the set is the subject’s pre-psychological preparation for a certain activity. It is not only the person’s local psychological activity but also the subject’s perfect personality state. Only those who form the most complete and comprehensive set will be lucky to become a performer. Therefore, when you work smoothly, when everyone loves you, and when money comes in a flood, it shows that you have a good set and don’t move. But in the long run, our thinking mode has also been unconsciously imprisoned, our work has become mechanical and numb, unconsciously developing a kind of inertia, lack of a sense of innovative thinking, and our work has become stagnant. Therefore, stereotype also hinders the solution of problems, which can be realized in many practical events. In the study, work and teaching, we should consciously overcome the thinking set and make our thinking more open, deeper, more flexible, and more agile. When talking about his scientific research experience, Nobel Prize winner and Chinese scientist Ding Zhaozhong said: “In the 1970s, people already knew that all elementary particles were composed of three quarks. My query is, why are there solely three quarks? Quark? To locate new quarks, I determined to construct a high-sensitivity detector. At that time, everybody concept that there have been solely three quarks. Because three quarks may want to explain all phenomena, this test used to be performed employing Fermi National Laboratory and Western Europe Nuclear The core refused, questioning it used to be impossible. From 1972 to 1974, we did this scan with an enormously low-energy accelerator at Brookhaven National Laboratory and sooner or later located a new quark. This ability that the preceding thought of solely three quarks is wrong. If there is a fourth quark, there may additionally be a fifth and a sixth, which has modified the preceding idea 。”
Therefore, we must not only give full play to the role of fixed fixedness, maximize our strengths and avoid weaknesses but also use our brains and think backward. If other methods work, can I try this method? If necessary, we must break our psychological stereotypes. In this way, our ideas will be expanded, and it may get twice the result with half the effort.

Memory reports can be influenced by inferences that individuals make based on their own experience and knowledge which often leads to false memories (Goldstein, 2020). False memories are quite common. In fact, false memories arise from the same constructive process that produces true memories (Goldstein, 2020). Memory is not a camera or a tape recorder that creates a perfect, unchangeable record of everything that happens. The constructive property of memory is beneficial in most situations, but it can also be very detrimental in certain situations, such as eyewitness testimonies.  

Eyewitness testimonies are not as reliable as many people think. When DNA analysis was introduced in the late 1980’s, it revolutionized forensic science (Chew, 2018). DNA analysis provides an increases level of accuracy about the actual perpetrator(s) versus innocent people falsely accused of crime. And because of DNA testing, many settled cases were reviewed again. “358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Of these, 71% had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration” (Chew, 2018).  

Research is clear that false memories are prevalent in eyewitness testimonies. According to the Innocent Project, Kirk Bloodsworth, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1984 for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl, became the first United States death row prisoner to be exonerated by DNA. No physical or circumstantial evidence linked Bloodsworth to the crime, but five witnesses placed him either with the victim or near the scene of the crime.  

As you can see, memory is not a camera or a tape recorder that creates a perfect, unchangeable record of everything that happens. Memories are influenced by an individual’s knowledge and experience of the world. And the constructive process of memory can be very detrimental.  

Work Cited 

Chew, S. L. (2018, August 20). Myth: Eyewitness testimony is the best kind of evidence. Association for Psychological Science – APS. Retrieved November 18, 2021, from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html. 

Goldstein, E. B. (2020). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience. Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd. 

Kirk Bloodsworth – Innocence project. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2021, from https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kirk-bloodsworth/. 

I am fascinated by the concepts that are so collectively misunderstood by our society at large, memory being a main contender for first place. Memory is was more flexible and malleable than most of us consider it to be and it is understandable why we hold this idea. Memories can feel so impactful and secure, the idea that is isn’t as such can be jarring. However, there are many ways memories can be changed or distorted including experiences being incorrectly processed during encoding making them seem like past memories (looking at you déjà vu) or how the act of rehearsing or revisiting a memory can actually change it (known as retrieval-enhanced suggestibility). The most curious to me, however, is the idea of false memories. Imagine believing something happened to you with full conviction, only to later learn it didn’t. This is seemingly what happened the Brian Williams.

