Memories form the core of our identity, shaping how we understand ourselves and the world around us. They are not static snapshots of reality but dynamic reconstructions, vulnerable to distortion and embellishment. Though we rely on them as anchors to our past, research reveals that memories are far from infallible—fragile, interpretative creations influenced by time, perception, and experience.

Have you ever recalled a vivid memory only to realise it was inaccurate or impossible?

WHAT IS RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY?

Think back to a childhood visit to a Christmas fair. You might vividly recall seeing Santa Claus—red suit, twinkling eyes, maybe waving cheerfully from a sleigh. But what if you later found out Santa wasn’t even there? Perhaps it was a small market with no performers at all. How could your memory feel so vivid and yet be completely wrong?

This is reconstructive memory at work. Our brains don’t store events like perfect video recordings. Instead, memories are actively pieced together during recall, blending accurate details with assumptions, expectations, and prior knowledge. In this case, because Christmas fairs often feature Santa Claus, your brain may have “filled in the blanks,” adding him to your memory even though he wasn’t there. It’s not a flaw—it’s your mind working hard to make sense of the event.

This process helps us organise and interpret experiences but also means our memories aren’t always reliable. We may add details that didn’t happen or forget ones that did. Reconstructive memory highlights how we blend the real and the imagined, revealing how flexible and fallible our recall can be.

FACTORS INFLUENCING RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY

How we reconstruct memories is influenced by various factors that shape what we remember and how accurate those memories are.

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND SCHEMAS
Our memories rely on schemas—mental frameworks built from past experiences that help us interpret new information. For instance, imagine recalling a trip to the circus. Even if no clown was present, you might still “remember” one because clowns are a common feature in your schema of what a circus includes. Schemas help us fill in the blanks when details are missing, but they can also distort memories by adding things that didn’t happen.

EXPECTATIONS AND BELIEFS
Our beliefs and expectations filter how we interpret and recall events. If you assume a close friend always supports you, you might later remember them agreeing with your ideas, even if they voiced doubts. Your brain reconstructs the event to align with your expectations, shaping your memory to fit what feels consistent with your worldview.

POST-EVENT INFORMATION
Memories can be reshaped by new information after the event. Imagine seeing a magician at the circus and later hearing someone talk about “that amazing clown.” You might adopt this detail into your memory without realising it, even if you never saw a clown. This “misinformation effect” shows how easily external suggestions can influence recall.

EMOTIONAL STATE
Strong emotions can focus your attention on some details while pushing others into the background. For example, the excitement of watching a daring trapeze act might make you vividly remember the performers and their flips but completely forget what the announcer said or what music was playing in the background.

CONCLUSION

Reconstructive memory is a creative and interpretative process. Far from being a perfect replay of the past, it’s a dynamic blend of actual details, expectations, beliefs, and emotional impressions. While this flexibility allows us to make sense of events, it also opens the door to distortion. Schemas are at the heart of this process, shaping how we organise, store, and retrieve information. They’re essential for long-term memory and play a crucial role in helping us understand and navigate the world.

But as we’ll see, schemas come with their complexities, especially in how they influence the way we store and interpret experiences.

SCHEMAS ARE THE BRAIN'S BEST FRIEND

Knowledge is physically expressed in the brain, and stereotypes are one way this knowledge is organised. A stereotype is a sub-category of schemata—or, more commonly, schema. Schemas act as a mental database, categorising everything we encounter into broad groups: for instance, "baby" equals can’t talk, can’t walk, cries, and dribbles. Stereotypes, as specific schemas, allow us to judge people or situations quickly. For example, the stereotype “all old people are frail” helps us decide to offer an elderly lady a seat on the bus without overthinking her physical capabilities. Without stereotypes, we’d waste time assessing every individual—babies, the elderly, or harmless strangers—for potential danger. Stereotypes are mental shortcuts, saving us cognitive effort.

ACTIVITY INSTRUCTIONS: Exploring Stereotypes and Assumptions

Objective:
This activity helps you uncover and reflect on the assumptions we make about people based on their names and countries of origin.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Step 1: Making Assumptions (10 minutes)
   Below are six individuals from different regions. For each person, write five things you assume about them. Consider their:

   • Appearance (e.g., hair, skin tone, clothing).

   • Personality traits.

   • Daily lifestyle or routines.

   • Hobbies or interests.

   • Cultural or traditional practices.

   The People:

   • Inga is from Sweden.

   • John is from the USA.

   • Aarav is from India.

