Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY - Coggle Diagram
RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY
-
Loftus and Pickrell
AIM
To determine if false memories of autobiographical events can be created through the power of suggestion.
RESULT
S25% of the participants "remembered" the fake recollection, even though they gave it a lower confidence rating than the other memories and provided less information about it in their questionnaire.
EVALUATION
This study still does not explain why certain people were more susceptible to these memories than others because only 25% of subjects reported having a false memory.
The ecological validity was excellent as participants discussed their childhood experiences.
It's difficult to discern if this is a "real" erroneous recollection or a distortion of another memory of being lost.
Because the questionnaire was filled out at home, there is a possibility that someone may have conferred with them, which may have caused contamination.
PROCEDURE
Participants were 21 ladies and 3 guys. A participant's parent or sibling was contacted before the study and given the opportunity to answer two questions.
The individuals were then mailed a questionnaire. They had to fill out the questionnaire, jot down four recollections, and give it back to the psychologists.
The phrase "getting lost in the mall" was one of the three actual events. If they were unable to recall the event, they were instructed to simply write "I do not remember this."
-
It is predicated on the notion that memories are not retained as whole, cohesive units. Memory retrieval is influenced by perception, beliefs, and previous experiences cultural background, personal experience, and the environment in which we are remembering the information. What we encode and what we recover from memory are both influenced by schema.
It is thought that factors including our viewpoint, beliefs, past experiences, cultural factors, and the context in which we are recalling the knowledge can affect how well we can recall it from memory. However, a significant component influencing how we retain or retrieve information is our cultural background and influences.
Case Study of Ronald Cotton
The participants in the line-up should all match the suspect's description. Furthermore, it's critical to inform witnesses as to whether or not the suspect will be included in the lineup. Witnesses are more likely to select a suspect in a lineup who is dressed similarly to the suspect than they are to select a suspect based merely on looks. They should all be wearing similar clothing, not what was stated as being worn at the crime scene. Sequential line-ups are encouraged by Culter & Penrod. When suspects are viewed one at a time and an identification is made (yes/no) after each person is presented, the accuracy of identification improves. Finally, it's not appropriate to corroborate witnesses' identify through comments. An example of a narrative interview is a straightforward inquiry like "Could you kindly tell me what you remember about the night of the murder?" Only questions pertaining to clarification are asked; the interviewee speaks for the majority of the interview. The interviewer prevents shifting schema and skewed memory by using leading questions. To gather testimony from witnesses, research employs a narrative interview approach called a Cognitive Interview.
The process whereby memories of an event become distorted by information encountered after the event occurred. Because memories are reconstructed, they are susceptible to being manipulated with false information, making them unreliable dependant on the severity of change in memory.
We make an effort to understand the past by adding our own interpretations of the data and determining what most likely occurred, according to psychologist Barlett. You will adjust the material such that it makes more sense if you truly don't understand it. In order to make the material seem more coherent, you will then add a little bit more. Because of this, we must make it relatable and sensible to us, which is why different people may remember various details of the same experiences depending on what is reasonable or relatable.