Reconstructive Memory (Bartlett)
Memory does not work like a video recording, meaning that our memories of an event are often incomplete, as we only recall the important points. Reconstructive memory suggests that in the absence of all information, we fill in the gaps to make more sense of what happened. According to Bartlett, we do this using schemas. These are our previous knowledge and experience of a situation and we use this process to complete the memory. This means that our memories are a combination of specific traces encoded at the time of the event, along with our knowledge, expectations, beliefs and experiences of such an event.
Supporting evidence:
Bartlett used a Chinese Whispers technique where English pp’s read an Indian folk story called War of the Ghosts. This story was unfamiliar to the pp’s and from a different culture, so it did not fit in with their schemas. When it came to recalling the story, as time went on the story became shorter and shorter, and the accounts were distorted in a number of ways. He found pp’s left out bits of the story that they did not understand and changed information and rationalised it using their own culture. This shows that people do reconstruct memories.
However this study used a story that did not make sense to pp’s and they may have known that they would be asked to retell it, so were influenced by demand characteristics.
Loftus found use of leading questions can lead to memories being manipulated. When asked how fast a car was travelling, by changing the verb of the car ‘hitting’ or ‘smashing’ into another, changes the estimate of speed pp’s give. This is because the words ‘hit’ and ‘smashed’ lead to different memories.
However this was a lab experiment using students. It may have been that not all of them could drive and so relied on the cue in the word to help them guess a speed.
Opposing evidence:
This theory simply describes that memory is reconstructive rather than explaining how. It says that memory is active and uses schemas but does not say how memory is active and spread unlike the spreading activation theory.
Different explanation:
The levels of processing model of memory suggests it is the depth material is learnt that leads to LTM – information which requires deeper processing will lead to better memory than information that requires shallow processing.
Application:
This theory is useful in understanding how our memory can be manipulated by post event information. This is useful to the police in ensuring they don’t contribute to witnesses reconstructing events and making sure they give their own account rather than being influenced by leading questions.
Memory does not work like a video recording, meaning that our memories of an event are often incomplete, as we only recall the important points. Reconstructive memory suggests that in the absence of all information, we fill in the gaps to make more sense of what happened. According to Bartlett, we do this using schemas. These are our previous knowledge and experience of a situation and we use this process to complete the memory. This means that our memories are a combination of specific traces encoded at the time of the event, along with our knowledge, expectations, beliefs and experiences of such an event.
Supporting evidence:
Bartlett used a Chinese Whispers technique where English pp’s read an Indian folk story called War of the Ghosts. This story was unfamiliar to the pp’s and from a different culture, so it did not fit in with their schemas. When it came to recalling the story, as time went on the story became shorter and shorter, and the accounts were distorted in a number of ways. He found pp’s left out bits of the story that they did not understand and changed information and rationalised it using their own culture. This shows that people do reconstruct memories.
However this study used a story that did not make sense to pp’s and they may have known that they would be asked to retell it, so were influenced by demand characteristics.
Loftus found use of leading questions can lead to memories being manipulated. When asked how fast a car was travelling, by changing the verb of the car ‘hitting’ or ‘smashing’ into another, changes the estimate of speed pp’s give. This is because the words ‘hit’ and ‘smashed’ lead to different memories.
However this was a lab experiment using students. It may have been that not all of them could drive and so relied on the cue in the word to help them guess a speed.
Opposing evidence:
This theory simply describes that memory is reconstructive rather than explaining how. It says that memory is active and uses schemas but does not say how memory is active and spread unlike the spreading activation theory.
Different explanation:
The levels of processing model of memory suggests it is the depth material is learnt that leads to LTM – information which requires deeper processing will lead to better memory than information that requires shallow processing.
Application:
This theory is useful in understanding how our memory can be manipulated by post event information. This is useful to the police in ensuring they don’t contribute to witnesses reconstructing events and making sure they give their own account rather than being influenced by leading questions.