Memory Models: Reconstructive (1932) Flashcards
Define a ‘schema’.
A framework of information compiled to form an idea of what a situation will be like based on information from past life experiences.
Give 2 examples of a schema.
- Christmas routine
- Going to a restaurant
Define ‘input’ and ‘processing’ in terms of schemas.
Input = perception of an event Processing = the interpretation of an event
Define the process ‘effort after meaning’.
When people try to make sense of a situation in terms of what they already know using their schemas.
How might information become distorted?
When information is forgotten and gaps need to be filled and when they get reconstructed by our schemas due to memories being imaginative reconstructions of original information.
In what situations do people misremember things due to their schemas?
When the information they processed is unfamiliar or unconsciously unacceptable to the individual due to not conforming to their schema.
Define ‘rationalisation’.
Making something in a memory make sense. Adding or changing details to make the story more logical or culturally familiar. Bartletts ppts could not “fit in” the part about the canoe as they had rationalised this to make sense to their schemas.
Define ‘confabulation’.
Making something up in a memory to fill in gaps and help it make sense using our schemas, often based expectations and cultural norms.
Evidence for reconstructive
A strength of reconstructive memory is the supporting evidence from bartletts war of the ghost study. For example, he tested ppts recollection of an unfamiliar Native American folk story when there was the chance and each ppt read through the story at twice their normal reading rate. Bartlett found that they altered the story when compared to past recall of events. This included people dying at sunset instead of sunrises or missing out parts such as the ghosts. Therefore, this suggests that rationalisation and confabulation are used to make sense of something unfamiliar, using our schemas.
Using the acronym ‘EACH’, evaluate 2 ‘how’ points.
Bartletts research has low reliability. This is because there was a clear lack of a standardised procedure, with recall being tested days, weeks or even months later. This lack of control makes it difficult to determine whether differences in recall were due to cognitive processes such as schemas or simply the inconsistent methodology. As a result, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the data as the procedure does not allow for consistent comparisons across individuals or over time, as the study cannot be repeated.
Are there any applications?
There are positive applications to reconstructive memory as it can be used to inform us on how unreliable EWT are due to the fact that memories can be distorted by our schemas confabulating and rationalising information. Therefore we can provide solutions such as the cognitive interview, which involves steps such as changing the perspective of recall. This technique asks the witness to recall the event from a different point of view, such as imagining what someone else at the event may have seen. This reduces the impact of schemas as the interviewee is encouraged to move away from their personal expectations and assumptions, reducing the use of schemas to fill in gaps in memory or to make something make sense, making the recollection more accurate and so this reduces the possibility of a wrongful convictions.
Using the acronym ‘EACH’, evaluate 2 ‘credibility’ points.
Bartlett’s theory can be scientifically tested. Operationalising memory in the form of a story having features that can be counted each time they are recalled will measure accuracy and the presence of confabulation or rationalisation. Therefore reductionism is scientific as it allows for things to be measurable, leading to easy replication which increases the credibility of results. Can also explain individual differences in recall as people have different schemas due to different life experiences and so information will not be changed the same for everybody, increasing the credibility of findings.
Tulvings theory of LTM better.
What is levelling?
Omitting or downplaying details that seem confusing to schemas. Bartletts ppts recalled the story to be much shorter than it was, with only the ‘bare outline’ remaining.
