Memory Models: Reconstructive (1932) Flashcards
Define a ‘schema’.
A framework of information compiled to form an idea of what a situation will be like based on information from past life experiences.
Give 2 examples of a schema.
- Christmas routine
- Going to a restaurant
Define ‘input’ and ‘processing’ in terms of schemas.
Input = perception of an event Processing = the interpretation of an event
Define the process ‘effort after meaning’.
When people try to make sense of a situation in terms of what they already know using their schemas.
How might information become distorted?
When information is forgotten and gaps need to be filled and when they get reconstructed by our schemas due to memories being imaginative reconstructions of original information.
In what situations do people misremember things due to their schemas?
When the information they processed is unfamiliar or unconsciously unacceptable to the individual due to not conforming to their schema.
Define ‘rationalistation’.
Getting rid of something from a memory to help it make sense using our schemas.
Define ‘confabulation’.
Making something up in a memory to help it make sense using our schemas.
Using the acronym ‘EACH’, evaluate 2 ‘evidence’ points.
P - Bartlett’s (1932) War of the Ghosts study supports
E - When testing people on an unfamiliar Native American folk tale, he found that ppts recalled inaccuracies such as someone dying at sunset instead of sunrise and excluding the ghosts entirely
E - This shows that rationalisation and confabulation occurs in order to make sense of a memory using our schemas
P - Brewer and Treyan’s (1989) study rejects
E - They placed objects in an office that are not commonly associated with that environment (e.g. spanner) and told ppts to sit there for a number of minutes before being called in for a ‘job interview’ in which they were asked to recall objects in the office and found that the majority recalled the unusual items (e.g. the skull)
E - This is not what is predicted using the schema theory as they would have disregarded it with rationalisation otherwise
Using the acronym ‘EACH’, evaluate 2 ‘how’ points.
P - Bartlett’s (1932) study has low validity
E - The War of the Ghosts story is written in an unusual and unfamiliar way
E - Therefore the deliberately ambiguous language may have confused some ppts and so limits the credibility of memory recall in real life
P - Brewer and Treyan’s (1989) study has high ecological validity
E - It took place in an office environment in which ppts would sit in whilst waiting for a job interview and so would be familiar to the ppt
E - Therefore memory accuracy would reflect real life with the passive observation of a room
Are there any applications?
P - Yes
E - Can be used to inform us on how unreliable EWT are due to the fact that memories can be distorted by our schemas confabulating and rationalising
E - Therefore we can provide solutions such as informing juries of their inaccuracy and not convicting on EWT alone due to its unreliablity
Using the acronym ‘EACH’, evaluate 2 ‘credibility’ points.
P - Barlett’s theory can be scientifically tested
E - Operationalising memory in the form of a story having features that can be counted each time they are recalled will measure accuracy
E - Therefore reductionism is scientific as it allows for things to be measurable leading to easy replication
P - Flashbulb memory as an alternative theory
E - It states that memories are remembered vividly due to the significance in their distinctive nature
E - Therefore memories will be remembered despite not fitting with our schemas due to being so obscure
