ABSTRACT
Stress theory, like fading, undertakes to explain all of memory, not just memory for form. But unlike fading, stress theory requires a thorough knowledge of the structure of each memory content. For instance, investigation of memory for chess positions requires familiarity with the intricacies of chess on the part of the investigator, the subjects, and the reader. Memory for chess positions (mainly over the short term) has been investigated with results both intriguing and seemingly compatible with stress theory by Chase and Simon (1973). Because of the requirement for detailed structural information, I chose nonvisual memory tasks from fields less demanding than chess, less specialized than music, less-defying analysis than emotional experiences, and less ambiguous, subjective, and lacking in unique connotations than Bartlett’s (1932) ghost story. This is not to disparage these fields as unsuitable. Investigation of memory contents in these and other fields, from the viewpoint of stress theory, would be of great intrinsic interest. In the case of memory for events that an individual has witnessed, the interest would also be immensely practical. Traditional memory theories throw little light on the memory performance of witnesses before the courts of law. The few existing investigations, like those of Loftus (1979, b), deal mainly with the effect of biasing context, an important problem, certainly, but not the only possible source of error. In addition to intentionally introduced contradictions, intrinsic changes, too, can color and alter the memory for events.