   • Tariq is from the Cook Islands.

   • Zenaw is from Kazachnya (a region combining cultural influences from Kazakhstan and Chechnya).

   • Nokani is from a remote Amazon jungle tribe.

2. Step 2: Group Discussion or Self-Reflection (10 minutes)
   After writing your assumptions, consider the following:

   • Identify Patterns:

     • What do your assumptions reveal about how you view these cultures?

     • Were your responses influenced by stereotypes or media portrayals?

   • Challenge Yourself:

     • Could these assumptions be incorrect or overly simplistic?

     • What additional information would you need to better understand these individuals and their cultures?

If you don’t have a stereotype of a person, they essentially can’t exist in your brain. For instance, what kind of person is a Kolpat? What colour is their hair, what shade is their skin, and where do they come from? You’d have no idea—Kolpats don’t exist; I just made them up. Still, your brain likely searched for matches to categorise them. But how can you imagine a person with zero data to go on? Most of our decisions rely on stereotypes.

If I told you Kolpats were from Western Europe, you might assume they had dark hair and tanned skin based on your prior experience. Your stereotype would kick in. Similarly, imagine I told you my elderly parent’s friend from Jamaica was visiting. You’d probably picture an elderly Black person who enjoys reggae based on your cultural knowledge and personal history. But what if this friend turned out to be a 21-year-old, Chinese-looking goth? This mismatch would surprise you because your brain relied on a pre-existing stereotype. No harm done—hopefully, you’d update that stereotype accordingly.

EXERCISE 1: PAYING ATTENTION TO YOUR ENVIRONMENT

During every moment of a human's life, vast volumes of sensory information continually bombard the brain. However, only a fraction of this sensory information can be taken in by sensory receptors and processed by the nervous system, as there is limited capacity.

Take a brief moment to be mindful of your surroundings. Contemplate all your senses individually—what do you hear, feel, or notice?

When you focus on paying attention, you might become aware of parts of your environment that you hadn’t noticed before. Perhaps you caught a faint conversation or a sound you previously ignored.

You are unlikely to have focused on what you could hear until now. This is because monitoring that sensation then was not a priority. The brain cannot process all the sensory input bombarding it every nanosecond of consciousness. It prioritises highlighting certain stimuli while blanking out the rest.

ATTENTIONAL PROCESSES

This selective focus allows us to pick out a juicy conversation in a loud room, spot a friend in a crowd, or swerve to avoid a fox darting across the road. Even with vast data submerging our senses, we can act on what matters while excluding irrelevant details. Attentional processes act like a spotlight, directing the brain to significant events and filtering out peripheral noise. Perception is key to engaging with the present and creating a working representation of the world.

THE £5 NOTE CHALLENGE: WHY YOUR BRAIN FAILS AT DETAILS

Here’s a quick exercise: take five minutes and try to draw a five-pound or dollar note from memory. Don’t cheat by looking at one first!

Despite handling money daily, most people fail this task. Why? Because your brain processes only the essential details of the note, like its colour, size, or basic layout, while ignoring finer specifics like the exact wording, intricate patterns, or placement of symbols.

This failure highlights how the brain operates efficiently by conserving cognitive resources. Since the finer details of a banknote are rarely necessary for recognising or using it, your brain treats them as irrelevant. Instead, it creates a simplified mental sketch—a "shortcut"—sufficient for everyday tasks like identifying or spending money.

The brain's prioritisation system is designed to prevent overload. It doesn’t waste energy, deeply encoding every aspect of every object you encounter. Instead, it filters out what it deems non-essential, ensuring that attention is reserved for more pressing matters. This is why shortcuts like schemata and stereotypes are so important—they allow us to navigate our environment without becoming paralysed by detail.

THE BRAIN AS A COGNITIVE MISER

The brain speculates rapidly to save energy. When you’ve figured out whether a “slippery-looking” character following you in the park is harmless or dangerous, it might be too late—you could be mugged. On the other hand, you might feel guilty for stereotyping them when they turn out to be a park keeper doing litter duty.

We all “jump the gun” at times. Ideally, these blunders help update our mental shortcuts. Staying “street-wise” is essential, but clinging to outdated stereotypes, like imagining all French people wear strings of onions, is irrational.

This reminds me of Martin Vagner’s quote from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo:
“Why don’t people trust their instincts? They sense something is wrong, someone is walking too close behind them... You knew something was wrong, but you came back into the house. Did I force you, did I drag you in? No. All I had to do was offer you a drink. It’s hard to believe that the fear of offending can be stronger than the fear of pain.”

