Exploring Memory Reliability and Reconstruction

Reliability Of Memory Bartlett’s (1932) Theory of Reconstructive Memory Bartlett proposed that memories are not stored in an exact form as in a computer. Instead, our memories are notes about what we experience, like jotting down a brief outline on a notepad. When we come to recall these memories, we simply retrieve the notes and elaborate on them using our general knowledge about similar events. This means that memories are not exact copies of an event but an interpretation of what happened which are influenced by our schemas. Bartlett termed this an active reconstruction Bartlett referred to this general knowledge as schemas. Schemas are packets of information about an event, person or place. They are unique to us and develop over time through our own experiences. They help us to perceive how to behave and also affect how memories are encoded and retrieved. When we recall an event, we use schemas to fill in the gaps in our memory (re-construct the event). This may mean that the memory may not be an accurate representation of what happened. Memories are not accurate as our schemas/general knowledge fill in the gaps in our memories which are the things we do I’d not pay attention to, things we perceive have happened but don’t know. The importance of reliability of memory For eyewitness testimonials- prevent innocent people from getting charged Bartlett 1932 Aim(s) * To investigate whether the memory of a story is affected by previous knowledge. * To find out if cultural background and unfamiliarity with a story would lead to distortion of memory when it was recalled. * To test if memory is reconstructive and whether people store and retrieve information per expectations formed by cultural schemas. Procedure Sample: 20 British participants (7 women, 13 men). The participants were not told the aim of the study; they believed they were being tested on the accuracy of recall. Bartlett used repeated reproduction, which is where participants hear a story or see a drawing and are asked to reproduce it after a short time and then to do so again over days, weeks, months or years. The story used was a Native American story called ’The War of the Ghosts’ which was unfamiliar to participants and contained unknown names and concepts. The story content was also unfamiliar. The story was selected because it would test how memory may be reconstructed based on a cultural schema. Each participant read the story to themselves twice. The first reproduction happened 15 minutes later. There was no set interval beyond this and participants recalled the story at further intervals from 20 hours to almost 10 years. Results Bartlett found that participants remembered different parts of the story and that they interpreted the story to fit within their social and cultural expectations, what this means is that the participants changed the facts to” make them fit”. Bartlett called these additions and changes rationalization. Bartlett made several observations about these transformations 1. They cut the story short mainly by omissions 2. The phrases used were changed to the language and concepts of the participants and their culture. For example, using the term “boats” rather than “canoe” 3. The recalled version soon became very fixed, though each time it was recalled there were slight variations. Conclusions * Bartlett's study indicates that we don’t remember all the details. Instead, we remember fragments and use our preexisting knowledge (schemas) to fill in the gaps * Remembering is not a passive but rather an active process. * According to Bartlett, humans are constantly in search of meaning- this makes information easier to remember but may influence the accuracy of the information. * Based on his research Bartlett formulated the theory of reconstructive memory. This means that memories are not copies of experiences but rather a reconstruction. Evaluation Since Bartlett was the only person to gather the qualitative data, there is a risk of researcher bias. Bartlett may have interpreted the results in order to better support his theory of reconstructive memory. This means that the results of the experiment lack validity as the data collected may not be an accurate explanation as to why people remembered the story incorrectly and may not be due to other factors e.g. participants' education, hours of sleep on that day, other worries people may have had at the time of recall. Link: The study shows the theory of reconstructive memory through how participants used familiarization and rationalization via their cultural schemas when recalling the unfamiliar story. The study found that participants changed words such as ‘ canoe’ to more culturally appropriate words like ‘boat’ when recalling the story. This shows how they used their British cultural schemas, in other words, their general knowledge, to reconstruct the story, often using them to fill in the gaps in their memory of details in the story. This shows how reconstructive memory may result in lower accuracy of recalling memories/ information highlighting that memory isn’t always reliable or accurate and that it is rather a reconstruction of based off their schemas which are used to supplement missing/forgotten details. Yullie and Cutshall (1986) * Case study The study aimed to determine whether leading questions would affect the memory of eyewitnesses at a real crime scene. In other words, the aim was the same as Loftus & Palmer's (1974) study, but in this case, the event that they observed was real and had an emotional impact on those who observed it. Procedure The crime scene was in Vancouver. A thief entered a gun shop and tied up the owner before stealing money and guns from the shop. The owner freed himself, and thinking that the thief had escaped, went outside the shop. But the thief was still there and shot him twice. Police had been called and there was gunfire - and the thief was eventually killed. As the incident took place in front of the shop, there were eyewitnesses - 21 were interviewed by the police. The researchers chose this incident to study because there were enough witnesses and there was forensic evidence available to confirm the stories of the eyewitnesses. The researchers contacted the eyewitnesses four months after the event. 