Brian Williams is a recognizable face to most Americans, being a trusted reporter, news correspondence, and tv host for decades on various networks. Having firmly established himself within the news reporting sphere, Williams assumed a heavy role in reporting during the Iraq war conflict, one of which reports caused a huge sensations and media backlash when it was discovered to be wildly inaccurate and essentially, false. In 2015, Williams recalled an event that had happened 12 years earlier, in which a helicopter he was traveling in was hit by a rocket propelled grenade during a visit to airfield in Bosnia. It turns out, after a reaction from the pilot of the helicopter that did get hit by grenade fire that day, Williams was not on his flight. In fact, he was miles away for the event at the time. So why did Williams remember himself being there that day?

It would be irresponsible to not suggest that Williams may have been fabricating the event for some kind of media clout. However, taking into account that this livelihood is based on the public perceiving that his new reports are accurate and truthful, this seems unlikely. What more likely occurred was a case of Williams remembering something that simply did not happen to him, an example of an everyday memory error. Instead of our memories being like a video camera, constantly capturing every experience accurately, memory has a much more constructive nature. This means that our memories are constructed by what we experience, but also our existing knowledge, experiences, and expectations, making it both a top-down and a bottom-up process. In the case of false memories, the constructive notions of memory are pushed to the extreme; Williams may have heard about the event of the bombing and overtime, incorrectly placed himself within the narrative. If the event was particularly impactful and significant for Williams, in might be considered a flashbulb memory, making it more vivid and highly detailed. However, through studies of common flashbulb memories like the 9/11 attacks and the JFK assassination, we now know that even these highly impactful and significant memories can be just as susceptible to being incorrect when recalled later.

After being confronted with the concept that he was remembering something that did not happen, Williams was stunned, mentioned that he was questioning all of his memories after the incident. This conviction around memories is common for all of us; the majority of us rely on the fact that what we remember is accurate. We use this information to form opinions, guide our actions, and even create future memories. It can feel wholly stabilizing to know that some of the memories that feel certain to you are in fact inaccurate, many even completely false. However, the ease in which false memories can be suggested or “planned” into a person’s mind has experimental research confirming the occurrence. One study of undergrad students by Hyman, Husband, and Billings in 1995 mixed real and false childhood memories together, in which, by the end of the study 25% of participants believed a false memory was actually their own. Seven years later Wade, Garry, Read, and Lindsay created a similar experiment, this time with photoshopped images to support the false memory. Over 50% of the subjects believed that the made-up event happened to them, demonstrating the ease in which false memories can be made.

While we can’t be sure what prompted the story from Brian Williams with certainty, it most definitely prompted a cultural conversation on how we understand and recall memories and may possibly be the most well-known case of false memory within our recent history.

Resources

Lesson 9: Everyday Memory and Memory Errors

Goldstein, E. B. (2015). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience. Cengage Learning.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-memory-blame-brian-williams-20150206-story.html

This year my daughter challenged my creativity and problem-solving skills – she asked to be a vending machine a few weeks before Halloween. As one might expect, vending machine costumes were not available in stores, nor are step-by-step instructions available online. This problem needed quick and strategic solving. Psychology defines “problems” and the processes one might employ in order to build a vending machine costume.

“A problem occurs when there is an obstacle between a present state and a goal and it is not immediately obvious how to get around the obstacle” (Goldstein, 2015, p. 336). In this case, a completed vending machine costume was my goal. My problem or obstacle was that I could not buy a vending machine costume and the steps to building one were not apparent.

While there are different approaches to problem-solving, the Newell and Simons approach seems to fit my scenario. Newell and Simons describe problems through various states. At the beginning of the problem is the initial state (Goldstein, 2015). My lack of a costume or any idea how to build one was the initial state of my problem. The end of the problem is the solution or goal state. My goal was to create a fun and unique vending machine costume for my daughter to wear on Halloween.

To reach the goal state requires moving through steps in between. The Tower of Hanoi problem requires participants to move three discs from the first peg (initial state) of a three-peg object to the third peg (goal state) in as few moves as possible. Intermediate states are the various states achieved between the initial state and the goal state. To get from one state to another requires operators. And the means-end analysis strategy is meant to reduce the number of intermediate states. The means-end analysis includes small steps, called subgoals, that reduce the steps between initial and goal states (Goldstein, 2015).

My first intermediate step was to draw the costume on graphing paper. I included measurements, listed the costume components, and wrote down each step, including the problem space (all the possibilities). Goldstein (2015) explains that experts possess more knowledge about their fields, organize their knowledge differently, and spend more time analyzing problems before solving them. While I am certainly not an expert vending machine crafter or have any enhanced ability to organize information, I demonstrated one of the characteristics of an expert by analyzing the entire project thoroughly before beginning.

