Cog : Reconstructive Memory Flashcards
Whats reconstructive memory
Suggests that people are active information processors who reconstruct memory to make sense of what happened based on what they already know (their schemas). Often, events experienced are snapshots of moments and are incomplete, so one would try to fill in the gaps with pre-existing schemas. This makes one’s memories a combination of specific traces of certain events that occurred during that time, and our previous knowledge, expectations, beliefs, and experiences related to similar types of memories could cause memory distortion, which questions the reliability of memory. All memory is open to distortions and as time goes by, they can experience reconstruction
STUDY 1 RESEARCHER and AIM
Loftus and Palmer : To investigate whether memory can be altered by misleading post-event information (in an eyewitness situation)
S1 METHOD AND SAMPLE
-The study consisted of two laboratory experiments, both of which used an independent measures design.
- The IV in both experiments was the verb used.
- The DV in the first experiment is the Ps speed estimate and the DV in the second experiment is whether the Ps believed they saw glass or not.
sample: 45 students from the University of Washington.
S1 PROCEDURE EXP1
They were each shown the same seven film clips of traffic accidents. The clips ranged from 5-30 seconds long.
They were then asked to write an account of the accident they had just seen and asked to answer some specific questions, one of which was the critical question, to do with the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision.
There were 5 conditions in the experiment, each with 9 Pts, and the IV was manipulated using the wording of the questions. The condition depended on the word the Ps heard when being asked the critical question.
critical question:
“About how fast were the cars going when they smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted each other?”
S1 EX1 RESULTS
Mean speed given for each of the different verbs:
smashed: 40.8 mph
collided: 39.3 mph
bumped: 38.1 mph
hit: 34.0 mph
contacted: 31.8 mph
These results show that the phrasing of the question brought about a change in speed estimate. The verb ‘smashed’ elicited a higher speed estimate that the verb ‘contacted’.
S1 EX1 CONCLUSION
These results show that the phrasing of the question brought about a change in speed estimate. The verb ‘smashed’ elicited a higher speed estimate that the verb ‘contacted’.
- The results could have been due to a distortion in the memory of the participant, which could have been caused by the verbal label that was used, or the way in which the critical question was asked.
- The results could also be due to response bias factors, in which case the Ps are not sure of the exact speed and so adjust their answers to fit in with the expectations of the questioner (demand characteristics).
(experiment 2 was carried out to see which of the above explanations was correct. Had the Ps memories actually been changed? Or were they simply just responding to the question in a way that they thought the experimenters wanted?)
S1 EX2 PROCEDURE
sample: 150 students
The Ps were shown a short (1 minute) film which contained a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident, and were then questioned about it.
There were 3 conditions and the IV was manipulated by the wording of the question.
50 Ps were asked:
“How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
50 Ps were asked:
“How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
50 of the Ps were not questioned about the speed of the vehicles, they were a control group.
One week later, the Ps returned and were asked a series of questioned about the accident they viewed the week before. The critical question here was, “Did you see any broken glass?”.
The DV was whether or not the Ps said they has seen the broken glass.
note: there was NO broken glass in the clip.
S1 EX2 RESULTS
In the ‘smashed’ condition, 16 of the Ps said yes and 34 of the PS said no.
-In the ‘hit’ condition, 7 of the Ps said yes and 43 of the Ps said no.
-In the control group, 6 of the Ps said yes and 44 of the Ps said no.
These results show that the verb in the original question about speed had an effect on the misperception of glass in the film.
S1 EX 1 & 2 CONCLUSION
Loftus and Palmer argue that two kinds of information go into a person’s memory of an event; the information obtained from perceiving an event and the information supplied to us after an event. Over time the information from these two sources may become so integrated that we are unable to tell from which source they originally came from, all we have is one memory (known as the ‘reconstructive hypothesis’).
S1 EVALUATION
We need to recognise that there are many other factors that can influence your memory of an event, not just the type of questions you are asked.
- Some psychologists disagree that post-event information changes the witness’ original memory, never to be retrieved again. They suggest that witnesses merely follow the questioner’s suggestions, leaving the original memory intact for retrieval under appropriate conditions, such as the cognitive interview technique.
- The main strength of Loftus’ argument is it’s wider implications. Judges are now required to instruct the jury that it is not safe to convict on a single eyewitness testimony alone. Loftus’ reconstructive hypothesis has also meant that the police and lawyers are urged to use as few leading questions as possible, although in reality this practice may still be carried out.
STUDY 2 RESEARCHER AND AIM
Yuille and Cutshall :To examine whether leading questions affect memory of eyewitnesses at a real crime scene
S2 PROCEDURE PT 1 BACKGROUND CONTEXT
FIELD STUDY:
Used witnesses who had seen a shooting in Vancouver Canada
- Thief entered the shop, tied up the owner and stole money and guns.
- Owner armed himself with a revolver and went outside to note down the number plate
- Thief fired 2 shots from 6ft away
- Owner fired all 6 shots from his revolver in defence
- Thief was killed and owner recovered from his injuries
S2 PROCEDURE INTERVIEWS
-21 witnesses interviewed by police immediately after the event.
-13 of those agreed to take part in a research interview 4-5 months later
- In both sets of interviews, the eye witnesses were asked to give their account and then follow up questions were asked.
- The researchers asked 2 misleading questions
- Half the group were asked if they saw A broken headlight and the other half were asked if they saw THE broken headlight. There was no broken headlight.
- Half of the group were asked if they saw A yellow panel on the car and the other half were asked if they saw THE yellow panel. The panel was in fact blue.
- The witnesses were then asked to rate their degree of stress of a scale of 1-7. They were also asked if they had any emotional problems since the event.
S2 RESULTS
The researchers found over 1000 details compared to 650 found by police
- Action details accounted for 52% of the details obtained by researchers but 60% for police
- Researchers found double the number of object details compared to police
- Misleading questions had little effect on recall. 10 of the participants said there was NO yellow panel and NO broken headlight, which was correct.
