Reconstructive Memory
n
n
n
n
Use cues to attempt to “retrieve” or “activate”
encoded events
May only activate portions of events
Parts of similar events may also become
activated
Piece together what is activated
Use schemas, default values to fill in the gaps
Usually right (or good enough)
n Sometimes – may piece together separate episodes
n
n
Reconstructive Memory
n
Schemas and Stereotypes can guide what is
recalled / reconstructed
Retrieval cues used to activate info
Schemas and stereotypes impact retrieval cues used
n Determines what is recalled
n
n
Anderson & Pichert (1978)
n
n
n
Subjects given a passage to read (Table 7.3)
Story about two boys going through a house
Info relevant for homebuyer vs. burglar:
n
n
n
Yard, new siding, new fireplace, fresh paint, etc.
Safe, coin collection, furs, silver, etc.
Subjects
Told to read story from the perspective of burglar
Recall as many details as they could
n 64% of info recalled – relevant to that perspective
n Take other perspective – could recall 10% more info
n
n
1
Take--Home Point
Take
n
What you remember about an event
n
n
n
Typically adaptive
n
n
n
Depends on retrieval cues
Recollection likely to be consistent with retrieval cues
Retrieval cues – context
Info likely to be relevant
Negative effects
n
Stereotypes -- retrieved info consistent with biases
Eyewitness Testimony
n
Memory is reconstructive
n
n
n
Partial details – fill in with expectations
Integrate details from different events
Misinformation Effect
n
n
Elizabeth Loftus
Alter memory for an event after it is encoded?
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
n
Experiment 1
Subjects are shown Driver's Ed film of a car crash
Answered questions about the accident
n How fast were the cars going when they ______
each other?
n
n
n Word
speed
n smashed
40.8
39.3
n collided
n bumped
n hit
38.1
34.0
n contacted
31.8
2
Why:
n
n
n
Response bias?
Did question actually change memory of event?
Experiment 2 -- 150 subjects see accident film
n
n
describe in own words
answer questions on accident
n 50:
How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each
other?
n 50: How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?
n 50:
not asked about vehicle speed
Exp 2 continued
n
n
Brought back into lab 1 week later
Did you see broken glass?
n
n
Smashed
32% yes
Hit
14% yes
Control
12% yes
Loftus, Miller, & Burns (1978)
n
Subjects are shown a set of 30 slides
n
Pedestrian getting hit
3
Loftus et al (cont)
n
Answered a series of 20 questions
Experimental (misleading info):
n
n
Control:
n
n
Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was at
the yield (stop) sign? (wording opposite of picture)
Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was
stopped at the intersection
20 minute filler task
Task
n
n
Pairs of slides -- asked to pick the one they saw
stop vs. yield (show frames)
n
n
n
control:85% picked correct sign
control:85%
experimental: 38% picked correct sign
If they were incorrect
n
n
given a second choice
pole vs. correct sign
n 50%
chose pole in experimental group
What might be happening?
n
Overwriting
original memory replaced by "new" memory
original memory erased -- as if it didn't happen
n Loftus' interpretation
n evidence: Loftus, Miller and Burns
n
n
n experimental
n if
n
condition
they didn't get first time -- purely guessing
original memory is gone(?)
4
Alternative explanations
n
n
Source confusion
Have info -- lose “source”
n
Recall info from question
n For
get where they encountered
it to original event
n Attribute
Alternative explanations
n
n
n
Misinformation acceptance
Paradigm creates response bias
McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985)
McCloskey & Zaragoza explanation
n
n
n
If you don't remember the original slide
Must rely on other info or guess
Control subjects:
some will remember original scene -- they will be
correct
n Others won’t remember -- guess (50/50)
n
n
Experimental subjects:
some will remember original scene -- they will be
correct
n Others won’t remember -- use info from question
n
n
Tree
5
Is the memory being replaced?
n
Difficult to tell.
Loftus -- yes
n
McCloskey & Zaragoza -- no
n
McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985)
n
n
modified the task used by Loftus
Loftus -- two alternatives
n
n
one consistent with original episode
other consistent with misinformation
Modified Recognition Test
n
n
n
give two alternatives
one consistent with original episode
other one brand new
n
(neither original nor misinformation)
6
Example:
n
Ex: See stop sign
n
n
n
Experiment: asked about yield
Control: asked about intersection
Choices
n
n
alternative 1 : stop sign
alternative 2 : pole
Prediction if memory overwritten?
n
experimental -- original info should be gone
n
subjects will have to guess
Prediction if misinformation effect due to
response/retrieval competition?
n
Experimental group -- original info still available
novel slide does not create response competition
n
Predicts: experimental as accurate as control
n
Results
n
n
n
n
Yield not an option
no misinformation effect
(experimental as accurate as control)
7
Answer
n
Jury is still out -- check back in 10 years
Flashbulb Memories
n
Very rich, detailed memory
n
n
Emotionally intense event
Seem different from other memories
n
n
More vivid, detailed
More accurate?
Brown & Kulik (1977)
n
Asked people about assassination of JFK
n
n
n
13 years earlier
Very detailed – rich recollections
Very confident in
n
n
n
n
Where they were
what they were doing
who they were with
Proposed special mechanism
n
n
n
Emotionally charged info
Important -- Biological/Survival relevance
Utilizes special storage mechanism
8
Problem
n
Ulric Neisser
Neisser::
Vivid memory of learning about Pearl Harbor
Listening to baseball game on radio
n Announcer broke in and reported news
n
n
n
Usually no way to assess accuracy
Since -- many followfollow-up studies
n
Labs -- wait for salient public events
Challenger explosion
Political resignations
n Princess Di
n Oklahoma City bombing
n WTC & Pentagon
n
n
Neisser and Harsch (1992)
n
Questionnaire day following Challenger explosion
n
Primary Info:
n Where
n
n What
they were
they were doing
n Who
told them
Secondary Info
n Time
of day
n Who
else present
9
Neisser and Harsch (cont)
n
Followed up 2 1/2 years later
n
Describe memory of event
n2
n1
n
points for a match of where, what, and who
point for secondary match (when, who else)
Max of 7
3/44 perfect score
Mean of 2.95 (not even 2 of 3 primary points)
n 50% scored 2 or less (only primary point)
n
n
10