The dependence of involuntary memorization on the structure of activity in the works of P.I. Zinchenko and A.A. Smirnova
In a series of experiments Zinchenko the fact of the dependence of involuntary memorization on the organization of human activity was proven. This form of memorization was chosen because voluntary memorization is dominant in a person’s life, and quite often he is faced with the task of remembering one or another event that was not purposefully noted or remembered. In addition, involuntary memorization, unlike voluntary, is rarely the subject of experimental research, since it is difficult to fit into a laboratory framework; this form of memorization is virtually unexplored in cognitive psychology. However, P.I. Zinchenko and his colleagues managed to solve methodological and practical problems associated with the study of involuntary memorization. The same experimental material appears in an experiment in two guises: once - as an object to which activity is directed, a second time - as a background, i.e. an object not directly included in the activity.
Experiment P.I. Zinchenko
The subjects were offered 15 cards with pictures; a number was written in the corner of each card. In the first episode The experiment offered a cognitive task (not a mnestic one!) - to sort the cards into groups according to the content of the objects depicted on them. Then they had to remember what objects and numbers were on the cards. The experimental hypothesis was confirmed - the subjects remembered objects well, since they acted as the object of activity, and almost did not remember numbers, although the latter were constantly in the field of attention. In the second episode In the experiment, the objects were numbers - it was necessary to lay out cards in ascending order of the numbers written on them, and the results were similar: the numbers were remembered well, but the pictures were practically not remembered (Fig. 18). Memorization indicators are the arithmetic average of the number of correctly named pictures or numbers in the group of subjects. Based on the results of the experiment, it was formulated general rule: what the activity is aimed at is remembered.
However, this rule needed additional verification, because the results could be a consequence not of the direction of activity as such, but of the direction of attention. For this purpose, a third experiment was carried out. In the third episode The subjects were offered 15 similar cards, they were laid out on the table. After this, 15 more cards were presented, which had to be placed on top of those lying on the table, according to a certain rule. In the first case, a picture was selected on which an object was drawn with a name starting with the same letter (ball - hammer), in the second case, a pair had to be selected not according to a formal sign (the first letter of the word), but according to meaning, for example, key - to castle, etc. The results of involuntary memorization in the first case turned out to be significantly lower than in the second, and this can no longer be explained solely by the focus of attention, because in both cases the cards were in the field of attention, but in the second case more meaningful and active activity took place.
In cases where pictures and numbers were the subject of activity, there was a natural tendency for their memorization rates to increase with age. Indicators of memorization of background stimuli express the opposite trend: the older the age, the smaller they are. This fact is explained by the peculiarities of activity in completing tasks for younger schoolchildren. Observations showed that younger schoolchildren and especially preschoolers were slower to enter the experimental situation; more often than middle schoolchildren and especially adults, they were distracted by other stimuli. Therefore, numbers in the first experiment and pictures in the second attracted their attention and became the subject of side effects... ().
So, Zinchenko experiment confirmed the main assumption: memorization is a product of active activity with objects, which is the main reason for their involuntary memorization. “In the experiments described, we obtained facts characterizing two forms of direct memorization. The first of them is a product of purposeful activity. This includes the facts of memorizing pictures in the process of their classification (first experiment) and numbers when the subjects compiled a number series (second experiment). The second form is the product of various orienting reactions evoked by the same objects as background stimuli. These reactions are not directly related to the subject of purposeful activity. This includes isolated facts of memorizing pictures in the second experiment and numbers in the first, where they act as background stimuli” (ibid.).

22. The concept of mnemonic orientation of activity. Memory tasks and settings. Research by A.A. Smirnova.

Experiment by A.A. Smirnova
Smirnov's experiment proves that involuntary memorization is associated with the main stream of non-memic activity. The subjects were offered simple instructions- remember everything that happened to them on the way from home to work. The results obtained can be divided into three groups:
1. Memories refer to what people did thoughts are remembered much less frequently and relate mainly to actions.
2. The memories reflect what acted as an obstacle on the way or, on the contrary, made the path easier (“I was late for work, and then as luck would have it, the bus just left”).

3. Memories not related to the action - something strange, unusual, raising a question (“it’s frosty outside, and the woman is without gloves”).

The experimental data can be explained in connection with taking into account focus subjects at the moment when they performed the activity they were talking about. They were aimed at achieving the goal in a timely manner, arriving on time - such were their task and motives for their activity. This purposeful transition from home to work... was what main activity which they carried out. Subjects are not thought and walked more or less mechanically, while thinking, and walked and thought while walking. ...The main thing they did during the period of time they were talking about was precisely the transition from home to work, and not those thinking processes that they had, of course, in sufficient quantities, but were not associated with the main stream of their activities"(p. 224).