This quote highlights how instincts, often shaped by schemas and stereotypes, aim to protect us. However, fear of offending or overthinking can sometimes override these instincts.

SCHEMATA AND STEREOTYPES

Our brain needs to organise information into meaningful patterns to avoid becoming overwhelmed. To achieve this, biases, schemata, and stereotypes navigate sensory data. In psychology, a schema is a pattern of thought or behaviour that organises information into categories and defines their relationships. This organisation creates mental shortcuts, simplifying the world and allowing us to act quickly.

Recording only a sketch version of most encounters is an efficient way to conserve resources. This is why you likely have only a vague representation of a £5 note and why stereotypes become a tool for cognitive efficiency. The brain creates rules for rarely encountered stimuli and moves on.

HOW SCHEMATA DEVELOP

Imagine an infant encountering the world for the first time. They wouldn’t know where one object begins and another ends, nor would they know names, smells, or functions. Infants interact with the world through seeing, touching, and mouthing objects. Over time, they form basic schemata—categories based on their experiences. For example, their understanding of soft textures or the structure of their language is influenced by culture, parenting, and media.

The first six months of brain development are critical as infants wire neural connections to everything they encounter. They seek patterns and associations to make sense of their surroundings. As they grow, their schemata evolve and become more refined.

ACCOMMODATION AND ASSIMILATION

Let’s say Mary is a toddler with a golden retriever named Frank. She visits her uncle, who owns a Dachshund. Mary identifies the Dachshund as a dog, even though it looks different from Frank. This is called assimilation—adding new information to an existing schema.

Later, Mary visits her grandma, who owns a rabbit. She calls the rabbit a “dog” because her schema for dogs is too broad. When her mother corrects her, Mary adjusts her schema. This process, called accommodation, refines her understanding by creating a new category for “rabbit.

OTHER EXAMPLES:

Imagine visiting a zoo and later trying to recall the details of the day. Your schema for "zoo visits" might include expectations like seeing various animals, hearing children's excitement, and eating snacks. If you don't clearly remember what you ate, your schema might lead you to fill in this gap with typical zoo food, such as popcorn or ice cream, even if you had something different. This example shows how schemas guide memory recall, helping to reconstruct the day's events by filling in gaps with plausible details based on past experiences and general knowledge of what happens at the zoo.

CULTURAL SCHEMAS: Cultural norms and expectations deeply influence the reconstructive memory process, particularly in how narratives are perceived and remembered. Western cultures, for instance, have established norms around storytelling that dictate a specific structure: a narrative should have a beginning, middle, conflict resolution, and a definitive ending. This structured approach guides the creation of stories and sets the framework within which audiences come to interpret and value narratives. Such expectations form a cultural schema that shapes the anticipation of narrative closure.

The film "Leave the World Behind," with its abrupt and ambiguous conclusion” serves as a poignant example to illustrate the clash between these established cultural schemas and narrative experimentation. In Western storytelling traditions, where a clear resolution is often expected and valued, an open-ended conclusion can disrupt audience expectations, leading to confusion or dissatisfaction. This reaction is a direct result of a cultural schema that has been challenged; the memory of the film, therefore, may be reconstructed with a focus on its perceived lack of closure, influenced by the viewer's cultural expectations for narrative endings.

However, this expectation of narrative closure is not a universal standard. Many non-Western cultures favour storytelling forms that may emphasise cyclical narratives, moral lessons, or deliberate ambiguity, reflecting various values and philosophical perspectives. Stories do not necessarily adhere to a linear trajectory within these cultural contexts or culminate in clear resolutions. Ambiguity and open-mindedness are often embraced and seen as reflective of life's inherent complexities and invitations for personal interpretation.

In these cultures, storytelling and narrative interpretation schemas differ significantly from those in Western contexts. As such, when individuals from these cultures encounter narratives with ambiguous endings, their reconstructive memory process is influenced by different expectations. Rather than experiencing confusion or dissatisfaction, they may reconstruct the memory of such narratives with an appreciation for the ambiguity, aligning with their cultural norms that do not demand definitive conclusions.

EXPECTATION SCHEMAS AND MEMORY

Expectations are decisive in shaping how we remember events, mainly because they’re rooted in our schemas—mental frameworks built from past experiences. Rather than retrieving a perfect, unaltered memory, the brain reconstructs events by combining fragments of the original experience with details influenced by these schemas. As a result, our memories often blend what happened and what we expected to happen.

