TOK Presentation – Script Introduction: RLS: - - - Loftus and Palmer (1974) study The theme of this cognitive psychology study is memory, and it focuses on an applied area of memory which is eyewitness testimony Eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence used in court systems. It relies heavily on the memory of the eyewitness The aim of this study was to investigate ways in which memory can be influenced by postevent information, they wanted to try to manipulate memory recall through the use of language. In their experiment, they asked participants a critical question: “About how fast were the cars going when they ‘verb’ into each other?”. There were 5 different verbs used (smashed, collided, hit, bumped, contacted), all representing a different intensity. Before asking this question, participants watched 7 clips of car accidents. Based on the critical question and the verb used in it, participants needed to answer that question, which ended up showing how the participants had different interpretations of speed based on the verb used. Results showed that the more inaccurate the participants’ estimate of the speed of the crash, the greater the memory distortion. They concluded that memories are influenced by the way they are recalled, and when certain aspects are suggested after the event, it stimulates more emphasis on those aspects when recalling the event, making memory less reliable. - I thought this study was very intriguing, as it made me question the way memory works and how reliable it really is. The study showed me how eyewitness testimony isn’t as reliable as it is set out to be, which made me think about all of the possible mistakes made in court, how the criminal justice system could have misjudged a crime. - This study changed my way of thinking in a way that now I see that small changes in information can cause distortions in memory, and therefore can have major impacts on knowledge, not being able to know what is really true. Memory is not like a photograph, it is susceptible to change, which reflects on the way we pay attention and use our perception to be certain of the information we receive. - We came up with one knowledge question before our original one, which is: How do we know if what we remember is true? The knowledge question we decided to investigate is: To what extent is memory reliable when producing knowledge of the past? AOK: History WOKs: Language, Memory, Emotion - Language: The Loftus + Palmer study is based off of changing the language used to describe an event. - Memory Perception flaws = All senses are flawed and can be manipulated Misremembering = It is common for people to remember wrong, it is a KQ: - simple mistake made very often New information = People will interpret and remember new information differently. Memory is not the same within all people - Emotion = Can cause flaws in perception, emotional responses can alter how people remember information Development: Knowledge claim #1: - “Repression influences recovered memories” - Loftus et al. (1987) - What is repression? Exclusion of distressing memories, which leads to unreliable answers from eyewitnesses - Demonstrated how another factor called repression may influence recovered memories, thus leading to unreliable answers from eyewitnesses which was investigated on the weapon-focus effect. - Participants heard a discussion going on in the room next door. There were 2 conditions: no weapon condition (man with greasy hand emerging from another room holding a pen) and weapon condition (a man coming from another room with a bloody paperknife). Participants were asked to identify the man from a selection of 50 people. Results showed that participants from the no-weapon condition were more accurate in recall. - Loftus concluded that the weapon drew more attention than the pen, so their attention was allocated to the weapon than the face. This relates to the unreliability of EWT because it was found that the more dangerous situation affected their recalling of the person’s face. This can be explained by repression, as the knife may have provoked their memory and emotion this creating false memories, which is very unreliable in memory recall. - WOK Emotion, Memory Counterclaim #1: - “Real-life events that are witnessed will produce accurate memory recall” - Yuille and Cutshall (1986) - They were against Loftus and Palmer’s study. They contradict the importance of stress in influencing eyewitness memory, as their study lacked ecological validity - What they did in this study was that they aimed to investigate the accuracy of memory recall using real eyewitnesses from a real crime. The crime was a real theft and gun shooting crime scene. These eyewitnesses were contacted 4-5 months after the event, and the researchers used the same interviewing method as the police. - The researchers asked them questions about what they saw in the crime scene, using a similar approach to Loftus and Palmer’s by using different words when interviewing them, for example, they were asked if they saw “A” broken headlight and they were also asked if they saw “THE” broken headlight, when in fact there was no broken headlight. - The researchers ended up obtaining more details than the police did. They found that misleading questions had little effect on their recall because the eyewitnesses identified the characteristics of the crime scene accurately. - It was found that eyewitnesses are in fact very reliable, it is dependent on the situation and the emotions that arise when you are experiencing an event Flashbulb memories Claim: As Venla discussed in her claims and counter claims, memory can be unreliable due to human error, because of our own perspectives and biases when viewing an event. My claim will be that a source of memory can be altered, thus affecting our knowledge of history. The ways of knowing I will focus on is memory, and how it can be altered by an external source. Let’s take a look at Trotsky and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia as an example of how a source can be altered and affect history. Leon Trotsky was a leader in the Russian Communist party, and he took part in the Bolshevik revolution, but he fell out of favor with Stalin, who subsequently wiped him from