Based on the results, a general conclusion was drawn: what is remembered is what is connected with the main stream of activity.
These are the main experimental studies of the relationship between memorization and activity

Source of mnemonic orientation(MN): conscious intention to remember (voluntary memorization). The opposite is involuntary memorization. The presence of MN is important for memorization productivity. Ex: 1. if the subject does not understand that the syllables need to be memorized, and not just read, he will not remember them. 2. experimenters do not have a MN goal to remember the material, they do not remember it, but the subjects have it and they remember it.
MN: tasks(realized) and/or installations(unconscious) memorization:
1. For completeness (memorize the material selectively or all)
2. For accuracy (verbatim, literally or in your own words)
3.For consistency
4.For strength and durability (remember for a short time or forever).
5. On timeliness.
Factors mnemonic orientation:
1)Memorization motive. Evaluation: reward/punishment. The value of the assessment. Focus on a person's personal/business interests (Bartlett). Competition. Content and nature of activities
2)Memorization goals.
3)Memorization requirements.
4)Memorization conditions: time, physical conditions (noise, etc.).
5) Individual psychological properties of those who remember.

P. I. Zinchenko

INVOLUTIONARY MEMORY AND ACTIVITY 1

Zinchenko Petr Ivanovich (July 12, 1903 - February 18, 1969) - Soviet psychologist, professor, head. Department of Psychology, Kharkov University. The main contribution to psychology is the work of P. I. Zinchenko from memory. The first studies of P. I. Zinchenko were carried out in the 30s under the leadership of A. N. Leontyev. In the article “Problems of involuntary memorization” published in 1939, which was of fundamental importance in the history of Soviet psychology, the prevailing ideas at that time about the random and mechanical nature of involuntary memorization were criticized and the position about the semantic nature of involuntary memory and its dependence on content and nature of human activity.

In subsequent years, the problems of the psychology of involuntary memory were systematically developed in a number of theoretical and experimental studies by P. I. Zinchenko and his colleagues. The development of the problem of learning efficiency and memory productivity in learning, carried out under the leadership of P. I. Zinchenko, was also important.

Works: The problem of involuntary memorization // Scientific notes of the Kharkov Pedagogical Institute foreign languages. 1939, vol. 1; Involuntary memorization. M., 1961; M., 1997.

In foreign psychology, as we have already noted, involuntary memorization was understood as the random imprinting of objects that, in the words of Myers Shallow, were within the scope of attention when it was directed to some other objects. This understanding determined the methodological principle of most studies, which consisted in isolating certain objects as much as possible from the activities of the subjects by the evoked design, leaving these objects only in the field of perception, that is, only as background stimuli.

We assumed that the main form of involuntary memorization is a product of purposeful activity. Other forms of this type of memorization are the results of other forms of activity of the subject.

1 See: Zinchenko P.I. Involuntary memorization. M., 1961.

These provisions determined the methodology of our research. To reveal the natural connections and dependencies of involuntary memorization on activity, it is necessary not to isolate certain material from it, but, on the contrary, to include it in some activity other than mnemonic, which is voluntary memorization.

The first task of such a study was to experimentally prove the very fact of the dependence of involuntary memorization on human activity. To do this, it was necessary to organize the activities of the subjects in such a way that the same material was in one case an object to which their activity is directed or which is closely related to this focus, and in the other - an object not directly included in the activity, but located in the field perceptions of subjects acting on their senses.

For this purpose, the following research methodology was developed.

The experimental material was 15 cards with an image of an object on each of them. Twelve of these items could be classified into the following four groups: 1) primus, kettle, saucepan; 2) drum, ball, toy bear; 3) apple, pear, raspberry; 4) horse, dog, rooster. The last 3 cards had different contents: boots, gun, beetle. Classification of objects according to their specific characteristics made it possible to conduct experiments with this material not only with students and adults, but also with preschool children.

In addition to the image, each card had a number written in black ink in its upper right corner; the numbers indicated the following numbers: 1, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 23, 28, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50.

The following two experiments were carried out with the described material.

In the first experiment, subjects acted with objects depicted on cards. This action was organized differently in the experiment with the subjects of different ages. With preschoolers, the experiment was carried out in the form of a game: the experimenter conditionally designated on the table the space for the kitchen, children's room, garden and yard. The children were asked to place the cards in places on the table to which, in their opinion, they were most suitable. They should have placed cards that did not fit in these places near

themselves as “extra.” It was meant that the children would put a primus stove, a kettle, and a saucepan in the “kitchen”; in the “children’s room” - a drum, a ball, a teddy bear, etc.

