Bartlett (Memory)
Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts (pg. 40-42)
“Understand the aims, procedures and findings (results and conclusions), strengths and weaknesses of: Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts”
Background to the study: Bartlett wanted to test his theory that memory is not always accurate and our memories are reconstructed based on schemas. He claimed that schemas are mental frameworks based on experience.
Description: APRC
| A | • Bartlett aimed to see if memory recall of a story is affected by schemas, previous knowledge and culture. • He wanted to test his theory that memories are reconstructed and not exact replicas of what we experience. |
| P | • 20 British participants (7 females, 13 males) took part in the study, but they weren’t told the true aim of the study was about reconstructive memory. • Bartlett gave participants a Native American story called “The War of the Ghosts” which was unfamiliar to them. They were allowed to read the story twice. • Participants were asked to recall the story 15 minutes later. • Participants were also asked to recall the story again at various later times. This ranged from 20 hours later, up to almost 10 years later! |
| R | • Participants changed the story in their recall – they made transformations due to familiarisation. – E.g. they recalled the word “canoe” as “boat”. – E.g. they recalled the activity “seal hunting” as “fishing”. • 17 out of the 20 participants either forgot (omission) or changed (transformation) the title of the story. • They also made transformations due to rationalisation – they changed bits of the story so that it made more sense. |
| C | • Schemas affect memory recall and lead to omissions and transformations. • Memory recall is not an exact replica of what is learnt, but is a reconstruction based on schemas. |
The War of the Ghosts: One night two young men from Egulac went down to 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 be 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 on up 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 he 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.
Evaluation: GRAVE
| G | • Bartlett used both females and males in his sample, meaning strong generalisability. • However, the sample size of 20 is quite small, meaning results might not reflect typical memory recall. |
| R | • The study had a standardised procedure (every participant read the same story: The War of the Ghosts) which means the study can be repeated to check for consistency of results. • Bartlett repeated the study with different stories and also pictures – he found that the result was consistent (same result kept occurring), showing high reliability. |
| A | • The study is useful as it supports Reconstructive Memory theory – it shows that memory recall isn’t accurate and is reconstructed based on schemas. • This suggests we shouldn’t trust eyewitness testimony of crimes, as their recall may be affected by schemas. Because of studies like Bartlett’s, “cognitive interview” was created to stop eyewitness testimony being impacted by schemas. |
| V | • The results have low ecological validity, as it was an artificial memory test of a story that participants were not familiar with. This doesn’t reflect everyday memory recall of real events. • As the participants were asked to recall the story multiple times, they may have guessed the aim and showed demand characteristics. They may have realised Bartlett expected them to change the story each time. |
| E | • There aren’t any ethical issues with the study as it was just a simple memory experiment, that didn’t cause any harm to participants. |
Bartlett (1932) Key Term Glossary
| Ecological validity | Whether the behaviours observed in research reflect everyday behaviours |
| Eyewitness testimony | The recall of a crime, given by a witness (someone that saw the event) |
| Cognitive interview | An interview technique that aims to improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony by reducing the impact of schemas on memory |
| Demand characteristics | When participants guess the aim of the study and change their behaviour to help out the researcher |
| Need more help? Want to stretch your understanding? |
| https://www.psychologywizard.net/reconstructive-memory-ao1-ao2-ao3.html |
Still got a question? Leave a comment
Leave a comment