Cognitive Approach - Reliability of Cognitive Processes - Reconstructive Memory

Question 1

Reconstructive Memory

Answer 1

• The idea that memories are not stored in complete units, but that memories are reconstructed by building a collection of smaller memories

Question 2

Reconstructive Memory - Influenced By

Answer 2

• Post-event information
  
  • misinformation effect the distortion of a memory by misleading post-event information
  • schema
  • source confusion (recall or recognise smth as familiar but not knowing from where)
  • confirmation bias
  • demand characteristics

Question 3

Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Answer 3

Aim:
- Investigate the effect on memory of the words used in questions about a witnessed event

Experiment 1:
Hypothesis
- When pps are asked to estimate speed their answers will be affected by the wording of the question

Pps:
- 45 students

Procedure:
- 7 films were shown, depicting a traffic accident
- length from 5-30 secs
- Pps received a questionnaire
- asked to give an account of the accident
- asked to answer a series of questions
- critical question
- 9 pps asked “about how fast were the cars going
when they hit each other?”
- 9 pps asked with “smashed”
- 9 pps asked with “collided”
- 9 pps asked w “bumped”
- 9 pps asked with “contacted”
- Different ordering of the films was presented to each group

Results:
- There was a clear different between mean estimated speeds depending on verb used

Experiment 2
Hypothesis
- The words used in a question will affect pps’ later memory of what they had seen

Pps:
- 150 students

Method:
- 1 min film depicting a multiple car accident
- accident laste 4 secs
- Pps received a questionnaire
- asked to describe the accident in their own words
- asked to answer a series of questions
- critical question
- 50 pps asked “about how fast were the cars going
when they smashed into each other ?”
- 50 pps asked with “hit”
- 50 pps not asked about the speed of the car
- 1 week later pps returned without reviewing the film
- answered series of questions
- critical question
- “Did you see any broken glass?”
- answered with “yes” or “no”
- there was no broken glass in the accident

Results:
- The use of different verbs affected whether pps claimed having seen broken glass

Question 4

Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

Answer 4

Aim:
- Investigate the accuracy in recall of eyewitnesses to a real crime, in response to leading questions and over time.

Pps:

• 21 eyewitnesses were interviewed by the police. 20 of those were contacted 4-5 months after the even and 13 agreed to participate in the scientific study.
• Aged 15-32, 3 females 10 males

Procedure:
- Pps were interviewed 4-5 months after the incident

• The interviews were recorded and transcribed
• Same interviewing procedure as the police
• Give account first and then ask questions
• 2 leading questions were used
• 1/2 were asked if they saw a broken headlight the other 1/2 if they saw the broken headlight (when there was no broken headlight in the thief’s car
• 1/2 were asked about a yellow panel on the car the other 1/2 about the yellow panel (when the quarter panel was blue)
• Witnesses asked to rate stress they had felt at the time of the incident, using a tailored 7-point scale
• Witnesses were asked if they had any emotional problems at the time or since the event (e.g. sleeplessness)
• Scoring procedure used to make the qualitative data quantitative

Results:
- Action details: 392 from the police and 552 from the researchers

• Action details accounted for 60% of the total details given for the police vs 52% for the researchers
• Both found the same proportion of person details (25%)
• Researches found almost double the number of object details the police had found (12 vs 23 %)
• The misleading questions had very little effect on their recall.
• 10 of the eyewitnesses said there was no broken headlight and no yellow quarter panel at all