Zinchenko P.I. INVOLUTIONARY MEMORY AND ACTIVITY

Reader on general psychology. Psychology of memory / Under. Yu. B. Gippenreiter, V. Ya. Romanov. M., 1979. S. 207-216.

In foreign psychology, as we have already noted, involuntary memorization was understood as the random imprinting of objects that, in the words of Myers Shallow, were within the scope of attention when it was directed to some other objects. This understanding determined the methodological principle of most studies, which consisted in isolating certain objects as much as possible from the activities of the subjects by the instruction evoked, leaving these objects only in the field of perception, i.e., only as background stimuli. We assumed that the main form of involuntary memorization is a product of purposeful activity. Other forms of this type of memorization are the results of other forms of activity of the subject.

The first task of such a study was to experimentally prove the very fact of the dependence of involuntary memorization on human activity. To do this, it was necessary to organize the activities of the subjects in such a way that the same material was in one case an object to which their activity is directed or which is closely related to this direction, and in the other - an object not directly included in the activity, but located in the field perceptions of subjects acting on their senses.

For this purpose, the following research methodology was developed.

In addition to the image, each card had a number written in black ink in its upper right corner; the numbers indicated the following numbers: 1, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 23, 28, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50.

The following 2 experiments were carried out with the described material.

In the first experiment, subjects acted with objects depicted on cards. This action was organized and experienced differently with subjects of different ages. With preschoolers, the experiment was carried out in the form of a game: the experimenter conditionally designated on the table the space for the kitchen, children's room, garden and yard. The children were asked to place the cards on the bridges on the table to which, in their opinion, they were most suitable. They had to put cards that did not fit in these places next to them as “extra”. It was meant that the children would put a primus stove, a kettle, and a saucepan in the “kitchen”; to the “children’s room” - a drum, a ball, a teddy bear, etc.

In this experiment, students and adults were given a cognitive task: to sort the cards into groups according to the content of the objects depicted on them, and put the “extra” ones aside separately.

After laying out the cards, they were removed, and the subjects were asked to remember the objects and numbers depicted on them. Preschoolers reproduced only the names of objects.

Thus, in this experiment, the subjects carried out cognitive activity or play activity cognitive nature, and not the activity of memorization. In both cases, they acted with the objects depicted on the cards: they perceived, comprehended their content, and sorted them into groups. The numbers on the cards in this experiment were not part of the content of the task, so the subjects did not need to show any special activity in relation to them. However, throughout the entire experiment, the numbers were in the field of perception of the subjects; they acted on their senses.

According to our assumptions, in this experiment the objects were to be remembered, but the numbers were not.

In the second experiment, other subjects were given the same 15 cards as in the first experiment. In addition, they were given a cardboard board on which 15 white squares were glued, the size of cards; 12 squares formed a square frame on the shield, and 3 were arranged in a column (see Fig. 1).

Before the experiment began, cards were laid out on the table in such a way that the numbers pasted on them did not create a certain order in their arrangement. While the experimental instructions were being presented to the subject, the cards were covered. The subject was given the task: placing cards in a certain order on each white square, laying them out into a frame and a column on the board. The cards must be placed so that the numbers pasted on them are arranged in ascending order. The result of correctly completing the task is presented in Figure 1.

Drawing up an increasing number series, a given order of laying out frames and columns of cards forced the subject to look for cards with certain numbers, comprehend the numbers, and relate them to each other.

In order to ensure serious attitude subjects to the task, they were told that this experiment would test their ability to work carefully. Subjects were warned that errors in the arrangement of numbers would be recorded and would serve as an indicator of their degree of attentiveness. For the same purpose, the subject was asked to check the correctness of his performance of the task: add up the last 3 numbers arranged in a column in his mind and compare their sum with the sum of these three numbers named by the experimenter before the experiment.

For the preschool children tested, the following changes were made to the methodology of this experiment. Instead of a number, each card had a special icon stuck on it. The fifteen icons were made up of a combination of three shapes (cross, circle, stick) and five different colors (red, blue, black, green and yellow). The same icons were pasted on each square of the frame and column. The cards were placed in front of the subject so that the arrangement of the icons did not create the order in which these icons were located on the squares of the frame and column. The subject had to place on each square of the frame and column the card that had the same icon as the one on the square. Laying out the frames and columns with cards was carried out in the same order as in the first version of the technique, therefore, here, too, the subject was required to search for a specific card for each square with the corresponding icon. After completing the task, the subject was asked to name the objects depicted on the cards.

