IN DEFENSE OF EVERYDAY MEMORY

Banaji and Crowder (1989) in an article that was highly critical of the everyday memory approach to the study of human memory concluded that researchers should return to the use of laboratory methods of experimentation and abandon naturalistic studies. In this reply it is shown that Banaji and Crowder misconstrued important issues such as the use of the term autobiographical memory and the use of special subject groups by everyday memory researchers. They misrepresented the literature on both everyday and episodic memory and, in so doing, gave a highly misleading impression of both types of research. Finally, they adopted a superficial model of mind that makes the unwarranted assumption that mental states can be studied as though they were physical states. It is concluded that attempts to further progress in the study of human memory should aim to integrate rather than alienate different research traditions.