For example, if someone’s schema for dogs is that they are friendly, this expectation might reshape their memory of a first encounter with a dog. Instead, they might downplay or forget any initial fear and recall the interaction as entirely positive. In this way, schematic expectations can subtly alter a memory's content and emotional tone.

THE INFLUENCE OF EXPECTATIONS ON RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY

Expectations can profoundly shape memory reconstruction, mainly when accuracy is critical, such as eyewitness testimony. For example, an eyewitness who expects a robbery to involve a masked intruder might later "remember" a mask—even if the perpetrator’s face was visible. These false details align with the witness’s expectations of how a crime "should" unfold, distorting the actual memory.

Expectations also make us more vulnerable to post-event information. If someone encounters new details after an event that fit their existing schemas—like a suggestion that the robber wore gloves—they are more likely to incorporate this into their memory, even if it’s untrue. This highlights the dynamic and flexible nature of reconstructive memory, where expectations don’t just guide recall but can also reshape the memory itself.

SIR FREDERIC BARTLETT: THE FATHER OF SCHEMA THEORY

Sir Frederic Bartlett’s groundbreaking research aimed to answer a fundamental question: how do we store and recall information that doesn’t make sense to us? Bartlett’s experiments on memory reconstruction revealed that when faced with ambiguous or meaningless stimuli, the brain relies on existing knowledge and mental frameworks, or schemas, to encode and retrieve information.

One of Bartlett’s most famous experiments involved ambiguous drawings, such as two small circles joined by a line or abstract tribal artefacts. These images were deliberately meaningless—objects for which participants would have no prior schema. The goal was to understand what happens when you try to store and recall something you don’t recognise. How can you encode something when you don’t have a framework to interpret it? It’s like trying to remember a conversation in a language you don’t understand—if the words have no meaning, you can’t recall them because there’s no structure (semantics or gist) to anchor them in memory.

Bartlett found that participants couldn’t reproduce the ambiguous drawings accurately. Instead, they transformed them, interpreting the shapes as recognisable and familiar. For example, two circles joined by a line might be remembered as “glasses” or “dumbbells.” A crescent shape might become a “moon” or “canoe.” This wasn’t a random process—it was the participants’ way of giving the ambiguous stimuli meaning so they could store and recall it. Without a schema to categorise the original drawing, the memory would otherwise have no way to take root.

This experiment demonstrated that memory is not a perfect replica of the past. Instead, it’s a reconstructive process where the brain relies on schemas to interpret and store information. When something doesn’t fit an existing schema, we reshape it to align with what we already know. Bartlett’s work revealed that we don’t store memories word for word (syntax) but by their meaning or the “gist” (semantics). This explains why we can remember general conversations but struggle to recall meaningless strings of words or details we don’t understand.

Using ambiguous drawings, Bartlett showed that memory isn’t just about what we see or hear—it’s about how we interpret and make sense of the world. His research laid the foundation for understanding how schemas shape how we store information and retrieve and reconstruct it later.

You have 1 minute to look at the following shapes. Then, you’ll need to draw them from memory. No talking or note-taking, just focus

THE WAR OF THE GHOSTS

Bartlett (1932) conducted a study focusing on the impact of existing knowledge frameworks on memory recall to demonstrate how prior knowledge or schematic knowledge influences memory.

AIMS AND IMPLICATIONS

Bartlett aimed to show how schemas influence memory by forcing participants to engage with a story outside their cultural context. The distortions observed in the retellings illustrate the reconstructive nature of memory—how personal, cultural, and cognitive frameworks shape it. This challenged the idea of memory as a static reproduction and highlighted recall's subjective and interpretative nature.

Bartlett carefully chose The War of the Ghosts, a Native American folk tale, for his experiment because it radically differed from the types of stories his English participants were familiar with. Unlike Western narratives, which often follow a linear structure with transparent cause-and-effect relationships, The War of the Ghosts contains fragmented, illogical, or culturally specific elements to the Native American context.

The story’s features posed unique challenges to Bartlett’s participants:

1. CULTURAL DISSONANCE
   The story includes unfamiliar cultural references, such as the supernatural nature of the "ghosts" and the use of canoes. For English participants, these elements lacked the context to make sense of them. Unlike Western stories, which typically feature relatable characters and situations, this tale assumed cultural knowledge the participants did not have.

