Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts

Question 1

Aims

Answer 1

– Test the nature of reconstructive memory using an unfamiliar story, and whether personal schemas influence what is remembered

Question 2

Procedure

Answer 2

Read ‘War of the Ghosts’ twice, later recall it
Used both serial reproduction and repeated reproduction to test recall

Serial: retell the story to another participant 15-30 mins after reading it, then it was passed down to next participants

Repeated: Write out the story after 15 mins of reading it. They were then asked to recall it several minutes, hours, days, months, and years later.

Question 3

Results

Answer 3

– Qualitative analysis to interpret changes in recall of stories:
*Theme or outline of the first repeated reproduction tended to remain in later reproductions.
– Both recall: participants tried to make sense of the odd story
*Resulted in rationalisation (‘Something black came out of his mouth’ became ‘a man’s dying breath’ or ‘foaming at the mouth’
– Left out unfamiliar/unpleasant parts
*Unfamiliar place names (‘Canoe’ became ‘boat’, ‘hunting’ became ‘fishing’)

Question 4

Conclusion

Answer 4

Bartlett interpreted the results as evidence for the active and constructive nature of memory.
– Participants omitted details that didn’t fit with their schema, details were influenced by their schema

Question 5

Strengths

Answer 5

– Use of a story as recall material is BOTH a strength and weakness:
*Remembering a story is more realistic than nonsense trigrams or digits - ecological validity (real-world application)
*However, the story was illogical - not a realistic use of memory
– Findings were reliable
*A lot of people did it and they got same results

Question 6

Weakness

Answer 6

– Qualitative analysis was used
Unscientific: could be biased
– Lack of standardised procedure
No controls on amount of time for participants to read the story