Picture 1

Thus, in the second experiment, the subjects carried out cognitive rather than mnemonic activity. However, pictures and numbers played here as if in directly opposite roles. In the first experiment, the subject of the subjects' activity were pictures, and numbers were the object of only passive perception. In the second experiment, on the contrary: the task of sorting numbers into increasing magnitudes made them the subject of activity, and the pictures only an object of passive perception. Therefore, we had the right to expect exactly the opposite results: in the first experiment, pictures should have been remembered, and in the second, numbers.

This technique was also adapted for conducting a group experiment...

Individual experiments, involving 354 subjects, were carried out with middle and older preschoolers, with junior and middle schoolchildren and adults.

Group experiments were carried out with students of grades II, III, IV, V, VI and VII and with students; 1212 subjects participated in them.

In both individual and group experiments we dealt with involuntary memory. The content of the tasks in the first and second experiments was cognitive and not mnemonic in nature. In order to give the subjects the impression that our experiments were not related to memory, and to prevent them from developing a memorization mindset, we presented the first experiment as a thinking experiment aimed at testing classification skills, and the second as an experiment testing attention.

Proof that we were able to achieve this goal was the fact that in both experiments the experimenter's proposal to reproduce pictures and numbers was perceived by the subjects as completely unexpected for them. This applied to the objects of their activity, and especially to the objects of their passive perception (numbers in the first experiment and images of objects in the second).

The arithmetic mean for each group of subjects was taken as the memory indicators. The reliability of our indicators is confirmed by the extremely collected nature of the statistical series for each experiment and each group of subjects, as well as the fundamental coincidence of the indicators of the individual experiment with the group indicators obtained on a large number of subjects.

In both individual and group experiments, we obtained sharp differences in memorizing pictures and numbers in the first and second experiments, and in all groups of our subjects. For example, in the first experiment in adults (individual experiment), the rate of memorization of pictures was 19 times greater than that of numbers (13.2 and 0.7), and in the second experiment numbers were remembered 8 times more than pictures (10.2 and 1 ,3).

These differences according to individual experiments are presented in Figure 2.

How can we explain the differences obtained in memorizing pictures and numbers?

Figure 2. Comparative memory curves (first and second experiments)

The main difference in the conditions of our experiments was that in the first experiment the subject of activity was pictures, and in the second - numbers. This determined the high productivity of their memorization, although the subject of activity in these experiments and the activity itself were different. The absence of purposeful activity in relation to these same objects, where they acted in experiments only as background stimuli, led to a sharp decrease in their memorization.

This difference caused a sharp discrepancy in memorization results. This means that the reason for the high productivity of memorizing pictures in the first experiment and numbers in the second is the activity of our subjects in relation to them.

Another explanation suggests itself, which seems, at first glance, to be the simplest and most obvious. We can say that the differences in memorization are explained by the fact that in one case the subjects paid attention to pictures and numbers, but in the other they did not. Our subjects, being busy following instructions, indeed, as a rule, did not pay attention to numbers in the first experiment, and to pictures in the second. Therefore, they especially sharply protested against our demand to remember these objects: “I was dealing with pictures, but didn’t pay attention to numbers,” “I didn’t pay any attention to pictures at all, but was busy with numbers,” these were the usual answers of the subjects.

There is no doubt that the presence or absence of attention of the subjects in our experiments had an impact on the resulting differences in memorization. However, attention alone cannot explain the facts we obtained. Despite the fact that the nature of attention still continues to be discussed in psychology (See: Galperin P. Ya. On the problem of attention. - "Reports of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR", 1958, No. 3), one thing is certain: its function and influence on productivity a person cannot be considered in isolation from the activity itself. Attention itself must receive its explanation from the content of the activity, from the role it plays in it, and not as its explanatory principle.

The fact that the explanation of the obtained results by reference to attention is at least insufficient is clearly proven by the factual materials of our special experiments.

Before the experiment began, 15 pictures were laid out on the table. Then the subject was sequentially presented with another 15 pictures. The subject had to place each of the presented pictures on one of the pictures on the table, so that the name of both began with the same letter. For example: hammer - ball, desk - locomotive, etc. Thus, the subject made 15 pairs of pictures.

The second experiment was carried out in the same way as the first, but pairs of pictures were not formed according to external sign, but in terms of meaning. For example: lock - key, watermelon - knife, etc.

