Reconstructive memory (Bartley)

• Schema

  A mental framework of beliefs and expectations that influence cognitive processing. We are born w some schemas but they develop in complexity w experience of the world
• Distortion: assimilation/confabulation 


  Story became more consistent w Ps own cultural expectations - details were unconsciously changed to fit the norms of british culture. New info added to fill in a mem so it makes sense
• Distortion: levelling

  Story became shorter w each retelling as Ps omitted info not seen as important (330 to 180 words)
• Distortion: rationalisation

  Ps also tended to change order of story to make sense of it- using terms more familiar to the culture of the Ps. Also added detail and/or emotions. EG change ‘canoe’ to boat
• Reconstructive mem

  Mem is an imaginative reconstruction of last events influenced by how we encode, store and retrieve info. Mem is not like a blank tape but it changed when we recall it. Our attitudes and responses to events change the mem of it.
• Reconstructive mem (2)

  We use schemas to interpret info and incorporate these into our mem. Retrieval of stores mems thus involves an active process of reconstruction using a range of info. Confabulation is when info is added to fill the gaps to make a story/make sense.
• strength 1

  Loftus and Palmer 1974 - car crash - use Dif words like crash/bump/contact to evoke Dif answers (what speed were cars). Supports theory - how info can be distorted + application eg eye witness not reliable and cognitive interviews (open ended q not yes/no).
• strength 2

  Supported by research e.g. war of the ghosts study (Native American- so unfamiliar) got shorter over time and only parts that made sense to Ps were remembered in detail e.g 'canoe' to boat - supports theory.

  + realistic - before Bartlett psychologists investigated mem using artificial materials (eg nonsense syllables like RIZ) and Bartlett made it more relevant to real life mem processes.
• Weakness 1

  Bartlett research not rigorously controlled and lacked objectivity. e.g instructions not standardised, so Ps experiences of procedure were inconsistent, hard to compare. So evidence underlying reconstructive mem lacks reliability and validity. (but better controlled studies since have been supportive).
• Weakness 2

  wrong to suggest all moms are wrong and affected by schemas. Other studies show mem can be v accurate e.g. personally important or distinctive. WoG, Ps often recall "something black came out of his mouth" because it was unusual - so people may not always actively reconstruct mess or when they do they can be highly accurate and unaffected by expectations.