Want to know:
Not reliable:Brewer and Teyrens(1981):AIM: the role of schema in encoding and retrieval of memorysample: 86 University psychology studentsPROCEDURE: were asked to sit and observe a room that looked like that of an office-consisted of objects which were commonly found in offices as wellCONDITIONS: drawing condition, recall condition & VERBAL RECOGNITION CONDITIONRESULTS:participants who were in the RECALL condition and the DRAWING condition REMEMBERED MORE ITEMS IN THE OFFICE based on their schema of an office,SHARPENING/RATIONALIZING:had a HIGHER RATE OF CHANGING CERTAIN DETAILS of the objects (E.g. such as a yellow pad, or a table) that were congruent to their schema but weren't in the room.ASSIMILATION: Based on the participants' pre-existing knowledge of an office, the "expected items" were recalled more often, even when they weren't in the room. Participants in both the drawing and recall condition even changed the details of the objects,The findings of this study further supports the role of schema in memory processes to a great extent, as schema was prevalent in the encoding and recall of the objects in the office.LIMITATIONS:-Hard to test in experiments;-doesn't have a construct/separate components to study specifically to predict assmiliation, accommodation, etc.-hard to predict when one will use their schema, unlike other cognitive processes→ describe whether it is a valid model or not in comparison to other cognitive modelsRELIABLE: Yuille and Cutshall:Aim: demonstrate the reliability of memory (challenged the findings of Loftus & Palmer (1974)). determine whether leading questions would affect memory of eyewitnesses at a real crime scene. In other words, the aim was the same as Loftus & Palmer's (1974) study, but in this case, the event that they observed was real and had an emotional impact on those that observed it.PROCEDURE: The crime scene was in Vancouver. A thief entered a gun shop and tied up the owner before stealing money and guns from the shop. The owner freed himself, and thinking that the thief had escaped, went outside the shop. But the thief was still there and shot him twice. Police had been called and there was gunfire - and the thief was eventually killed. As the incident took place in front of the shop, there were eyewitnesses - 21 were interviewed by the police.-The researchers chose this incident to study because there were enough witnesses and there was forensic evidence available to confirm the stories of the eyewitnesses.-The researchers contacted the eyewitnesses four months after the event. 13 of the eyewitnesses agreed to be interviewed as part of a study. They gave their account of the incident, and then they were asked questions. Two leading questions were used. Half the group was asked if they saw "a" broken headlight on the getaway car. The other half were asked if they saw "the" broken headlight. In fact, there was no broken headlight. The second question asked half the group if they saw "the" yellow panel on the car, and the other half was asked if they saw "a" yellow panel on the car (the panel was actually blue). They were also asked to rate their stress on the day of the event on a seven-point scale.RESULTS:It was found that eyewitnesses were actually very reliable. They recalled a large amount of accurate detail that could be confirmed by the original police reports. They also did not make errors as a result of the leading questions. 10 out of 13 of them said there was no broken headlight or yellow quarter panel, or that they had not noticed those particular details.FINDINGS: The researchers found that the accuracy of the witnesses compared to the original police reports was between 79% and 84%. It appears that this research contradicts the study by Loftus & Palmer (1974). It could be that the lack of emotional response to the video that was shown in their study played a key role in the influence of the leading questions. The witnesses reported that they didn't remember feeling afraid during the incident, but they did report having an "adrenaline rush."
Get a detailed, AI-powered explanation for this question and thousands more on StudyFetch.
Get the Answer for FreeHow StudyFetch Helps You Master This Topic
AI-Powered Answers
Get instant, detailed explanations powered by AI that understands your course material.
Deep Understanding
Go beyond surface-level answers with step-by-step breakdowns and examples.
Personalized Learning
Spark.E adapts to your learning style and helps you connect ideas.
Practice & Test
Turn any question into flashcards, quizzes, and practice tests to solidify your knowledge.
Explore More Questions
- Discuss the use of one or more research method using the cognitive approach to understand cognitive processing.
- In some ways, the injuries that Wearing sustained are similar to those observed in Patient HM (Henry Molaison) after the removal of his medial temporal lobe in 1953. They both lost their capacity to turn short-term memories into long-term memories (anterograde amnesia) and they both have an intact implicit memory for learning new motor tasks.
- The Schema theory is a cognitive heuristic//mental script and outlines how one's pre-existing knowledge influences how they remember new information. There are different components to this process as well:-ASSMILIATION describes how someone interprets new ideas/experiences to fit into their existing schemas-ACCOMMODATION: when someone changes existing schemes to fit new ideas or experiences.-SHARPENING AND RATIONALIZING a story: add details/filling the gaps of a story that weren't there in the first place based on your schemaLEVELING: story gets shorterBartlett (1932):aim: to investigate how the memory of a story is affected by previous knowledgeSample: british participantsprocedure: Bartlett told British participants a Native American legend called The War of the Ghosts.two conditions: SERIAL PRODUCTION (participants heard the story and were told to reproduce it after a short time and then to do so again repeatedly over a period of days, weeks, months or years) REPEATED PRODUCTION (they had to recall the story and repeat it to another person)results: Bartlett found that there was no significant difference between the way that the groups recalled the story.STRENGTHS::in BARTLETT: addresses how schema can DISTORT THE ACCURACY OF MEMORY , which is shown throughLASSIMILATION, LEVELING, AND SHARPENING-ASSIMILATION: participants unconsciously changed details of the story in order to fit it to the expectations of their British culture, thus demonstrating schema in this memory process. --e.g. a canoe became a boat-LEVELING AND SHARPENING: participants SHORTENED THE STORY BY DISREGARDING details that they didn't render as important to the story, or changed the order of the story in order FOR IT TO MAKE SENSE TO THEM, using terms that were FAMILIAR TO THEM AND THEIR CULTURE-->memories ARE MORE OF A RECONSTRUCTION of experiences based on one's schema((Analysis))-Bartlett suggested that people reconstruct the past by fitting into their existing schemas; MEMORIES ARE NOT THE COPIES OF THE EXPERIENCES BUT RATHER RECONSTRUCTIONS OF EXPERIENCES -Helped explain (through the understanding of schemas) that when people remember stories, they usually OMIT DETAILS and INTRODUCE DISTORTIONS -Shows how schema theory is useful for understanding how people CATEGORIZE INFORMATION, INTERPRET STORIES, AND MAKE INFERENCES