In both experiments we were dealing with involuntary memorization, since the subject was not given the task of remembering, and the offer to remember the pictures was unexpected for them.

The memorization results in the first experiment turned out to be extremely insignificant, several times less than in the second. In these experiments, reference to lack of attention to the pictures is virtually impossible. The subject not only saw the pictures, but, as required by the instructions, pronounced their names out loud in order to highlight the initial letter of the corresponding word...

So, activity with objects is the main reason for involuntary memorization of them. This position is confirmed not only by the fact of high productivity in memorizing pictures and numbers where they were the subject of the subjects’ activity, but also by their poor memorization where they were only background stimuli. The latter indicates that memorization cannot be reduced to direct imprinting i.e., to the result of the unilateral influence of objects on the senses outside of human activity aimed at these objects...

At the same time, we did not obtain complete, absolute non-memorization of numbers in the first experiment and pictures in the second, although these objects in these experiments were not the subject of the subjects’ activity, but acted as background stimuli.

Doesn't this contradict the position we put forward that memorization is a product of activity, and not the result of direct imprinting?

Observations of the process of the subjects performing the task, conversations with them about how they managed to remember pictures in the second experiment and numbers in the first, lead us to the conclusion that memorization in these cases was always associated with one or another distraction from completing the task and thus with the subject displaying a certain action towards them. Often this was not realized by the subjects themselves. Most often, this kind of distraction was associated with the beginning of the experiment, when the pictures were opened in front of the subject, and he had not yet entered into the situation of performing the task; They were also caused by rearranging pictures in case of mistakes and other reasons that could not always be taken into account.

Connected with these circumstances is a very stable fact that we obtained in these experiments, which seems, at first glance, paradoxical. Where pictures and numbers were the subject of activity, a clear tendency of a gradual increase in the indicators of their memorization with the age of the subjects was quite naturally expressed. Indicators of memorization of background stimuli express the exact opposite trend: they do not increase with age, but decrease. The highest rates of picture memorization were obtained from preschoolers (3.1), the lowest - from adults (1.3); younger schoolchildren remembered 1.5 numbers, and adults - 0.7. In absolute numbers these differences are small, but The general trend expressed quite convincingly.

This fact is explained by the peculiarities of the activity of younger subjects when performing tasks. Observations showed that younger schoolchildren and especially preschoolers entered the experimental situation more slowly; more often than middle schoolchildren and especially adults, they were distracted by other stimuli. Therefore, the numbers in the first experiment and the pictures in the second attracted their attention and became the subject of some side effects.

Thus, individual facts of memorization of background stimuli not only do not contradict, but confirm our position that involuntary memorization is a product of activity, and not the result of direct imprinting of inactive objects.

It seems to us that the position about the irreducibility of memorization to direct imprinting, its dependence and conditioning by human activity is important not only for understanding memory processes. It also has a more general, fundamentally theoretical significance for understanding the essence of the psyche and consciousness.

The facts obtained in our experiments and the position that follows from them are not consistent with any kind of epiphenomenalistic concepts of consciousness. Any mental formation - sensation, idea, etc. - is not the result of a passive, mirror reflection of objects and their properties, but the result of a reflection included in the effective, active attitude of the subject to these objects and their properties. The subject reflects reality and appropriates any reflection of reality as a subject of action, and not a subject of passive contemplation.

The obtained facts reveal the complete inconsistency of the old associative psychology with its mechanical and idealistic understanding of the process of formation of associations. In both cases, memorization was interpreted as immediate imprinting at the same time. Inactive objects, without taking into account the actual work of the brain, which implements certain human activities in relation to these objects...

In the experiments described, we obtained facts characterizing two forms of involuntary memorization. The first of them is a product of purposeful activity. This includes the facts of memorizing pictures in the process of their classification (first experiment) and numbers when the subjects compiled a number series (second experiment). The second form is the product of various orienting reactions evoked by the same objects as background stimuli. These reactions are not directly related to the subject of purposeful activity. This includes isolated facts of memorizing pictures in the second experiment and numbers in the first, where they acted as background stimuli.

The latter form of involuntary memorization has been the subject of many studies in foreign psychology. This kind of memorization is called “random” memorization. In reality, such memorization is not accidental in nature, as foreign psychologists point out, especially in recent studies.

The big mistake of many foreign psychologists was that they tried to exhaust all involuntary memorization by such random memorization. In this regard, it received a predominantly negative description. Meanwhile, such random memorization constitutes only one, and minor, form of involuntary memorization.

