Pearson BTEC National Applied Psychology Book 1

B1 Cognitive approach Key concepts: ● Reconstructive memory, including the role of schema (shortening, rationalisation and confabulation). Key study: ● Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts. Specification content Can we rely on memory if it is reconstructive? Can you think of any real-life examples where inaccurate recall could have serious consequences? An issue to consider 1. State what is meant by the term ‘reconstructive memory’. (1) 2. Using an example, explain what is meant by the term ‘schema’. (3) 3. Explain one feature of schemas that can in uence reconstructive memory. (2) 4. Explain how a cognitive psychologist would account for reconstructive memory. Use the concept of schema in your answer. (3) 5. Bob and Sue are friends who together witnessed a street robbery and gave statements to the police. They discussed a erwards what they had said. Bob’s statement was much longer than Sue’s. Sue included some details that Bob did not remember happening. Both realised that they included the same events but described them very differently. Outline how a cognitive psychologist might explain the differences between the two statements. (3) 6. Explain how the ndings of Bartlett (1932) support the view that schemas in uence memory. (3) 7. Dev and Suni are discussing memory. Dev believes that recall is like playing back a recording. But Suni argues that recall is more of a reconstruction. Suni also believes that studies support her argument. Discuss the view that memory is reconstructive. In your answer you should consider the role of schemas, including shortening, rationalisation and confabulation. (9) Exam-style questions Wedding memories P rince Harry and Meghan Markle were married in May 2018.The wedding was ‘witnessed’ by millions of people on TV. Were you one of them? 1. What do you remember about it? 2. Looking back, do you think that your memory of the wedding is accurate? 3. Choose a well-known event in the news that you ‘witnessed’ (e.g. on TV). Try to recall as much detail about it as you can, and jot down some notes about what you remember. Now, find an account in the media of the event and compare it with your recall. Look for evidence of how your schemas may have influenced your memory. Are there any important details you missed out or recalled inaccurately? Is there anything you were convinced must have happened but hasn’t been reported? ACTIVE GET Evaluation Application to EWT One strength is that reconstructive memory can help explain problems with eyewitness testimony (EWT). EWT is o en used in court trials to give a picture of what happened when a crime was committed. For example, an eyewitness might swear on oath that they had seen a certain person at the crime scene, only for their testimony to be challenged by evidence presented later. Memory can be affected by schemas (including expectations of what ‘should’ happen), so people do not always recall events accurately. Consequently, convictions in court are less likely to be based on EWT alone as it can be unreliable – a very important application of research. Some memories are accurate One weakness is that not all memories are affected by schemas. Recall can be very accurate. For example, in situations that are personally important or distinctive we can remember a lot of accurate detail. In Bartlett’s study, participants o en recalled the phrase ‘Something black came out of his mouth’ because it was quite unusual. This shows that people may not always actively reconstruct memories, and memory can be highly accurate and relatively unaffected by schemas. Evaluation Realistic theory and research One strength is that Bartlett used realistic methods to study memory. Before Bartlett’s work, psychologists used arti cial materials (e.g. ‘nonsense syllables’ such as RIZ and KUY). These are arti cial because we rarely use memory to learn such meaningless things. Instead, Bartlett used an everyday kind of task (recalling a story) to show what happens when we try to recall an unfamiliar story. Therefore, he was able to draw conclusions more relevant to real-life memory. Unscienti c research One weakness of Bartlett’s study is that its procedures lacked consistency, which is a key requirement for scienti c research. In scienti c research, procedures are ‘standardised’ so the experience of the study is the same for every participant. This was not true of Bartlett’s study. For example, some of his participants only reproduced the War of the Ghosts story when he happened to ‘bump into’ them. This means we cannot be con dent that reconstructive memory theory is correct, as it is based on unscienti c research. Specification terms Confabulation When details are added to a memory to ll in the ‘gaps’, to make recall meaningful. Rationalisation When parts of a memory are distorted to t your schema, to make the memory meaningful. Reconstructive memory Pieces of stored information are reassembled during recall. The process is guided by our schemas so that we produce a ‘memory’ that makes sense (even if it is inaccurate). Schema A mental package of beliefs and expectations that in uence memory. They change (reconstruct) memories through shortening, rationalisation