13 of the eyewitnesses agreed to be interviewed as part of a study. They gave their account of the incident, and then they were asked questions. Two leading questions were used. Half the group was asked if they saw "a" broken headlight on the getaway car. The other half were asked if they saw "the" broken headlight. There was no broken headlight. The second question asked half the group if they saw "the" yellow panel on the car, and the other half was asked if they saw "a" yellow panel on the car (the panel was blue). They were also asked to rate their stress on the day of the event on a seven-point scale. Findings: It was found that eyewitnesses were very reliable. They recalled a large amount of accurate detail that could be confirmed by the original police reports. They also did not make errors as a result of the leading questions. 10 out of 13 of them said there was no broken headlight or yellow quarter panel, or that they had not noticed those particular details. The researchers found that the accuracy of the witnesses compared to the original police reports was between 79% and 84%. It appears that this research contradicts the study by Loftus & Palmer (1974). It could be that the lack of emotional response to the video that was shown in their study played a key role in the influence of the leading questions. The witnesses reported that they didn't remember feeling afraid during the incident, but they did report having an "adrenaline rush." Conclusion: * Schema’s had little effect on accuracy of recalls therefore showing that memories may infact be very reliable when recalling important events and possible mundane memeoires as well. Evaluation As the crime scene was real, with deaths and people getting shot, the eyewitnesses may have feelings of fear and panic (even if they did not report feeling that way, which may be because they have lied or maybe they did not notice their feelings at that moment). These feelings may have made them more aware of the environment, thus remembering little details such as the headlight on the car. They may want to provide more details as they agreed to be in the study, meaning that they may have spent the most time thinking and reading about the case. This means that there is no control of variables so it is difficult to know the level of rehearsal that was used by the different eyewitnesses. This means that the accuracy of the recall is due to the attention and retention paid, instead of there being no reconstructive memory. By asking pts to recall the incident and try to remember the little details such as if there is a broken headlight on the car, the idea that undue stress or harm would be caused is unfounded. However, pts gave consent and agreed to participate in the study so it’s ethciality is debatable Link The study conveys opposing evidence to the theory of reconstructive memory as it found that after four months participants had a high accuracy in their recall of the event and their testimonies. This proved that little to none of their memories of the event were reconstructive and opposes the theory that states that most of the memories that we recall are reconstructive/ reconstructed. Optional 3rd study; Loftus and palmer (not using for LAQ) Aim: To test whether leading questions would affect the estimation of speed IV: intensity of the word used in the critical question DV: estimation of speed Participants: 45 students Procedure: * Students ts divided into 5 groups of 9 * Seven films (ranging from 5 - 30 secs) of traffic accidents were shown * After watching, participants were asked to give an account of the accidents they had seen and then answered a questionnaire with different questions about the accident, with one being the critical question where they were asked to estimate the speed of the car in the accident * Researchers predicted using the word smashed would result in a higher estimation of speed than hit LAQ Theory: → basic structure → what schemas are → what influences do they have on recall/how do they manipulate our recall of information Topic Sentence 1: One way in which we can see how reconstructive memory influences the reliability of our memory is through the accuracy with which we recall information we have read. → Study 1: Bartlett, War of the Ghosts * From the study, we can see how our schemas lower the reliability of our memory as it manipulate elements through commission and transformation which lower the accuracy and precision with which we can recall new information. * Furthermore, we can see how we initially store memories as brief outlines and fill in the information using our general knowledge(schemas) such as our cultural knowledge. * This also shows the important application of the theory as it explains how memories when recalled are actively reconstructive and this may lead to inaccuracies and omissions of important or key information when we try to recall them. → Study Evaluation Topic Sentence 2: On the other hand, some studies show that reconstruction of memories does not always occur, and we actually remember events based on details, showing that our memory is accurate. → Study 2: Yullie and Cutshall(can be used for flashbulb memories) * The study shows that the type of event and how emotionally stimulating and event is, the more likely we are to accurately recall the memory and the more accurate it will be. This proves as contradictory evidence for reconstructive memory. * It also highlights that the theory may not be applicable in all scenarios as it doesn’t consider the other various contributors such as biological and sociocultural factors which may influence the way we process and remember events → Study Evaluation → additional TEACUP Conclusion

