Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Reconstructive Memory Theory, DESCRIPTIONS, EVALUATION, ERRORS AFTER…
Reconstructive Memory Theory
LOFTUS AND PICKRELL (1995)
EXPERIMENT 2
Aim
Investigate if participants who estimated
high
in
experiment 1
would say the saw
broken glass
in the second experiment. Researchers hypothesized that this would happen
Participants
150
student participants
Procedure
150
students were divided into 3 groups of
50
students each.
Participants watched one minute of film containing clips of car
accidents
all about 4 seconds each.
Participants were asked to describe the accidents in their
own words
and answer a few questions about the film they just watched.
A
week
later the participants came back to answer 10 questions about the film.
A critical question was “
Did you see any broken glass
?” with a yes or no answer
There was
no broken glass
in the video, but researchers assumed broken glass was associated with
high speed
Group 2
was asked the same but replaced smashed with hit
Group 3
was not asked this question and became the control group
Group 1
was asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
Results
Smashed:
10.46 mph
16 Yes
34 No
Hit:
8.00 mph
7 Yes
43 No
Control
6 Yes
44 No
Evaluation
Results can be interpreted in
Bartlett’s theory
where people
change details
when trying to remember things.
This is probably what happened to the participants when they were given
information
through the key words of either “
smashed
” or “
hit
”
Participants may have used
past knowledge
of car accidents to make decisions on broken glass (
schema
)
Study can lack
ecological validity
and therefore may be difficult to
generalize
findings
EXPERIMENT 1
Participants
45
student participants
Procedure
Participants were asked about the
speed
of the car in different ways. (i.e How
fast
were the cars when they smashed/hit/collided with each other?)
Questions were based on the
assumption
“
hit
” and “
smashed
” have different connotations and
schemas
Researchers
predicted
the word “smash” would result in
higher
estimation
IV
were the words and
DV
was the estimation of speed
Students were divided into 5 groups of 9 students each.
Participants watched a total of
7
films of
traffic
incidents
taken from the driver's education films with lengths ranging from 5-30 seconds.
They were asked to give an
account
of the accident and answer a
questionnaire
with different questions, with a critical question being to estimate the
speed
The critical questions had different words depending on the group. The words were “
hit
”, “
collided
”, “
smashed
”, “
bumped
”, “
contacted
”
Aim
Investigate whether the use of
leading
questions would affect
estimation
of speed.
Results
Smashed
- 40.8 mph
Bumped
- 38.1 mph
Hit
- 34.0 mph
Contacted
- 31.8 mph
Collided
- 39.3 mph
Evaluation
Experiment was a
lab
experiment and participants were
students
This means variables were
controlled
but a
low ecological validity
Films were made for
teaching
purposes and therefore participants did not receive the same
emotions
they would have for a real accident.
Confounding
variables are
controlled
so only the effect of the independent variable is measured.
Students are a
small
sample
size, and were most likely
young
and
inexperienced
drivers, which may have affected their estimation.
Most people would have a problem
estimating
the speed of a car
RONALD COTTON
Question
Why was the victim so
certain
that Ronald Cotton was her rapist?
Goal
To have a better understanding of
why
this happened
Resolution
Witnesses are
more likely
to pick someone in
clothes
similar to those worn by the culprit than
physical characteristics
, therefore, they should all be wearing the
same clothing
All members
of the line-up should match the
suspect description
. In addition, witnesses should be told the suspect
may
or
may not
be in the line-up
Culter & Penrod
advocate
sequential line-ups.
Accuracy of identification increases when suspects are seen
one-by-one
, and identification is made (yes/no)
after
each person is presented. Witnesses should
not
be given feedback that confirms their identification
When gathering evidence from a witness, researchers use a narrative interview style called a
Cognitive Interview
A narrative interview is an interview that asks
simple questions
(“Could you tell me what you remember about the night?”). The
interviewee
does most of the talking, with very few questions except for clarification. This way, interviewer does not alter
schema
and
distort memory
by asking
leading
questions
The
cognitive
interview begins with
context reinstatement
. We have better recall when we are in the same
place
,
emotional state,
and/or same
context
in which memory was encoded
This is based on
Tulving & Thomson Encoding Specificity Hypothesis
(1973). Before asking them to recount, the police would have the interviewee think about
where
they were and
how
they felt at the time.