Thorough analysis goes hand in hand with the means-end analysis. Using the means-end analysis strategy, I combined several steps in my process by setting smaller goals or subgoals. For example, rather than spray painting each piece of the costume individually, I spray painted all of the components in the same step– thus reducing setup time each time I painted. Once I felt satisfied with my plan, I got right to work. Every state of the project along the way was an intermediate state. The work to progress the costume to the next state were the operators. 

This project required new ideas and open-ended creativity (divergent thinking) to execute. Solving a problem is a process and requires some trial and error (Goldstein, 2015). Not every intermediate step was as simple as I had believed it would be. Many times, my original plan did not work and I needed to develop new ideas of how to accomplish that step through trial and error. In one intermediate step, I accidentally purchased Plexiglas that was too thick and would not hold with epoxy. Instead, I tried drilling holes and securing the Plexiglas with bolts – it worked!

Creating this costume (the problem) required many intermediate states, creativity, analysis, trial and error, and patience. Overall, I spent several weekends working on the costume until achieving the goal state. My daughter was thrilled to be a vending machine and received plenty of positive feedback during the two hours she wore it. Perhaps I should start planning now for her costume next year!

References

Goldstein, E. B. (2015). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience. Cengage Learning.

One Christmas several years ago, both my sister and I received an array of Christmas presents. All from “Santa” of course. Following the eventful unwrapping of presents, my grandparents arrived later that afternoon from New York. After their arrival it seemed as though Santa came a second time. They brought what “Santa must’ve forgotten”. Therefore, they unloaded the beautifully wrapped presents and watched our eyes gleam with excitement. We began to viciously tare through the wrapping paper to uncover the glorious toys inside. Upon opening the final gift there was a beautiful mini glass doll with long brown hair, blue eyes, a red bow, and a silk red and white dress. The image above is a picture I took of this exact doll. Furthermore, as I sat admiring this doll, I peered to my right and saw my sister was given a doll too. However, the doll she was given had short blonde hair, no bow, but the same dress. The doll that was given to me was most similar in appearance to my sister, since she has brown hair. Whereas the doll that was given to her was more similar in appearance to me, considering it had blonde hair. Although it seemed that the dolls were incorrectly gifted to each of us according to its features, my grandmother made no corrections. This gave the impression these gifts were intentionally gifted to each grandchild, and that there was no mistake made. A few days later my grandparents had returned home. As my sister and I were playing with our gifts, suddenly my sister asked me “why are you playing with my doll?”. Immediately I looked down at the precious doll within my hands and realized, it was in fact mine. The doll with the dark hair. Quickly this situation escalated. My parents had to get involved and my sister seemed to hold the better argument, considering the doll did look most like her. This left young me outraged. Since my parents were unable to decipher who was telling the truth, they took the doll away, and said we could have it back once they knew the truth. Unfortunately, our stubborn tendencies resulted in this situation never getting resolved. Years later both my sister and I still don’t see eye to eye on this doll situation, yet we laugh about it. However, when I was cleaning out the garage about two weeks ago, I stumbled upon this controversial doll in my sister’s bin of belongings. Ironically this seemed to be a perfect time to find this doll, considering it seems to relate well to our course concept, false memory. This situation displays false memory since my sister genuinely believed this doll was hers, when in actuality it was not her doll.

The concept of memory is far from being simplistic. Rather it holds complex constructive properties that are more advanced than typical forms of cognition. Memory goes beyond short-term memory or long-term memory, but even establishes another category known as “false memory”. False memories seem to adhere to their name, considering they are memories that are not true. What makes false memory even more difficult to seamlessly comprehend is that “false memories arise from the same constructive process that produces true memories” (Goldstein,2011). Put simply, this means that the process our brains use to create memories that did indeed occur, is the same pattern followed when we retain untrue memories. Additionally, our memories derive from source monitoring, which hold our “memories, knowledge, and beliefs” (Goldstein,2011). When source monitoring errors occur, the source of a memory is mistakenly forgotten. This is much like false memory since these mistakes of former knowledge get deluded by fake recollections. Cyrptomnesia is another form of incorrect memory processing because this is where one falsely deems another’s words or work as their own.

