STUDY; WAR OF THE GHOSTS, BARTLETT

Aim

test if memory is reconstructive + whether people store/retrieve information according to expectations formed by cultural schemas - if memory of a story is distorted by previous knowledge

Sample

• 20 British participants (7 men, 13 women)

• Not told the aim of the study- believed they were being tested on accuracy of recall

Procedure- task

• Participants read the story to themselves twice. First reproduction 15min later and further reproductions without a set interval

Recall methods;

• Repeated reproduction; reproducing story after a short time and do so again repeatedly over days, weeks, months or years. Same person recalling

• Serial reproduction; recalling story and repeating it to another person. New version shown to another person, then recalled. Repeated

Results

• Participants overall preserved the order of events + main themes

• However, participants changed the story as they recalled it from early to later stages;

→ became shorter (through omission) - 7/20 omitted the title

→ 10/20 transformed the title. Other transformations such as canoes → boats, hunting seals → fishing

• No significant difference between both conditions; both changed the story

Conclusions

• Accuracy is an exception rather than a norm for memory; a lot of the story was rationalized to fit the participants’ own culture and material was changed to be more acceptable/common.

• Reconstructive memory explained by schema theory; remembering is an active process where information is changed to fit existing schemas (distortion) and become conventional/coherent

Strengths

• HIGH EV; has mundane realism unlike most previous research (recalling stories vs nonsensical syllables/letters

• APPLICABILITY; RM/S theory can be applied to explain how memories are categorized and interpreted, so they can be distorted when recalled.

• APPLICABILITY; to real-life situations such as on eyewitness testimonies to show that people don’t always recall accurately

Limitations

• LOW PV; narrow cultural representation- 20 British participants. reduced generalizability to other cultures/the wider population

• RELIABILITY; procedure was not standardized, such as intervals for recall - harder to compare results, less consistent.

• APPLICABILITY; Other studies show memory can be accurate in personally important moments. E.g recalling “something black came out of his mouth” because it is unusual; wrong to suggest that all memories are inaccurate/affected by schemas. reduced applicability to explain accuracy of memory

Conclusion

• Despite the study lacking certain aspects of generalizability / standardized procedures,

• it is still reliable & supported by many other studies that produced the same results supporting Bartlett’s conclusions about reconstructive memory