Cognitive interview often uses the following strategies:
Change perspective:
Involves asking the person to “think outside of their schema” (i.e what do you think that the bank teller saw?)
Change the order:
Breaks down the role of schema in “filling in” information. Researchers found that more information is obtained if the witness is asked to recall events forward and backward than simply retelling the story
Important Details
Jennifer Thompson, 22 year old college student, was raped by
Bobby Poole
on July 28, 1984
Jennifer made a deliberate effort to study his
physical characteristics
She survived, and reported the incident. During the investigation, a
composite sketch
was made
Ronald Cotton
was given as a tip. He also worked nearby and had a criminal record
Given photos of suspects, Jennifer confirmed
Ronald Cotton
was the rapist with certainty
Even after a physical lineup, Jennifer was still sure it was
Ronald Cotton
Apparently, Ronald Cotton looks extremely similar to
Bobby Poole
, who admitted to his crimes in prison
DNA evidence freed
Ronald Cotton
During the photos and lineup, they all had
different clothing
Follow-up Notes
Research shows memory is
highly malleable
, and witnesses who begin with uncertainty become
more certain
over time
Officer was present during the identification, and could've subconsciously
provided information
Jennifer's
confidence
was influenced by the feedback from her choice in the lineup.
Repeating only one individual in
multiple procedures
or lineups increases witness confidence
LOFTUS AND PICKRELL (1995)
Aim
To determine if
false memories
of autobiographical events can be created through the power of
suggestion
Participants
3 males, 21 females
Procedure
Before the study, a parent or sibling was contacted and asked two question:
"Could you retell three childhood memories of the participant"
"Do you remember a time when the participant was lost in a mall"
Participants received a
questionnaire
in the mail. It asked the participants to write about
4 memories
then mail back the questionnaire
Three
events were real,
one
was “getting lost in the mall”
Instructed that if they
do not
remember the event, write “I do not remember this”
Participants were interviewed
twice
over a period of 4 weeks. They were asked to
recall
as much information as they could about the events
They were then asked to rate their level of
confidence
about the event from 1 - 10
After the second interview, they were
debriefed
and asked to guess which memory was
fake
Evaluation
Although this is
often
seen as strong evidence of the power of suggestion, only
25
% had them
The study
does not
tell us why some participants were more
susceptible
than others
It was possible to
verify
the memories through the involvement of
parents
and
siblings
Ecological validity was
high
as people were talking about
childhood
memories
The research was applied in areas of
eyewitness
testimony and
therapy
It’s difficult to know whether this is “
true
” false memory or
distortion
of another
Ethical
concerns about
deception
about making the participant believe in a false memory
The questionnaire could be
contaminated
as it was filled at home
There could be
demand
characteristics
, such as social desirability
Results
25
% of the participants “recalled” the false memory. However, they ranked this memory as
less
confident
than other memories
Reasoning for the false memories is thought to be because of the
schema
or
stereotype
of being lost in a mall (data points of being lost in a mall)
Studies have been replicated and show a
high degree
of reliability
There is evidence that what is seen in the laboratory is seen in
real life
. (I.e Holocaust testimonies recalling events)
Research has been applied to improve the process of
data gathering
from witnesses. Additionally helps with understanding
false memories
Many say studies lack
ecological validity
Studies by Loftus under controlled conditions are open to
criticism
, as they are
artificial
in nature (i.e being in an actual accident compared to labs)
Ethical concerns about
manipulating
participant’s memories. (I.e deception in the Lost in the Mall study)
Schema influences what is
encoded
and
retrieved
from memory. Some information might be dropped to
streamline
memory processing
Schema links to reconstructive memory as it provides
data points
for our memory to use
Based on the idea that memories are
not
saved as complete, coherent wholes. Instead it is saved as
points of data
about the object or event
Retrieval of memory is influenced by
perception
,
beliefs
,
experience
,
cultural factors
, and
context
in which we are recalling
Bartlett argued that we try to make sense of the past by adding our
interpretations
of events and deductions of what happened
He argued that memory is an
imaginative
reconstruction of experience
DESCRIPTIONS
EVALUATION
ERRORS AFTER MEANING