history with any photos or articles about him. Here, we see the altering of the source of memory. The sources in our example would be photos or evidence of Trotsky’s existence. Recalling memory is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. The pieces are scattered throughout our brain, put away for long term storage. A source of memory can act as a trigger, signaling the neural bonds to put the image back together in our minds. However, like a muscle, these neural bonds can be weakened over time if not used, or through exposure to different versions of that memory. These neural links weaken, thus crumbling the original memory, and possibly allowing wiggle room for small influences here and there that change details of past events. This is precisely what Stalin’s censorship aimed to achieve. By editing out Trotsky, the neural ‘trigger’ is removed, and memory of Trotsky is removed from people’s minds. So, from this, if we go back to our knowledge question, “To what extent is memory reliable in producing knowledge of the past”, we can determine it’s only to a limited extent. Trotsky was removed from people’s memories, and Trotsky’s sucesses were credited to Stalin, and Stalin’s legacy was greatly strengthened. Thus, trusting our memories on generating knowledge of the past can lead to distortion and a perverted perspective of history. Counter-Claim However, we see an inconsistency in this idea, through the consistency of ‘Flashbulb memories’. Flashbulb memories are essentially memories of an emotionally traumatic instance, where the participants are able to recall much more details accurately, as if they had taken a photo of moment. We can see this effect through the example of the terror attacks of 9/11. After 9/11, over the course of 10 years, repeated surveys were sent out to witnesses of that event, asking about details of their actions during the day. After a year, participants’ accuracy in recalling the event dropped to around 66%. However, as repeated surveys were sent out over 10 years, memory was retained at around the 66%. I believe that this is due to the effect of fear and emotion affecting our memories and allowing them to strengthen our neural bonds over time. Hence, a counter claim can be formed arguing that The degree of emotional trauma, if severe enough, can override the alteration of the source of memory. The ways of knowing are memory and emotion, how emotion can be a variable that affects our memory. Now, what makes this a counter claim is that over the course of time, many photoshopped images, alternative stories and conspiracy theories have popped that could have hampered the participant’s memory about 9/11. These are all sources that have been altered, that could have changed or influenced the neural bonds containing 9/11 that were weakened over time. Yet still each participant remembered the same amount of about 66%. This is where emotion may come into play, affecting our memory. My counter claim is based off of evolutionary traits affecting the memories of our ancestors. Those that could remember the emotion of fear or panic in life and death situations better, would’ve more likely found strategies to counteract future similar events and survive. In 9/11’s case, it can help people form coping mechanisms for their pain. Many people who took the 9/11 survey were chosen because they were either present at the attacks or experienced a loved one’s death through that event. It can be deduced that emotion can have a strong influence on the recollection of memory, as we see from the 66% consistent recollection. As mentioned earlier, these people were selected specifically because of their emotional traumas, and possibly don’t apply to the rest of humanity. If we link this counter-claim back to the knowledge question of “To what extent is memory reliable in generating knowledge of the past, we can see that memory can be somewhat reliable in generating knowledge of the past. Although some of the details of 9/11 was lost over time in participant’s minds, the emotional trauma they felt must have had a ‘neural bond’ strengthening effect on their brains, helping them recall knowledge of the past to a somewhat accurate degree. Conclusion: - In conclusion, it should be noted that memory cannot be a reliable way of knowing, but can be a way of storing and encoding knowledge of the past. - When I first looked into my real-life situation, I started questioning memory and how we know if everything I remember is true and reliable or not. Looking into several different studies, I know that memory is not like a photograph, it is not 100% accurate at all times and it is susceptible to change. - From my investigation, we explored how memory can be weakened by changing the source of memory. As the memory slowly fades as time passes, our knowledge of the past can be changed by manipulating the memory, either through changing the source of memory or removing triggers that recall the memory. - However, emotional trauma can counteract this effect by actually strengthening the neural bonds formed by the memory. It can be traced to a biological evolutionary trait that helped our ancestors recall past traumas and avoid the same mistakes in the future. The emotional trauma can be stored and can be used to develop a coping mechanism for future pain. - Hence, I can conclude, stating that sources of memory can alter our perception of the past, but emotion can be a variable to counteract this. Link back to RLS: - There is the case of schemas, which was first outlined by Bartlett in 1932. Schemas are mental representations. The schema theory suggests that memories can be influenced by the previous knowledge of a person. For example, if I say the word ‘restaurant’, most of you will have a mental mind-map of what a restaurant will look like including images of tables, chairs, plates, forks, knifes etc., but the thing is that everyone has different schemas because not everyone’s brain or memory is identical. So, using this restaurant schema as an example, I used my previous knowledge to make a guess about my interpretation of a restaurant, and this is the idea behind our real-life situation as well: our previous knowledge influences our memories. Memories are based on personal interpretations.
