Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Reconstructive Memory - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Could you recall three childhood memories of the participant
      - Do you remember a time when the participant was lost in a mall
    - - 3 are real events
      - 1 is getting lost in a mall
        
        if they do not remember the event, write “I do not remember this”
  - - - ranked this memory as less confident than other memories
- - - - 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
      - Participants were asked about the speed of the car in different ways
        (ex. How fast were the cars when they smashed/hit/collided with each other?)
      - 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.
      - Participants 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”
    - - Bumped
        
        38.1mph
      - Colided
        
        39.3mph
      - Hit
        
        34.0mph
      - Smashed
        
        40.8mph
      - Contacted
        
        31.8mph
      - changes in speed could be the schema of the word
    - - 45 student
    - - Most people would have a problem estimating the speed of a car
      - Students are a small sample size, and were most likely young and inexperienced drivers, which may have affected their estimation.
      - Confounding variables are controlled so only the effect of the independent variable is measured.
      - Films were made for teaching purposes and therefore participants did not receive the same emotions they would have for a real accident.
      - Experiment was a lab experiment and participants were students, variables were controlled but a low ecological validity
    - - Investigate whether the use of leading questions would affect estimation of speed.
  - - - 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.
      - students were divided into 3 groups of 50 students each.
      - Group 1 was asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
      - Group 2 was asked the same but replaced smashed with hit
      - Group 3 was not asked this question and became the control group
      - 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
    - - Top speed for different words
        
        Hit
        
        8.00mph
        
        Smashed
        
        10.46mph
      - Did you see any broken glass?
        
        control
        
        6 yes, 44 no
        
        "Hit" group
        
        7 yes, 43 no
        
        "smashed" group
        
        16 yes, 34 no
      - Results supported the hypothesis of the researchers
    - - 150 students
    - - 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 could also have used past knowledge (Schema) of serious car accidents to make the decision of whether they saw glass or not.
      - The study could also be accused of lacking ecological validity and therefore may be difficult to generalize its findings to real life.
    - - Investigate if participants who estimated high in experiment 1 would say the saw broken glass in the second experiment (expected result)
- - - - Aim
        
        To have a better understanding of why the victim was so convince that Ronald Cottons was her rapist.
      - Conclusion and resolution
        
        Witnesses tend to pick on people in similar clothes rather than physical characteristics, therefore all suspects should be wearing the same cloths in a line-up instead of other clothing that looks similar to the described one.
        
        All members of the line-up should fit the suspect description, in addition to that, witnesses should be told that whether the suspect was in the line-up or not.
        
        Culter & Penrod advocate sequential line-ups. The accuracy of identification increases when suspects are seen one by one and an identification is made (yes/no) after each person is presented instead of in a row. Finally, witnesses should not be given feedback that confirms their identification.
        
        Researchers use a narrative interview style called a Cognitive interview.
        
        Narrative interview - very few questions asked and interviewee does the talking except for clarification. So schema doesn't get altered this way.
        
        The cognitive interview begins with context reinstatement since we have better recall when we are in the same place, the same emotional state, and/or the same context in which memory was encoded.
        
        Based upon Tulving & Thomson's Encoding Specificity Hypothesis (1973). Which states that before asking someone to retell what happened, the police would have the interviewee think about where they were when they witnessed the crime and how they felt at the time.
        
        Other strategies that are often employed in a interview
        
        Changing the perspective. This involves asking the person to "think outside of their
        schema." What do you think that the bank teller saw?
        
        Change the order. This breaks down the role of schema in “filling in” information. Researchers have found that more information is obtained if the witness is asked to recall events forward and backward than simply retelling the story