Schema Theory ERQ

What is schema theory?

Schema theory, first proposed by Bartlett (1932), aims to explain how the brain organizes knowledge, information, and memories, doing so by grouping them into different schemas. The central claim of schema theory is that schemas, clusters of related pieces of previously obtained information stored in our minds, serve as cognitive frameworks that assist in organizing and comprehending new information by categorizing and relating it to prior knowledge. 

How does it work? Like how is information organised into schemas?

Experiences or memories are assimilated into schemas, meaning they are changed to fit existing schemas, enabling us to make generalizations about situations, people, and places

What can they affect?

Although schemas operate automatically and subconsciously, they influence memory, cognition, biases, and behavior. For example, information is often interpreted in a manner that fits pre-existing schemas, which may lead to confirmation bias and stereotypes.

What are their characteristics?

Schemas are built up over time as more experiences are accumulated by the mind, therefore being long-lasting and hard to change.

Aim of Bartlett (1932)

To investigate how cultural schemas influence memory reconstruction of unfamiliar stories.

Participants in Bartlett's Study

British university students.

Procedure in Bartlett's Study

Participants read a Native American story and recalled it over time using serial (repeating to other people) or repeated reproduction(participants heard the story and were told to reproduce it after a short time and then to do so again repeatedly over a period of days, weeks, months or years).

Results of Bartlett's Study

Participants distorted unfamiliar elements, making them more culturally familiar (e.g., "canoe" → "boat"). (sharpening, levelling and assimilation)

Conclusion of Bartlett's Study

Bartlett's study indicates that remembering is not a passive but rather an active process, where information is retrieved and changed to fit into existing schemas. This is done in order to create meaning in the incoming information.

Evaluation of Bartlett's Study

✅High ecological validity. ❌ Low control, subjective interpretation, no cause and effect relationship, NO CONTROL USING NATIVE AMERICSND

Aim of Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Loftus and Palmer (1973) conducted a laboratory experiment using an independent measures design to investigate how schemas could be influenced by post-event information through leading questions.

Participants in Loftus & Palmer's Study

45 American university students

Procedure in Loftus & Palmer's Study

All participants were then asked a series of questions, with the only variation between the conditions being what verb was used in the critical question where the participants were asked “What speed were the cars going at when they [...] each other?”. The five different verbs used were smashed, hit, contacted, touched, collided, and bumped. 

Findings of Loftus & Palmer's Study

Results showed that the verb significantly influenced participants' speed estimates. The “smashed” group reported the highest average speed (40.5 mph), while the “contacted” group reported the lowest (31.8 mph). The researchers concluded that the verb used conveyed an impression of the car's speed, influencing participants' perceptions of the event.

Conclusion of Loftus & Palmer's Study

Language can activate schemas that affect memory reconstruction, supporting schema theory.

Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer's Study

✅ Experiments such as this one allow for precise control of variables, allowing the researcher to confidently conclude that it is the IV that is affecting the DV and nothing else. For example, Loftus and Palmer were able to control the age of the Ps, the use of the same video, the location and the questions asked. This increases the replicability and therefore reliability of the experiment, which can be tested using the test-retest method.
❌ Low ecological validity - It was artificial in the sense that it was different to how you would normally witness an event, therefore it is difficult to generalise findings from laboratory experiments to real life situations.

Sample bias - the study only used students as Ps and they may be different to people of other ages and in other situations. For example, students are used to remembering lots of information, and are usually good at memory tasks compared to other people. Also, not everyone who witnesses an event in real life would be a student, so the results cannot be generalised to all eyewitnesses. Less driving experience

Implication of Schema Theory for Memory Reliability

Memory is efficient but fallible—schemas help interpret information but can also cause systematic errors or distortions.

Overall Conclusion About Schema Theory

Schema theory effectively explains why and how memory is influenced by prior knowledge and shows that memory is reconstructive, not a perfect recording.

Strengths of schema theory

1. Supported by a large body of empirical evidence

   • Numerous studies (e.g., Bartlett, 1932; Brewer & Treyens, 1981) show that schemas influence encoding, storage, and retrieval of information.

   • Example: Bartlett’s “War of the Ghosts” study found that participants reconstructed unfamiliar stories to fit their existing cultural schemas.

2. Explains distortions in memory

   • Schema theory helps explain why people sometimes remember things inaccurately—our brains “fill in the gaps” using prior knowledge.

   • This makes it valuable in understanding false memories, eyewitness testimony errors, etc.

3. Applicable across many areas of psychology

   • Schema theory is used in cognitive psychology, education, and social psychology (e.g., stereotypes as social schemas).

   • It also supports understanding of cultural influences on cognition, which is important in cross-cultural psychology.

4. Helps explain cognitive efficiency

   • Schemas allow us to process information quickly by using prior knowledge to interpret new information.

   • Without schemas, our cognitive load would be overwhelming.

Weaknesses/limitations of schema theory

• Vague and untestable concept

  • Schemas are hypothetical constructs; we cannot observe them directly.

  • It’s difficult to precisely define or measure a schema or determine how or when a schema is activated.

• Focuses mostly on errors or distortions

  • While schema theory explains memory distortion well, it may overemphasize errors rather than accurate memory.

  • It can give the impression that memory is generally unreliable, which isn’t always the case.

• Individual and cultural differences are not always accounted for

  • Not everyone has the same schemas, even within a single culture.

  • Schema theory doesn’t fully explain why certain schemas are stronger than others, or how they change over time.

• Reductionist

  • It may oversimplify complex cognitive processes by attributing them too heavily to schemas, ignoring other cognitive or biological factors involved in memory and perception.