and confabulation. Shortening When part of a memory is le out, so what remains is shorter. Key study: Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts Aims Bartlett wanted to see if recall from memory is reconstructive. Would British participants’ recall of unfamiliar material be affected by schemas so that their errors followed a pattern? Procedure Bartlett showed 20 British participants an Inuit (Native American) folk tale ( War of the Ghosts , see le ). Each person read the story twice and 15 minutes later told it (from memory) to someone who had not read it. This person told it to someone else and so on (like Chinese whispers). This method of testing memory is called serial reproduction . Bartlett kept a record of what each person remembered. Findings The story was transformed in several ways: 1. Shortening – it was shortened signi cantly (because details were le out). The story is 326 words long, but a er six or seven reproductions it became about 180 on average. 2. Rationalisation – Bartlett noticed that the supernatural element (at the heart of this ghost story) vanished altogether. 3. Confabulation – phrases were changed to language and concepts from the participants’ own culture (e.g. ‘boats’ instead of ‘canoes’). Conclusions The transformations occurred because participants’ schemas in uenced what they could remember about the story. The material became more meaningful and easier to understand and remember. Key concept: Reconstructive memory What is reconstructive memory? Sir Frederic Charles Bartlett (1932) argued that memories are not reproductions but reconstructions (constructing the memory again). We don’t record events in memory like a video recorder would. Instead we store fragments of information and when we recall something, we build (reconstruct) these fragments into a meaningful whole. The result is that memory is not a totally accurate record of what happened. Role of schema in memory A schema is a mental structure or ‘package’ containing our stored knowledge of an aspect of the world. So we have schema for a mother, teacher, re engine, birthday party, rework, etc. – for people, objects, events. Bartlett believed our schemas affect memory by in uencing what we store and what we recall (see the key study below). Therefore, some parts of a memory are missing, some are distorted and some are added: Shortening Parts of a memory that don’t t in with your schemas are le out (e.g. unfamiliar or unexpected details) so what you remember is shorter. Rationalisation Parts of a memory are recalled but in a distorted way that ts your schemas. So your memory of an event changed because it didn’t match relevant schemas (but now it does). This happens so that strange or unfamiliar memories make more sense. Confabulation Parts of a memory are invented to ll in ‘gaps’. This isn’t deliberate (it’s not ‘lying’) and it doesn’t happen randomly. It is guided by schemas to (again) make better sense of the memory. The War of the Ghosts The following story was told to participants in Bartlett ’ s key study: One night two young men from Egulac went down the river to hunt seals, and while they were there it became foggy and calm. Then they heard war-cries, and they thought: ‘ Maybe this is a war-party ’ . They escaped to the shore and hid behind a log. Now canoes came up, and they heard the noise of paddles, and saw one canoe coming up to them. There were five men in the canoe, and they said: ‘ What do you think? We wish to take you along. We are going up the river to make war on the people. ’ One of the young men said: ‘ I have no arrows. ’ ‘ Arrows are in the canoe, ’ they said. ‘ I will not go along. I might get killed. My relatives do not know where I have gone. But you, ’ he said, turning to the other, ‘ may go with them. ’ So one of the young men went, but the other returned home. And the warriors went up on the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people came down to the water, and they began to fight, and many were killed. But presently the young man heard one of the warriors say: ‘ Quick, let us go home: that Indian has been hit. ’ Now he thought: ‘ Oh, they are ghosts. ’ He did not feel sick, but they said he had been shot. So the canoes went back to Egulac, and the young man went ashore to his house, and made a fire. And he told everybody and said: ‘ Behold I accompanied the ghosts, and we went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed, and many of those who attacked us were killed. They said I was hit and I did not feel sick. ’ He told it all and then became quiet. When the sun rose he fell down. Something black came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people jumped up and cried. He was dead. Content area B1: Cognitive approach Key concept 1 and key study Witnesses very rarely lie. But they do sometimes get it wrong. They take an oath to tell ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’, so they try their hardest to remember things accurately. But memory is o en reconstructive, so piecing together memories of what they saw is likely to be affected by schemas. This is why witnesses to the same crime can o en have different memories of it. 12 13 Unit 1: Psychological approaches and applications