MEMORY IN NATURALISTIC AND LABORATORY CONTEXTS - DISTINGUISHING THE ACCURACY-ORIENTED AND QUANTITY-ORIENTED APPROACHES TO MEMORY ASSESSMENT

A distinction is drawn between the quantity-oriented approach to memor y that has dominated traditional laboratory research, and the accuracy -oriented approach that is emerging in the study of everyday memory. T his distinction is shown to underlie some troubling confusions in the interpretation of empirical findings. In particular, the recall-recogn ition paradox, which involves the claimed superiority of recall over r ecognition memory in naturalistic settings, is shown to stem from the common confounding between memory property (quantity vs. accuracy) and 2 other variables that have not generally been distinguished-test for mat (production vs. selection) and report option (free vs. forced repo rting). Three laboratory experiments reveal the fundamentally differen t roles played by report option and test format in accuracy-based and quantity-based memory research. Implications for memory assessment, me tamemory, and the everyday-laboratory controversy are discussed.