Purposeful activity occupies a fundamental place in the life of not only humans, but also animals. Therefore, involuntary memorization, which is a product of such activity, is its main, most vital form.

In this regard, the study of its laws is of particularly great theoretical and practical interest.

(16 Kb)

INVOLUTIONARY MEMORY AND ACTIVITY

Reader on general psychology. Psychology of memory / Under. Yu. B. Gippenreiter, V. Ya. Romanov. M., 1979. S. 207-216.

In foreign psychology, as we have already noted, involuntary memorization was understood as the random imprinting of objects that, in the words of Myers Shallow, were within the scope of attention when it was directed to some other objects. This understanding determined the methodological principle of most studies, which consisted in isolating certain objects as much as possible from the activities of the subjects by the instruction evoked, leaving these objects only in the field of perception, i.e., only as background stimuli. We assumed that the main form of involuntary memorization is a product of purposeful activity. Other forms of this type of memorization are the results of other forms of activity of the subject.

The first task of such a study was to experimentally prove the very fact of the dependence of involuntary memorization on human activity. To do this, it was necessary to organize the activities of the subjects in such a way that the same material was in one case an object to which their activity is directed or which is closely related to this direction, and in the other - an object not directly included in the activity, but located in the field perceptions of subjects acting on their senses.

For this purpose, the following research methodology was developed.

In addition to the image, each card had a number written in black ink in its upper right corner; the numbers indicated the following numbers: 1, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 23, 28, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 47, 50.

The following 2 experiments were carried out with the described material.

After laying out the cards, they were removed, and the subjects were asked to remember the objects and numbers depicted on them. Preschoolers reproduced only the names of objects.

Thus, in this experiment, the subjects carried out cognitive activity or play activity of a cognitive nature, and not memorization activity. In both cases, they acted with the objects depicted on the cards: they perceived, comprehended their content, and sorted them into groups. The numbers on the cards in this experiment were not part of the content of the task, so the subjects did not need to show any special activity in relation to them. However, throughout the entire experiment, the numbers were in the field of perception of the subjects; they acted on their senses.

According to our assumptions, in this experiment the objects were to be remembered, but the numbers were not.

To ensure that subjects took the task seriously, they were told that the experience would test their ability to work carefully. Subjects were warned that errors in the arrangement of numbers would be recorded and would serve as an indicator of their degree of attentiveness. For the same purpose, the subject was asked to check the correctness of his performance of the task: add up the last 3 numbers arranged in a column in his mind and compare their sum with the sum of these three numbers named by the experimenter before the experiment.

Picture 1

This technique was also adapted for conducting a group experiment...

Individual experiments, involving 354 subjects, were carried out with middle and older preschoolers, with junior and middle schoolchildren and adults.

Group experiments were carried out with students of grades II, III, IV, V, VI and VII and with students; 1212 subjects participated in them.

These differences according to individual experiments are presented in Figure 2.

How can we explain the differences obtained in memorizing pictures and numbers?

Figure 2. Comparative memory curves (first and second experiments)

The fact that the explanation of the obtained results by reference to attention is at least insufficient is clearly proven by the factual materials of our special experiments.

The second experiment was carried out in the same way as the first, but pairs of pictures were formed not by external characteristics, but by semantic ones. For example: lock - key, watermelon - knife, etc.

In both experiments we were dealing with involuntary memorization, since the subject was not given the task of remembering, and the offer to remember the pictures was unexpected for them.

Doesn't this contradict the position we put forward that memorization is a product of activity, and not the result of direct imprinting?

Connected with these circumstances is a very stable fact that we obtained in these experiments, which seems, at first glance, paradoxical. Where pictures and numbers were the subject of activity, a clear tendency of a gradual increase in the indicators of their memorization with the age of the subjects was quite naturally expressed. Indicators of memorization of background stimuli express the exact opposite trend: they do not increase with age, but decrease. The highest rates of picture memorization were obtained from preschoolers (3.1), the lowest - from adults (1.3); younger schoolchildren remembered 1.5 numbers, and adults - 0.7. In absolute numbers, these differences are small, but the general trend is expressed quite convincingly.

In this regard, the study of its laws is of particularly great theoretical and practical interest.

Semantic memory is a type of memory that reflects generalized information about the world.