2. NON-LINEARITY AND AMBIGUITY
   Western stories often follow a clear, linear progression with a beginning, middle, and end. In contrast, the War of the Ghosts includes abrupt shifts, such as the sudden revelation that the warriors are ghosts and the unexplained death of the protagonist. These features made the story feel disjointed and difficult to rationalise within the participants' schemas.

3. LACK OF MORAL OR RESOLUTION
   Western stories frequently conclude with a moral or resolution that ties the narrative together. In The War of the Ghosts, the protagonist’s death and the mysterious "black thing" leaving his mouth provided no closure, leaving participants uncertain about the story’s meaning or purpose.

THE STORY

“"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 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 returned 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. Something black came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people jumped up and cried. He was dead. (p.65)"(p.65)

FINDINGS

Because the story did not align with the participants' schemas—mental frameworks shaped by their cultural knowledge—they struggled to process and recall it accurately. This mismatch forced participants to reconstruct the story in a way that made sense to them, often leading to significant distortions. They replaced unfamiliar details with more culturally familiar ones, like changing “canoe” to “boat” or interpreting the warriors as soldiers. Supernatural elements were downplayed or omitted entirely, as they clashed with Western rationalist perspectives.

This highlights a fundamental aspect of human cognition: people judge and interpret new information through the lens of what they already know. When faced with something unfamiliar, they instinctively try to fit it into their existing frameworks, even if that distorts the original meaning. Bartlett’s choice of this culturally distinct story was deliberate—it exposed how deeply cultural biases shape our memory and understanding.

WHAT THIS REVEALS ABOUT THINKING AND JUDGEMENT

Bartlett’s experiment with The War of the Ghosts provides groundbreaking insights into the way we think and remember, fundamentally altering our understanding of memory as a reconstructive process:

CULTURAL SCHEMAS
Human memory is not isolated—it is deeply influenced by cultural schemas, which act as filters for interpreting and recalling information. Bartlett’s participants, unfamiliar with the cultural context of the Native American story, altered elements that clashed with their cultural frameworks. For example, the concept of ghosts as warriors—alien to Western rationalist traditions—was either omitted or reframed. This process reveals a profound truth about cognition: we judge new information through the lens of what we already know, dismissing or reshaping unfamiliar ideas to fit our cultural norms.

COHERENCE AND THE NEED FOR MEANING
Faced with ambiguity, the human mind craves coherence. Bartlett’s participants instinctively restructured the story, eliminating details they couldn’t rationalise and imposing a logical flow in line with Western storytelling conventions. This need for meaning drives us to impose order on the unfamiliar, but it comes at a cost—accuracy. The supernatural, fragmented nature of The War of the Ghosts conflicted with participants’ expectations of narrative structure, forcing them to alter it to make sense of it.

BIAS AND THE LIMITATIONS OF JUDGEMENT
Bartlett’s study exposed the biases inherent in human cognition. Rather than engaging with the story on its own terms, participants unconsciously reshaped it to fit their worldview. This highlights the limitations of human judgement—how we instinctively evaluate unfamiliar ideas against our cultural expectations, often simplifying or distorting the original. Bartlett’s findings are a stark reminder of how difficult it is to approach new information without bias.

Using a culturally distinct story, Bartlett revealed memory as a deeply interpretative process, shaped not only by the individual’s cognition but also by their cultural background. His work illuminated the fragility of objectivity in memory, challenging the idea of a universal, static recall.

ROLE OF SCHEMAS IN MEMORY

Bartlett’s research laid bare the essential role of schemas in shaping how we interpret, encode, and recall information. Schemas are not just passive knowledge repositories but active frameworks that organise and interpret the world around us. However, they also create blind spots: memory struggles to take hold when no schema exists for unfamiliar or ambiguous stimuli.

This is why participants in Bartlett’s study couldn’t recall The War of the Ghosts accurately. They lacked a schema to make sense of ghostly warriors, canoes, and other unfamiliar elements, forcing their memories to adapt. This is akin to trying to remember a conversation in an unfamiliar language—without a framework of meaning; the information lacks the structure needed to anchor it in memory. Bartlett’s participants filled these gaps with details from their cultural schemas, replacing "canoes" with "boats" and omitting supernatural elements entirely.

COGNITIVE IMPLICATIONS

Bartlett’s work shattered the illusion of memory as a faithful recorder of past events, revealing instead that memory is:

1. ACTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE
   Memory is not about retrieving a perfect record but about reconstructing a coherent narrative. This reconstruction is guided by pre-existing knowledge and schemas, which aid comprehension and introduce distortion. Bartlett’s participants, for example, restructured the story into a more familiar, Western-style narrative to make it easier to recall.

