Bartlett (1932) War Of The Ghosts

Question 1

Aim of the study

Answer 1

To test the nature of reconstructive memory and looking at wether or not personal schemas influences what is remembered from the story

Question 2

Procedure

Answer 2

Participants were asked to read the story twice and then asked to recall it, Bartlett used both serial and repeated reproduction.
Serial reproduction- participants asked to read the story then retell it to another participant 15-30 minutes later
Repeated reproduction- the same participant was asked to write out the story after 15 minutes, then hours, days, months, years etc

Question 3

Reasults

Answer 3

Bartlett used qualitative analysis
- repeated reproductions tended to follow a similar form
- participants altered the odd story by trying to give it meaning, by adding or changing elements or giving reasons for events (rationalization)
- participants tended to leave out unfamiliar or unpleasant details (omissions)
- lots of details became familiarized (familiarization and transformation)

Question 4

Conclusion

Answer 4

Bartlett interpreted the results as evidence for the active and reconstructive nature of memory, participants did not remember the story accurately and omitted, familiarized and rationalized details to adjust the story to their personal schemas.

Question 5

Two strengths of the study

Answer 5

1- same findings across other studies, high reliability
2- Bartlett used a story as a recall material, which is a naturalistic task, therefore the study has high ecological validity

Question 6

3 weaknesses of the study

Answer 6

1- Bartlett used an artificial task which is an unrealistic use of memory, therefore low ecological validity
2- qualitative analysis, results may be biased and relating to his old theory of reconstructive memory
3- lacked good scientific procedure, did not follow a standardized procedure which means that the study is mid as scientific as it could’ve been