The point of the introduction section of Daily Stressors and Memory Failures in a Naturalistic Setting: Findings From the VA Normative Aging Study concerns the complement between daily stressors and cognitive performance. These concerns will dictate the theoretical explanations to be emphasized in this essay. Furthermore, interpersonal stressors are incorporated. Moreover, this introduction touches on memory failures that come about due to Normative Aging and the Normative Aging Study, a factual occurrence in life that we would all surely rather confront than not. Altogether, this introduction shows that this article is based around stress that comes about from cognitive performance, quite the negative association.
The Procedures subsection within this article concerns “[i]nstructions indicating when to complete the diary (approximately a half-hour before going to bed) and when to return the surveys (upon completion of all eight) were sent to each participant,” and better defines the historical background of the research topic. The inclusion of stressors (presumably meaning both individual or internal stressors right alongside external), physical symptoms (exclusively individual), positive and negative affect (perceptions alongside observed reactions of others?), memory failures, pain, and social support should lead to the all-encompassing results as desired. These will be the most relevant to this study.
The hypothesis of the present study will revolve around how human progress now demands more than the human psyche was intended to handle.
That first hypothesis of the within-subject association between stressor frequency and memory failure frequency on a daily basis, pulls the reader in a different direction. When “[they] tested a model controlling for between-subjects differences in neuroticism, life event stressors, and self-reported health with all variables entered simultaneously,” these professionals demonstrate how the monitoring of humans, as nothing more than an additional species of mammal, is essential for the stability of our future survival. Indeed, the year 2012 does land humans into a different spatial zone; ‘will happen’ means nothing, since we are already here.
Throughout the participants within the Methods subsection, our necessity of foreign materials needed to maintain focus (rather than interest) demonstrates how a bit of each of these participants are absent. The daily diary design is on the ball, so much so that it helps demonstrate how humanity (within the United States, anyway) has moved past human capability and what exists to be maintained within human capacity.
In other words, programs and applications that we have trained ourselves to acquire and then competitively shine amongst others is upheld more than individual survival and the survival of the human race. This “association between stressor frequency and memory failure frequency” is the next issue be thought-out within the Results section. We, as humans, have shaped so much of our prioritization around synthetics and a synthesized ideal of progression that we have lost touch with most of our true necessities. It “provides a novel approach for simultaneously examining naturalistic stressors and memory failures and can be extended in a number of ways,” sure, but this is a dire necessity for humans to self-combatively attain before catching on that we are here to do nothing more than survive and appreciate our survival. These are the inferences from the Conclusions/Discussion section that grants this paper at very least a bit of plausibility. Currently, this topic has designed a similar study to bring about such an abundance of self-help talk-shows, reality television shows (aside from the standing paradox that it seems), and other democratic, selfless, and philanthropic efforts that have come about to the complex betterment of humanity.
Spiro, Avron III. Mroczek, Daniel K. Almeida, David M. Neupert, Shevaun D. Daily stressors and memory failures in a naturalistic setting: findings from the VA Normative Aging Study. Psychology and Aging Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 21, No. 2, 424–429 0882-7974/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0882-79184.108.40.2064 (2006)