2. DEPENDENT ON MEANING
   For memory to function effectively, information must have meaning. Bartlett’s study revealed that when faced with unfamiliar or ambiguous details, the mind struggles to encode them. Participants omitted or altered such details, highlighting the limitations of memory when it cannot link new information to existing schemas.

A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF MEMORY

Bartlett’s work fundamentally redefined memory, shifting the focus from static recall to dynamic reconstruction. Memory is not an objective playback of the past—it is an interpretative process deeply influenced by personal and cultural contexts. This groundbreaking insight challenged existing theories of memory. It paved the way for modern cognitive psychology, revealing the intricate balance between the utility of schemas and the distortions they inevitably introduce.

Bartlett’s findings remain as revolutionary today as they were in the 1930s, providing a lens through which to understand how we remember perceive, judge, and make sense of the world.

BRANSFORD AND JOHNSON: MAKING SENSE OF MEMORY

Building on Frederic Bartlett’s groundbreaking work on reconstructive memory, John Bransford and Marcia Johnson pushed the field further by exploring how context and clarity shape memory formation and recall. Their work offered a fresh lens for understanding how the brain transforms chaotic or ambiguous information into something meaningful and memorable.

One of Bransford and Johnson’s most compelling contributions came from their 1972 experiment, which showed how providing context could dramatically enhance comprehension and recall. Participants were asked to read a confusing passage without a clear framework or context. Unsurprisingly, they struggled to understand or remember it. However, participants' comprehension and recall improved significantly when a meaningful title or explanation was given beforehand—such as revealing that the passage was about washing clothes.

This simple yet powerful experiment highlighted a profound truth about memory: without context, information becomes an unintelligible jumble, complex to encode and even more challenging to retrieve. Bransford and Johnson’s findings revealed that context acts like a mental scaffold, allowing the brain to organise and store information more effectively.

RESEARCH INSIGHTS: CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

Bransford and Johnson’s research expanded on Bartlett’s ideas about memory reconstruction but shifted the focus to the immediate context at the time of encoding. While Bartlett demonstrated how cultural schemas and personal experiences shape memory over time, Bransford and Johnson highlighted how the initial framing of information determines how well it is understood and remembered.

They showed that when information is ambiguous or lacking in clarity, the brain struggles to assign it meaning, resulting in poor recall. But when relevant context is provided—whether a title, an explanation, or a mental framework—individuals can better select and encode meaningful details, making the information more accessible during retrieval.

THE SELECTION PRINCIPLE

Bransford and Johnson introduced the selection principle, which explains how individuals focus on the most relevant or meaningful aspects of information when encoding and recalling it. This principle emphasises that memory is not an all-or-nothing process; instead, we filter and prioritise details based on their perceived significance.

For example, imagine reading an instruction manual for assembling furniture. Without a diagram or clear context, the steps might feel overwhelming and disjointed. But with a clear visual or a brief introduction about the goal—“assembling a bookshelf”—you are more likely to focus on the relevant details and ignore extraneous information. This filtering process is the selection principle in action, showing how context helps us make sense of and remember complex information.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

Bransford and Johnson’s work wasn’t just about memory and how we make sense of the world. Their research demonstrated that comprehension and recall are not passive but active, deeply reliant on meaningful context. Without context, information is chaotic and forgettable. With it, the brain can organise and encode information, turning the abstract into the familiar and the confusing into the comprehensible.

Like Bartlett’s, their findings fundamentally challenged the idea of memory as a straightforward storage and retrieval system. Instead, they revealed memory as a dynamic and interpretative process, shaped not only by what we already know but also by the clarity and framing of new information. Bransford and Johnson’s work remains a cornerstone of cognitive psychology, showing us that understanding begins with context.

A notable experiment by Bransford and Johnson that illustrates the selection principle involved participants being presented with a complex, ambiguous passage for reading. The passage described something everybody, bar the rich and famous, does approximately once per week. But they described it so convolutedly, making it difficult for readers to understand without prior context.

Here is the passage their participants were given to read

BRANSFORD AND JOHNSON PASSAGE

“The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. At first the whole procedure will seem complicated.
Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the
necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one never can tell, After the procedure is completed one arranges the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places. Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will then have to be repeated. However, that is part of life.” (p. 722)

After reading the passage, the particpants were asked , “what the narator of the above extract was doing.”

What is the narrator of the extract doing?

Take your time and read it again. Remember, all this extract is missing is context. without it, the words are almost meaningless.

