The reconstructed theory of memory BARTLETT (1932) Is memory simply made up? Schema Theory

Listen Carefully ‘When the man entered the kitchen, he slipped on a wet patch and dropped the delicate glass jug on the floor. The glass jug was very expensive and everyone watched the event with horror.’ (Bransford, 1979)

Tell me a story? Please write down in as much detail as you can, the story I read out to you in a previous lesson – it was the Inuit folk tale! You have 5 minutes

How did you do? Compare your story to the actual story What were the main differences? How could we summarise what has happened in the retelling of the tale? How can we explain WHY this has happened? See summary sheet – bring to next lesson

Do you remember the picture I showed you in a previous lesson? Please draw it …

How did the various strategies work out? Can memory be improved by using a different strategy? How did the various strategies work out?

How much can you remember? Now write out the paragraph you heard at the start of the lesson. Give as much detail as you can recall. (hand in)

The big question… Did anybody write about the glass being broken or smashed?

Broken glass is not mentioned in the original paragraph but the story implies that it occurred. This triggers a ‘schema’ for broken glass and so it is recalled in that way. In other words – memory is reconstructed from what we already know about the world! What is Boo’s schema?

Bartlett (1932) Gave us the term SCHEMATA (schema) which are ideas and scripts about the world which we have developed over time. These scripts or schema also provide people with expectations and rules about what to do. Can you think of any schemas we hold? Like what happens at a birthday party?

Definitions Schema = A readiness to interpret sensory information in a pre-set manner Confabulation means making up bits to fill in a memory so that it makes sense.   Rationalisation means making something make sense.

Bartlett (1932) Concluded that peoples past and current experiences affect their memory for events. So the INPUT is the perception of an event. The PROCESSING includes the perception and also the INTERPRETATION of the event. INTERPRETATION –involves previous experiences and uses SCHEMAS

A memory of an event involves information from specific memory traces encoded at the time of the event, as well as the ideas that the person has from their knowledge, expectations, beliefs and attitudes. In other words their existing ‘Schema’ Remembering involves retrieving memories that have been altered to fit with knowledge that the person already has. This means that our memories aren’t accurate snapshots of event, but reconstructions of events influenced by our active schemas

A Schema is…. “A mental model or representation built up through experience about a person, an object, a situation, or an event.” (Head, 1920) “Organised structures of knowledge and expectations of some aspect of the world.” (Bartlett, 1932)

Schema of an “egg”

Schemas can affect what you see

So according to Bartlett (1932) Memory is not like a tape recorder Memory is not perfectly formed, perfectly encoded and then perfectly retrieved A memory that is retrieved is unlikely to be exactly the same as the original

When evaluating a ‘Theory’ You need to build Castles

Contradictory evidence? Is there any?  

Evaluation of Bartlett (1932) The theory is limited as it describes memory as reconstructive (the what) but does not explain the processes (the How) Bartlett’s theory can be tested experimentally Maybe Bartlett’s story (evidence) didn’t make sense so Ppts may have altered it because of demand characteristics There is a good deal of supporting evidence for the theory; Bartlett (1932) and the work of Loftus on Eye Witness Testimiony

PEEL Your Answers.

Point What is your point? Introduce your point.. “A strength of this theory is that…”

Evidence Present the evidence to support your point… “_____ conducted an experiment… and found….”

Example Give an example to support your point… “many people say that ….”

“This shows/suggests….” Explain Explain the evidence/example in relation to the point. How does it support your point? “This shows/suggests….”

“Therefore this supports…” Link Link your ideas back to the question or the point you are making if you can. “Therefore this supports…”