Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Reconstructive theory of memory(bartlett) - Coggle Diagram
Reconstructive theory of memory(bartlett)
Schema
interfere with interpretations
it is a cognitive framework that organises knowledge about things people or situations
Confabulation
unconsciously filling in gaps
distortion
changing details
rationalisation
making the information realistic
Have a top down influence on perception and the way information is processed people give things a meaning effecting later recall
It changes and distorts with recall
war of the ghosts
an experiment where participants carried out and read the story , they got asked to recall the story after a week and month 6 months and a yea . Each time the participants would shorten the story , the unfamiliar parts thee schemas aliened them for the story to makes sense/fill in gaps .They also rationalised the story
strength
One strength of the reconstructive memory is there is experimental evidence to support that human memory is unreliable
For example lotus and palmer aimed to show that leading questions could distort eye witness testimony accounts , the accounts would be provided by ques given in the question. This was found to be the case as the word of the word 'smashed' implied to pp's faster than when the word 'contacted' was used.
It supports battles claim that schemas can influence the interpretation of an event and that distortion can occur in recall
weakness
one weakness of the reconstructive theory is that its not always found to be correct as some memories are more robust
Yuille and Cutshall showed that witness of a real life incident (a gun shooting outside a gun shop in candida) had remarkable accurate memories of an extremely stressful event the witnesses were interviewed five months later (13 of them) after there first interview and after two misleading questions they all remembered the event exactly the same and no memory was distorted .
There is a weakness because it is opposing evidence of Bartlett's therefore we can not fully believe his clam is high in validity .