I imagine you didnt guess; spolier alert below.

In the original study, participants were divided into groups. One group was given a title or a brief introduction that provided context to the passage ("Doing Laundry") before they read it. In contrast, another group received the passage with no context. A third group was given the context only after reading the passage.

The results showed that participants who were given the context before reading the passage had significantly better comprehension and recall of the information than those who received no context or were only given the context after reading. This experiment demonstrated the selection principle by showing how having relevant context beforehand allowed participants to select and focus on important information in the passage, effectively integrating it with their prior knowledge.

This ability to focus on and remember details based on their perceived relevance within a given context underscores the learner's active role in memory encoding and retrieval. It highlights how context and prior knowledge guide selecting information to attend to, facilitating more effective learning and memory recall.

In a similar study, Bransford and Johnson presented participants with the following passage:

“If the balloons popped, the sound wouldn't be able to carry since everything would be too far away from the correct floor. A closed window would also prevent the sound from carrying since most buildings tend to be well insulated. Since the whole operation depends on a steady flow of electricity, a break in the middle of the wire would also cause problems. Of course, the fellow
could shout, but the human voice is not loud enough to carry that far. An additional problem is that a string could break on the instrument. Then, there could be no accompaniment to the message. The best situation would involve less distance. Then there would be fewer potential problems. With face-to-face contact, the least number of things could go wrong. “(p. 719)

Participants were divided into groups. One group was given the picture below, while another received the passage without a picture. A third group was given the picture only after reading the passage.”

Bransford and Johnson's research demonstrated the selection principle by showing that when participants were provided with the context (in this case, knowing that the passage describes a scenario involving a children's party or something similar), they were better able to select relevant information, organize it coherently, and recall it later. This study underscored the importance of context in processing and remembering information, illustrating how prior knowledge and expectations guide our attention and memory reconstruction.

The participants who viewed the picture before reading the paragraph found the text more comprehensible, and their memory retention was notably better. However, when the same picture was presented after reading the paragraph or when only a partial view of the image was provided before reading, participants struggled to make sense of the paragraph, leading to reduced memory recall.

In this experimental context, the picture serves as a schema, providing a structure to the information in the paragraph and guiding the selection of what is remembered. Without this guiding structure, participants lacked a framework to identify what information to remember, resulting in limited memory retention. Notably, the effectiveness of the picture as a schema was most pronounced when presented before participants read the paragraph, highlighting the crucial role of schemas during the encoding phase—the process of storing new information.

WHAT CAME FIRST: RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY OR SCHEMAS?

The concept of schemas predates the modern understanding of reconstructive memory. First proposed by the psychologist Sir Frederic Bartlett in the early 20th century, schemas refer to mental frameworks that help organise and interpret information. Bartlett's influential work on reconstructive memory drew heavily on this concept, demonstrating how schemas guide the recall of past events. While schemas are knowledge structures, reconstructive memory describes the process of retrieving information influenced by those structures.

Both schemas and reconstructive memory are fundamental to understanding how Long-Term Memory (LTM) operates. Memory is not like a video recorder that faithfully captures events as they occur. Instead, it is a dynamic reconstruction process shaped by meaning, prior knowledge, and context. The way our memories record information is subjective and interpretative, driven by schemas that filter and organise incoming data.

HOW LTM MEMORIES ARE LAID DOWN

Long-term memories are not stored as complete recordings of events but are laid down based on the meaning (semantics) rather than the precise order or wording (syntax). This semantic understanding is central to memory storage and retrieval.

Consider this example:

"Amelia lost her pet toad, Jeffrey, when she went for a walk with the local bird-spotting group she met on a Saturday morning. She last remembers seeing Jeffrey when she had breakfast at 7 am with her mother, Sally."

If asked to retell the story aloud, you likely wouldn’t recall it word for word. Instead, you’d summarise the gist: “Amelia lost her pet toad during a walk with a bird-spotting group on a Saturday morning. She last saw it at breakfast with her mother.”

This process illustrates how memory relies on semantics—the meaning of what happened—rather than the syntax or the exact phrasing. The gist of an event is retained because it conveys what is most important or relevant. At the same time, specific details, like exact wording or order, are often lost unless they are particularly significant.

