Reconstructive Flashcards
What is the schemas?
The schemas is described as a way of organising information, they are mental units of knowledge that correspond to frequently encountered people objects or situations and can help us make sense in what we encounter.
What is assimilation?
We can stimulate new information. This changes are schemas to help fit what we have learned.
What is accommodation?
We accommodate new information by changing our memories to help keep schemes intact and unchanging
What is levelling?
This involves removing or downplaying details from the memory
What is sharpening?
This involves adding or exaggerating details
What is confabulation?
The schemas might fill in gaps in our memory.
Allport and postman 1947
The theory of accommodation and sharpening is supported by this theory. This study showed participants a drawing of an argument on a subway train, they asked them to describe the picture ( serial reproduction) the one black character was dressed more respectable than the white character, but after serial reproduction, the white participants tended to reverse the appearances. This supports the theory of accommodation because the participants change their memories to fit in with their schemas which were racial stereotypes. They even described the black man as holding a knife when he wasn’t this demonstrates sharpening as they over exaggerated and added detail to fit their schemas.
Application
An application for the theory is dementia, and Alzheimer’s as the disease causes them to lose their memories, causing the world to become confusing. Schemas can help them to make sense of things by applying what they know, and making a guess as to what it might be to fit with their schemas. In dementia village residence have the power to choose where to live and spend their time in areas of the village that fit their schemas so everyday life is less confusing.
War of the ghost study
As supporting story is Bartlett war of the ghost study where 20 participants were asked to recall a story about a traditional native American story involving unfamiliar details. Bartlett asked them to recall the story on several occasions which is serial reproduction. The results showed that participants had shorten the story by almost half and had confabulated details. The participants had also rationalised the story and made up excuses for the unexplainable parts of the story which were replaced with ideas that fit the schemas ( which likely resembled westernised culture) this shows how our memory is influenced by other cognitive processes, and how the memory doesn’t completely playback our experiences, but instead reconstructs certain memories
Weakness of war of the ghosts
Bartlett supporting study on the reconstructive model was not scientific as it did not use, religiously, controlled methods and lacked objectivity. He did not follow standardised instructions or procedures as he asked participants to read and then recall a native American ghost story on several occasions. After a few days weeks or even years, so the participants experiences of the procedure were inconsistent making it hard to compare replication. This means that the evidence underlying reconstructive memory lacks validity and reliability. He also had no score measuring changes in recall other than counting the number of words making the research subjective
Unreliable eyewitnesses
The reconstructive memory model also explains how people involved in accidents or witnesses of crimes are unreliable narrators since they have to retail their account multiple times over different time periods. The model explains how memories when continuously asked to repeat become more and more incorrect since their memory loses exact details and their schemas fills in the gaps with misinterpreted information . This shows how they level and sharpen their memories so they are confabulated and therefore unreliable as they are false accounts.
Unreliable support
Loftus and palmer 1974 showed participants the same car crash. Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted a classic experiment to investigate the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
Their sample consisted of 45 American students, who were divided into five groups of nine. All participants watched a video of a car crash and were then asked a specific question about the speed of the cars. Loftus and Palmer manipulated the verb used in the question, “How fast were they cards going when they smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted with each other?’ Levelling and sharpening . Smashed = 40.5 and hit. = 31.8 mph