Reliability Of Memory 
Bartlett’s (1932) Theory of Reconstructive Memory

Bartlett proposed that memories are not stored in an exact form as in a computer. Instead, our memories are notes about what we experience, like jotting down a brief outline on a notepad. When we come to recall these memories, we simply retrieve the notes and elaborate on them using our general knowledge about similar events. This means that memories are not exact copies of an event but an interpretation of what happened which are influenced by our schemas.  Bartlett termed this an active reconstruction

Bartlett referred to this general knowledge as schemas. Schemas are packets of information about an event, person or place.  They are unique to us and develop over time through our own experiences. They help us to perceive how to behave and also affect how memories are encoded and retrieved. When we recall an event, we use schemas to fill in the gaps in our memory (re-construct the event). This may mean that the memory may not be an accurate representation of what happened.

Memories are not accurate as our schemas/general knowledge fill in the gaps in our memories which are the things we do I’d not pay attention to, things we perceive have happened but don’t know.

The importance of reliability of memory 
	For eyewitness testimonials- prevent innocent people from getting charged
	Bartlett 1932
	Aim(s)
* To investigate whether the memory of a story is affected by previous knowledge.
* To find out if cultural background and unfamiliarity with a story would lead to distortion of memory when it was recalled.
* To test if memory is reconstructive and whether people store and retrieve information per expectations formed by cultural schemas.

Procedure
Sample: 20 British participants (7 women, 13 men). The participants were not told the aim of the study; they believed they were being tested on the accuracy of recall.

Bartlett used repeated reproduction, which is where participants hear a story or see a drawing and are asked to reproduce it after a short time and then to do so again over days, weeks, months or years.

The story used was a Native American story called ’The War of the Ghosts’ which was unfamiliar to participants and contained unknown names and concepts. The story content was also unfamiliar. The story was selected because it would test how memory may be reconstructed based on a cultural schema.

Each participant read the story to themselves twice. The first reproduction happened 15 minutes later. There was no set interval beyond this and participants recalled the story at further intervals from 20 hours to almost 10 years.

Results
Bartlett found that participants remembered different parts of the story and that they interpreted the story to fit within their social and cultural expectations, what this means is that the participants changed the facts to” make them fit”. Bartlett called these additions and changes rationalization.

Bartlett made several observations about these transformations 
1. They cut the story short mainly by omissions 
2. The phrases used were changed to the language and concepts of the participants and their culture. For example, using the term “boats” rather than “canoe”
3. The recalled version soon became very fixed, though each time it was recalled there were slight variations.

Conclusions
* Bartlett's study indicates that we don’t remember all the details.  Instead, we remember fragments and use our preexisting knowledge (schemas) to fill in the gaps
* Remembering is not a passive but rather an active process. 
* According to Bartlett, humans are constantly in search of meaning- this makes information easier to remember but may influence the accuracy of the information.
* Based on his research Bartlett formulated the theory of reconstructive memory. This means that memories are not copies of experiences but rather a reconstruction.

Evaluation 
	Since Bartlett was the only person to gather the qualitative data, there is a risk of researcher bias. Bartlett may have interpreted the results in order to better support his theory of reconstructive memory. This means that the results of the experiment lack validity as the data collected may not be an accurate explanation as to why people remembered the story incorrectly and may not be due to other factors e.g. participants' education, hours of sleep on that day, other worries people may have had at the time of recall.
	Link: 
	The study shows the theory of reconstructive memory through how participants used familiarization and rationalization via their cultural schemas when recalling the unfamiliar story. The study found that participants changed words such as ‘ canoe’ to more culturally appropriate words like ‘boat’ when recalling the story. This shows how they used their British cultural schemas, in other words, their general knowledge, to reconstruct the story, often using them to fill in the gaps in their memory of details in the story. This shows how reconstructive memory may result in lower accuracy of recalling memories/ information highlighting that memory isn’t always reliable or accurate and that it is rather a reconstruction of based off their schemas which are used to supplement missing/forgotten details.

Yullie and Cutshall (1986)
* Case study 
	  The study aimed to determine whether leading questions would affect the memory of eyewitnesses at a real crime scene. In other words, the aim was the same as Loftus & Palmer's (1974) study, but in this case, the event that they observed was real and had an emotional impact on those who observed it.