Concept of semantic networks(M.R. Quillian) - information in semantic memory is stored in hierarchically organized network structures, which consist of nodes and relationships. Each node has a corresponding set of properties. The principle of property inheritance-properties correspond not only to the node itself, but also to all underlying categories. Cognitive Economy Hypothesis-the information processing system saves its resources, because there is no need to duplicate the properties that each node has. (E. Roche - assessment by subjects of the typicality of objects).

Semantic networks are built not only according to the formal characteristics of objects. There are also definitive (greater significance) and characteristic features. + mental images.

Episodic memory according to E. Tulving, is an evolutionarily late, easily vulnerable memory system, oriented to the past, which is a unique property of the human psyche.

Semantic and episodic memory are two information processing systems. general characteristics which is that they:

1. selectively receive information from perceptual systems or other cognitive systems;

2. use different aspects of this information;

3. according to requests, transmit specific information to other systems, including systems responsible for behavior and consciousness.

At the same time, these two systems differ from each other:

1. the nature of the information stored;

2. cognitive or autobiographical reference;

3. search conditions and sequence;

4. sensitivity to interference, manifested in transformations and distortions of content;

5. relationships with each other.

In the episodic system, information is recorded directly, the order of events in memory corresponds to the chronological order of recording. In semantic memory, the correct chronological sequence can be reconstructed regardless of the order of memory (for example, historical events).

In episodic memory, the principle of “encoding specificity” operates, which lies in the fact that the availability of information from the past is determined by the coincidence of “key” elements of the encoding and retrieval situation.

When the direct source of mnemonic orientation is the conscious intention to remember, memorization is a special type of mental activity, often very complex, and by its very essence is voluntary memorization. He is opposed to involuntary memorization, which is carried out in cases where a mnemonic task is not set, and the activity leading to memorization is aimed at achieving some other goals.

The presence of mnemonic orientation is of utmost importance, first of all, for the productivity of memorization.

A. A. Smirnov (voluntary memorization): 1. suggested that schoolchildren memorize two equal passages of text.

At the same time, it was reported that they would have to reproduce one the next day, and the second in two weeks. In fact, the survey was conducted a week later. The goal of remembering for a certain period of time (for a long time or for a short time) had a significant impact on how completely and accurately the students were able to reproduce both texts. Those whose goal was to remember for a long time reproduced the text better than those who remembered for a short time.

2. A. A. Smirnov, when studying the role of human activity in involuntary memorization, offered subjects pairs of phrases, analyzing which they had to deduce certain rules spelling. If the conclusion was correct, they were asked to additionally come up with several phrases illustrating the derived rule. There was no memorization task. The next day, the level of memorization was checked. The results showed that the phrases that the subjects came up with on their own were reproduced three times more often than those that were offered by the experimenter in finished form. à generation effect, i.e. better memorization of material.

P. I. Zinchenko: 1. The subjects were presented with 15 cards, in the center of which there were images of various household items, toys, fruits, animals, and in the corner there were numbers. One group of subjects was asked to classify images of objects. They were given the following instructions: “We are testing your ability to classify objects according to general characteristics.

Your task is to classify all the pictures into groups and write them down, putting its name at the beginning of each group.” Another group was given the task of creating an increasing number series of numbers. Subjects were then asked to remember what pictures and numbers were on the cards. They found that those who completed the object classification task were nearly ten times worse at recalling numbers than they were at recalling objects. Those who dealt with the number series, on the contrary,

They were practically unable to reproduce the objects they saw on the cards. Thus, high productivity of involuntary memorization of pictures and numbers was revealed where they were the subject of activity, and poor efficiency where they were only background stimuli.

2. The subjects were offered ten sets of words of four words each (for example, “house window building fish”). The task “to remember a series of words” was not given, since the researcher was primarily interested in involuntary memorization. The subjects were divided into three groups. For each set, the corresponding group received one of three tasks: 1) combine the first word randomly with one of the remaining three; 2) establish a specific connection between the first word and one of the other three (for example, house window); 3) establish a logical connection between the first word in the set and the most suitable word for this (for example, house building). Then the subjects after

pauses asked to recall the first words from each set

(i.e., the maximum recall result could be ten words).

In the case of a meaningless combination of words during an unexpected survey, the subjects could reproduce only two, in the case of a task to establish a specific connection

five, and in the case of the task of establishing a logical connection, seven key words. Thus, the quality of reproduction of material involuntarily recorded in memory increased linearly as the task became more complex.

40.Functional approaches to the study of thinking. Thinking as a nonspecific mental process.

3 approaches to the study of thinking: mechanistic, teleological, holistic (structural).

Mechanistic approach.

