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