Reconstructive Memory

Bartlett’s Reconstructive Memory

• Bartlett believes memory is not reliable, so there will always be inaccuracies in our retrieval

• The reconstructive memory includes memories that add details not part of the actual event or omit details that were

• An individual's life experiences and schemas can shape and change memory and alter its context 

How Reconstructive Memory works

• Reconstructive memory uses an individual's experience to store and interpret the memory

• This means memory is open to error

• When recalling an event, memories can change the meaning depending on how the memory is processed

• An individual's past schemes might cause them to falsely remember details

Assimilation

We change our schemes to fit what we have learnt

Accommodation

Change our memories to fit our existing schemas

Leveling

Downplaying or removing details from memory

Sharpening

Adding or exaggerating details in our memory 

Confabulation

Occurs when individuals mistakenly recall false information without intending to deceive 

Omission

Leaving out key information in the memories

Rationalism

When we add details into our recall to give a reason for something that may not have originally fitted with the schema 

Eye Witness Testimony

• When someone is present at a crime then they give an account of what they saw and heard at the crime scene

• They lack accuracy as they may work too hard to recall what they witnessed and may confabulate their memories 

• A leading question may insert (or remove) key information that could lead to inaccurate information

Name of Reconstructive Memory Study

Loftus and Palmer

Loftus and Palmer Aim

To investigate whether the wording of a question can influence eyewitness memory, specifically the estimated speed of a car crash and whether it can lead to false memories

Loftus and Palmer Procedure

Experiment 1:

• 45 university students watched 7 film clips of car accidents.

• After watching each clip, they answered a questionnaire, including the key question:

• “How fast were the cars going when they (verb) each other?”

• The verb was changed for different groups:

• Smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted.

Experiment 2:

• 150 participants watched a film of a car crash.

• They were divided into three groups and asked about the speed:

• “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”

• “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”

• Control group: No question about speed.

• One week later, all participants were asked:

• “Did you see any broken glass?” (There was no broken glass in the film.)

Loftus and Palmer Results

Experiment 1:

• The verb influenced speed estimates:

• Smashed → 40.8 mph (highest estimate).

• Contacted → 31.8 mph (lowest estimate).

Experiment 2:

• Participants in the smashed condition were more likely to recall seeing broken glass (32%) than hit (14%) and control (12%)

Loftus and Palmer Conclusion

• The wording of a question can influence memory recall

• This has real-world implications for eyewitness testimony, showing that leading questions can distort memory.