Procedure 
  The crime scene was in Vancouver. A thief entered a gun shop and tied up the owner before stealing money and guns from the shop. The owner freed himself, and thinking that the thief had escaped, went outside the shop. But the thief was still there and shot him twice. Police had been called and there was gunfire - and the thief was eventually killed. As the incident took place in front of the shop, there were eyewitnesses - 21 were interviewed by the police.
  The researchers chose this incident to study because there were enough witnesses and there was forensic evidence available to confirm the stories of the eyewitnesses.
  The researchers contacted the eyewitnesses four months after the event. 13 of the eyewitnesses agreed to be interviewed as part of a study. They gave their account of the incident, and then they were asked questions. Two leading questions were used. Half the group was asked if they saw "a" broken headlight on the getaway car. The other half were asked if they saw "the" broken headlight. There was no broken headlight. The second question asked half the group if they saw "the" yellow panel on the car, and the other half was asked if they saw "a" yellow panel on the car (the panel was blue). They were also asked to rate their stress on the day of the event on a seven-point scale.
Findings: 
  It was found that eyewitnesses were very reliable. They recalled a large amount of accurate detail that could be confirmed by the original police reports. They also did not make errors as a result of the leading questions. 10 out of 13 of them said there was no broken headlight or yellow quarter panel, or that they had not noticed those particular details.
  The researchers found that the accuracy of the witnesses compared to the original police reports was between 79% and 84%. It appears that this research contradicts the study by Loftus & Palmer (1974). It could be that the lack of emotional response to the video that was shown in their study played a key role in the influence of the leading questions.  The witnesses reported that they didn't remember feeling afraid during the incident, but they did report having an "adrenaline rush."
Conclusion:
* Schema’s had little effect on accuracy of recalls therefore showing that memories may infact be very reliable when recalling important events and possible mundane memeoires as well.
	Evaluation 
	As the crime scene was real, with deaths and people getting shot, the eyewitnesses may have feelings of fear and panic (even if they did not report feeling that way, which may be because they have lied or maybe they did not notice their feelings at that moment). These feelings may have made them more aware of the environment, thus remembering little details such as the headlight on the car. They may want to provide more details as they agreed to be in the study, meaning that they may have spent the most time thinking and reading about the case. This means that there is no control of variables so it is difficult to know the level of rehearsal that was used by the different eyewitnesses. This means that the accuracy of the recall is due to the attention and retention paid, instead of there being no reconstructive memory.

By asking pts to recall the incident and try to remember the little details such as if there is a broken headlight on the car, the idea that undue stress or harm would be caused is unfounded. However, pts gave consent and agreed to participate in the study so it’s ethciality is debatable 
	Link 
	The study conveys opposing evidence to the theory of reconstructive memory as it found that after four months participants had a high accuracy in their recall of the event and their testimonies. This proved that little to none of their memories of the event were reconstructive and opposes the theory that states that most of the memories that we recall are reconstructive/ reconstructed.
	Optional 3rd study; Loftus and palmer (not using for LAQ)
	Aim: To test whether leading questions would affect the estimation of speed 
IV: intensity of the word used in the critical question 
DV: estimation of speed 
Participants: 45 students 
Procedure:
* Students ts divided into 5 groups of 9 
* Seven films (ranging from 5 - 30 secs) of traffic accidents were shown
* After watching, participants were asked to give an account of the accidents they had seen and then answered a questionnaire with different questions about the accident, with one being the critical question where they were asked to estimate the speed of the car in the accident 
* Researchers predicted using the word smashed would result in a higher estimation of speed than hit

LAQ
	Theory:
→ basic structure
→ what schemas are 
→ what influences do they have on recall/how do they manipulate our recall of information

Topic Sentence 1: One way in which we can see how reconstructive memory influences the reliability of our memory is through the accuracy with which we recall information we have read. 
→ Study 1: Bartlett, War of the Ghosts
* From the study, we can see how our schemas lower the reliability of our memory as it manipulate elements through commission and transformation which lower the accuracy and precision with which we can recall new information. 
* Furthermore, we can see how we initially store memories as brief outlines and fill in the information using our general knowledge(schemas) such as our cultural knowledge.
* This also shows the important application of the theory as it explains how memories when recalled are actively reconstructive and this may lead to inaccuracies and omissions of important or key information when we try to recall them. 
→ Study Evaluation

Topic Sentence 2: On the other hand, some studies show that reconstruction of memories does not always occur, and we actually remember events based on details, showing that our memory is accurate.
→ Study 2: Yullie and Cutshall(can be used for flashbulb memories)
* The study shows that the type of event and how emotionally stimulating and event is, the more likely we are to accurately recall the memory and the more accurate it will be. This proves as contradictory evidence for reconstructive memory.
* It also highlights that the theory may not be applicable in all scenarios as it doesn’t consider the other various contributors such as biological and sociocultural factors which may influence the way we process and remember events
→ Study Evaluation
→ additional TEACUP
Conclusion

Transcript for:Exploring Memory Reliability and Reconstruction

Transcript for:
Exploring Memory Reliability and Reconstruction