THE OVERLAP BETWEEN SCHEMAS AND RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY

Schemas and reconstructive memory overlap in significant ways. Schemas provide the organisational framework for interpreting and encoding new information into LTM. When we recall an event, reconstructive memory relies on schemas to fill in gaps and create a coherent narrative. This process ensures efficiency but can lead to inaccuracies. For example:

1. Schema-Based Fill-Ins: If you were told about a dinner party but no one mentioned what food was served, your schema for such events might lead you to assume there was a main course and dessert—even if those details weren’t explicitly provided.

2. Memory Distortion: If the actual event deviates from your schema, your recollection might unconsciously distort to align with your expectations. Bartlett’s classic study of “The War of the Ghosts” demonstrated this, showing how participants altered unfamiliar elements of the story to fit their cultural schemas.

IMPORTANCE IN LTM RESEARCH

Schemas and reconstructive memory are essential in LTM research because they explain why and how memories are susceptible to distortion. Instead of passively storing information, the brain actively constructs memories, blending actual experiences with schema-driven inferences. This dynamic process has critical implications:

• Understanding Eyewitness Testimony: Witnesses to a crime often rely on schemas to recall details. This can lead to errors, especially when their expectations or post-event information conflict with what they saw.

• Educational Applications: Teachers can leverage schemas to enhance learning. For instance, linking new material to existing schemas in students’ minds can improve understanding and retention.

• Therapeutic Insights: Memory reconstruction is also pivotal in therapy, where individuals may reshape memories as they process past traumas. Understanding the interplay between schemas and reconstructive memory can help therapists guide patients in forming healthier narratives.

IN SUMMARY

Schemas provide the structural foundation for interpreting and storing information, while reconstructive memory is the process by which we retrieve and reconstruct it. Together, they illustrate the active, interpretative nature of memory. Rather than a perfect recording device, human memory is a dynamic system that prioritises meaning, context, and coherence, offering insights into how we navigate and make sense of the world.

OTHER FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE LONG TERM MEMMORY

POST-EVENT DISCUSSION

The post-event discussion refers to the information encountered after an initial event, which can become interwoven with the original memory. This phenomenon demonstrates the malleability of human memory, showing how subsequent experiences can reshape or distort recollections.

For example, after witnessing a crime, an individual might engage in discussions with others, read media reports, or participate in interviews. These interactions can introduce new information that merges with their memories, leading them to recall events differently. This “memory contamination” often results in a blend of actual observations and post-event details, significantly affecting the accuracy of recollections.

The implications of post-event information are particularly critical in legal contexts. For example, an eyewitness who encounters misleading post-event details might recall events inaccurately, potentially misidentifying suspects or recalling events that never occurred. This underscores the importance of controlling for post-event influences to ensure the reliability of testimony.

LEADING QUESTIONS

The phrasing of questions during memory retrieval is another crucial factor in memory distortion. Leading questions—suggesting a specific answer or introducing new information—can significantly alter an individual’s recollection of an event.

For instance, asking, “Was the car red when you saw the accident?” assumes the car's presence and its colour, potentially leading a witness to “remember” a red car even if they never noticed or recalled one. Such suggestions become integrated into the memory, distorting its accuracy.

In legal settings, the impact of leading questions is profound. Poorly worded questions in police interviews, courtroom testimonies, or depositions can introduce inaccuracies that lead to false confessions, wrongful convictions, or flawed witness identifications. Crafting neutral and non-suggestive questions is vital to preserving the integrity of eyewitness memories.

EMOTIONAL STATE AT THE TIME OF MEMORY

Emotions exert a significant influence on how memories are encoded and reconstructed. Strong emotions during an event—such as fear during a robbery or joy at a wedding—can shape what details are emphasised and which are forgotten.

For example, fear during a traumatic event might heighten focus on a threatening element, like the assailant’s weapon, while obscuring contextual details such as the environment. Conversely, happiness at a celebration might enhance positive recollections, embellishing the memory and making it seem more idyllic than it was.

This interplay between emotion and memory highlights the complexity of recollection. While emotions can enhance vividness, they can also introduce biases, leading to selective or distorted recall.

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Confirmation bias further complicates reconstructive memory. Individuals with strong beliefs or feelings about an event tend to remember details that align with these views while ignoring or misremembering conflicting information. For instance, a person who believes someone acted suspiciously might recall behaviours that confirm this belief, even if those actions were innocuous.

RUMINATION

Repeatedly revisiting or ruminating on an event can also alter how it is remembered. Over time, rumination can amplify or diminish specific aspects of a memory. For example, dwelling on an embarrassing incident might make the memory feel more humiliating than it originally was. Similarly, revisiting a happy event might enhance its positive aspects while downplaying negative elements.