The founders of the approach are considered to be Spencer (an evolutionist who applied the evolutionary approach to solving problems the concept of which should not have appeared at that moment) and Bahn (the theory of this trick: a new object with poorly ordered properties. As the object is manipulated, a certain number of properties , due to repetition, are connected with each other through associations and are consolidated through repetition - association of ideas).

The essence of the approach is that problems are solved randomly, by searching through random options. The subject is reactive.

Theories and experiments within which the approach is implemented:

Galton. Identifying family resemblances. Photographs of members of the same family were taken, made translucent and superimposed on each other, randomly some elements were repeated most often, and common family traits were identified.

Behaviorists. Associative learning. An experiment with a cat that is placed in a cage with a hidden lever, behind the cage is food. At first, the cat rushes aimlessly around the cage, this is a reaction to absolutely all the stimuli around it, through differentiation, it excludes stimuli, the reaction to which does not lead to the desired result, thus the cat’s reaction zone narrows. Further, the cat reacts to stimuli presented in the narrowed zone with a variety of reactions - generalization. Thus, some reaction will randomly lead to the pressing of the focus, the cell will open. After several trials, a motor skill is formed.

Mechanistic approach within the information approach: implementation of a computer metaphor. A person can be described by symbolic information, just as all processes taking place in a computer are described by binary code. Engrams are thrown onto the field, there is a possibility of a meaningful combination - an answer to the task. (then you can be skeptical and talk about monkeys and Tolstoy’s novel).

Teleological approach.

Founders: Würzburg psychologists (Külpe, Bühler, Ach, Selz)

The bottom line is that the problem is solved only if the unknown is somehow connected with the known (in the broad sense - in any respect), by unfolding this connection. Thinking is the process of solving problems.

The concept of a task (only reproductive) appears, a goal is set, the subject becomes active, thinking is non-visual, imageless (i.e., the connection between the known and the unknown is abstract, semantic and does not depend on the subject’s ideas). Concepts such as the determining tendency (Ax) are introduced - the flow of the thought process is changed by the formulation of the problem, the anticipating complex (Selts) - at some point there is an understanding of what needs to be found.

(I didn’t understand about this complex, I need to ask at the consultation)

Experimental technique - solving reproductive problems, abandoning introspection in favor of retrospection.

Rubinstein: “We highlight the given and the sought-after, which must be connected, gradually clarifying the connection, the given is found”

Holistic approach.

Founders: Gestalt psychologists (Wertheimer, Köhler, Duncker).

The teleological approach was criticized. They argued that it can only be used when solving reproductive problems, but if the problem is not solved, isolating a solution is impossible, and the gestalt crumbles.

The essence of the theory is that any problem is a system that specifies the properties of the parts that are included in it; the solution is finding the properties of the parts, a set of functional requirements for the future answer. We discover something new because the task contains the properties of something new.

The key connection between the elements of gestalt is functional, and the task is the whole, the gestalt itself. Insight, within the framework of this theory, is the closure of the gestalt.

Experiments:

Conflict puzzles. Dunker problems.

Problem with 5 apples, a basket, 5 people. It is necessary to distribute apples to people so that one of them remains in the basket. (He also had an infernal experience with rays and a tumor in his stomach, but it’s better not to know).

In the process of solving a problem, a conflict(5 apples, 6 recipients), decision family tree, in which the fight against conflict takes place. In this task there are three branches of the fight against conflict, three functional solutions: add apples, reduce the number of recipients, change the way apples are held (give an apple and then squeeze it back).

Köhler's experiment with monkeys. There is a banana hanging from the ceiling. A smart monkey must reach it; it cannot reach it with its paw or jump. A stupid monkey watches her actions from another cage. Conflict is a short leg, a small leap. Functional solutions - lengthen the paw or jump. A smart monkey takes a stick and knocks bananas with it, or puts down boxes and takes bananas. She is forming a gestalt. Then they launch a stupid monkey, she puts the boxes, but since she is stupid and her gestalt is not formed, she puts the boxes not under the bananas, but in the other corner of the room, and tries to get the bananas.

Thus, we can distinguish 2 types of errors: bad and good.

Bad - the solution to the problem does not take into account the functional relationships of the gestalt elements. (boxes in the corner by the stupid monkey)

Good - the solution is not feasible, but reasonable. (the smart monkey places the box where it needs to be, but on its edge, and she falls from it. There is a gestalt, but there is no solution)

QUESTION

MUKHUTDINOVA ANYA!

Research of involuntary memorization using P and Zinchenko’s technique. P

INVOLUTIONARY MEMORY AND ACTIVITY