Moreover, all these forms of false memory seem to highlight the complexity behind memories, and whether their accuracies can be trusted. For instance, would you allow a doctor to perform surgery by memory? Most likely not. Although memories can falsify reality, they still can hold sentimental values and may be the first source to recall information. However, memory is not the safest form of knowledge. Furthermore, court cases who make use of eye-witness testimonies attempt to use memory for proof in a case. This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but after referencing the common inaccuracies in memory, perhaps it is clear how memories are not always reliable.

Additionally, the idea of false memory seems to closely relate to a concept known as the “Mandela effect”. This term was coined after the famous Nelson Mandela. Confabulation of false memories results in inaccurate information that is unintentionally deceitful, much like the Mandela effect suggests. Nelson Mandela is commonly known for being the first African American president in South Africa, and acted as an advocate for eliminating racial segregation. Peacefully promoting these rights led to his imprisonment. The development of the well-known Mandela effect has Fiona Broome at its roots. She was “a self-identified “paranormal consultant,” who “detailed how she remembered former South African President Nelson Mandela dying in the 1980s in prison” (Nall,2013). Nelson Mandela did not die in prison nor in this timeline, rather he passed in 2013. Following the specificities of her theory and how she “remembered” newscasts and additional announcements led to these beliefs. Ironically, she was not the only one who held these false thought processes, and this led to the evolution of the Mandela effect.

Overall false memories seem to appear in an unintentional manner and form inaccurate recollections of information. The intricate processes involved in memory processing and intake seem to go beyond our sound cognitions at times, and result in false memories. Perhaps some of you have run into situations in which false memory has made its presence known in your lives, if so, please share below!

References

Goldstein, B. (2011). “Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience” (4th ed.). Wadsworth, Inc.

Nall, R. (2013). The Mandela effect: What it is and how it happens. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/mandela-effect.

Functional fixation refers to the tendency to view the functions or uses we assign to objects as fixed or stable so that we do not see the properties of the stimulus that might be useful in problem-solving. Functional fixation occurs when top-down processing is over-activated because we depend too much on our previous concepts, expectations, and memories. Thus, one perceives an object in terms of its most general use. Because objects in the world have a fixed function, a strategy of using one tool for one task and another for another is usually appropriate. Therefore, functional fixation is a basic mistake made in the cognitive process and is often the result of a fundamentally rational strategy.
We use problem-solving when we want to reach a particular goal, but we often don’t immediately figure out the proper path to the goal. For problem-solving, we can think about the four main aspects: problem understanding, problem-solving strategies, factors that influence problem-solving, and creativity. Factors affecting problem-solving include bottom-up and bottom-up processing, which are important for effective problem-solving. Upstream processing emphasizes information about stimuli registered in sensory receptors. Top-down processing, on the other hand, emphasizes concepts, expectations, and memories from past experiences. Experts make good use of well-developed top-down processing techniques. They take full advantage of their accumulated concepts, expectations, and knowledge. However, excessive use of top-down processing sometimes hinders effective problem solving, such as functional fixation and set-of-mind.

We rely too much on previous concepts, expectations, and memories when solving problems. Functional fixation means that we tend to view the functions or uses we assign to objects as fixed or stable. Thus, we do not see the properties of the stimulus that might be useful in problem-solving. That is, functional fixation arises because of the tendency to perceive an object in terms of its most general use.
For example, a person may be moving boxes in an apartment, and he may feel uncomfortable because there is no foot to secure the door, but he may not realize that one of the boxes can be used for that same purpose. Similarly, many people don’t realize that a coin or a blade can be used as a screwdriver in an emergency. As such, functional fixation reflects perceptual rigidity.
The basic mistakes made in cognitive processes are often the result of very rational strategies. Normally, objects in the world have a fixed function. We use a screwdriver to tighten the screws, and we use coins to buy something. In general, a strategy of using one tool for one task and another for another task is appropriate. Each tool is designed specifically for its unique task. But when we rigidly apply such strategies, functional fixation occurs. For example, without a driver, you don’t realize that a coin can take over its function. Similarly, it is generally a wise strategy to use the knowledge you have learned while solving previous problems to solve your current dilemma.
The purpose of the hammer is a tool used to drive nails, but it can also be used as a hammer to put the paper on top so that it does not fly off. To break free from functional fixation like this, we need to increase the flexibility of our thinking.

Reference

https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2130474/modules/items/33027172