Mem & Cog Ch. 7 Cases and Class

Bartlett: Reconstructive and Narrative Memory

Procedure: Read “War of the Ghosts” → recall 15 mins up to 2 weeks later

Results: The story became more distorted with each reproduction

Outcome: Memory is often reconstructed, rejecting the idea of LTM as unchanging storage.

Linton: Autobiographical memory

Procedure: Recorded 2 events daily for 6 years → tested up to 3 years later

Results: Performance was generally good across delays; she often used problem-solving strategies to arrive at the date even without explicit recall.

Outcome: Constructive view of memory

Brewer

Procedure: Participants were randomly beeped (2-hour intervals); location, time, action, and thought were recorded → recall events after a delay

Results: memory was pretty good; forgetting curve was not present; memory for actions was better than for thoughts, and best for memorable events.

Outcome: Memories are a reasonably accurate copy of the individual experiences.

Flashbulb Memory

A detailed recollection of a memorable event. Accuracy: Low. Confidence: High.

Pillemer & Pezdek

Pillemer: participants who had a stronger reaction to news of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reghan had a stronger, more detailed flashbulb memory

However,

Pezdeck: memories of events were all distorted. Accuracy: low. Confidence: High

Neisser

Storytelling → progressive distortion supports Bartlett’s view of constructive memory

We like to tell a “nice” story, causing distortion.

Weaver

Is flashblub memory special?

Procedure: Compared memories of everyday events vs. flashbulb memories

Results: No accuracy differences between daily and flashbulb memories. Forgetting curve present for both. No relationship between confidence and accuracy.

Outcome: Rejects the idea that flashbulb memories rely on special memory mechanisms.

Eyewitness Memory and Memory Malleability

Elizabeth Loftus

Procedure: Series of accident slides (yeild/stop) → asked: “ Did another car pass when the red car was at a yield or stop sign?” ( 2-Alternative forced-choice recognition testing)

Data: 75% correct if question consistent, 41% correct if question inconsistent

Results: More influenced by misleading questions

Bransford and Franks

Evidence of Memory Malleability in Lab Study of Sentence Recall

Procedure: Received both simple and combined sentences → received a complex sentence not presented

Results: Recognized unseen complex sentence with the highest confidence

Outcome: Supports Bartlett’s reconstructive memory: People do not store a copy of the acutal presented sentences in memory

Reconscructive Memory

Memory is an active, imaginative reconstruction of past events rather than a passive, exact playback like a tape recorder or video camera.

Implanting New Memories: Flase Childhood memories

Loftus and Pickrell

Procedure: interview relatives for events when participants were 4-6yrs old: 3 true events, 1 lie → given a booklet to fill in details of the 4 events.

Results: 68% true events, 29% False events

Outcome: Flase memory can be formed through suggestive questioning.