Bartlett has also carried out studies into the reconstructive nature of memory. He had 20 participants take part in a natural experiment in which they were asked to learn a piece of text that was designed to produce a conflict between its contents and the reader's own schemas of the world e.g. if people read a story from a different culture, then it would contain words and concepts that were foreign. The readers’s prior knowledge might then affect the way it was recalled e.g. making the text more acceptable from the viewpoint of their own culture. In one study, English participants read a North American Indian folk tale, called "The War of the Ghosts". 20 hours later, they were asked to recall the story, and again after several months and finally after one year. Bartlett found that participants had changed the story considerably, making it shorter and more like their own language e.g. "boats" replaced "canoe".
The distortions increased with time and most of the errors made the story read more like an English story and to make it more coherent. There was evidence of flattening (failure to recall unfamiliar details e.g. the ghosts) and of sharpening (elaborating some of the content and altering the importance of other parts). These changes made the story easier to remember but nevertheless led to a distortion of the memory for the information and thus would render EWT accuracy unreliable. Bartlett’s research showed that participants actively reconstructed the story to fit their existing schema, thus supporting his schema theory. In conclusion research suggests that EWT is not reliable.
(Word count: 652 words)
Examiner’s comments:
This candidate has described a number of studies in considerable detail but this was not what was required of this question. Nevertheless there is some effective selection and use of this material in terms of answering the question about the usefulness of eyewitness testimony.
AO1 = 5 marks AO2 = 4 marks 9/18 = 50% Grade D
“Eyewitness testimony differs from many other aspects of memory in that accuracy is of much greater importance.” Consider what psychological research has told us about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. (18 marks)
Candidate B’s answer: (AO1 normal text AO2 italic text)
Research evidence abounds with studies that have demonstrated how eyewitness testimony (EWT) can be unreliable. Research has shown that memory is not a copy of what we experience but changes over time.
Lots of memory research shows that we recall things rather poorly and in fact we tend to reconstruct our memories on the basis of past experience. This was Bartlett's view of memory, and was supported by his own research into the way people recollected information that was unfamiliar to them (e.g. the 'War of the Ghosts'). Bartlett found that participants had changed the story they heard considerably, making it shorter and more like their own language e.g. "boats" replaced "canoe". Bartlett also found that the distortions increased with time and most of the errors made the story read more like an English story and to make it more coherent. It seems that Bartlett’s participants actively reconstructed the story to fit their existing schema, thus supporting his schema theory. Consequently all of Bartlett’s findings suggest that memory is constantly being reconstructed because each successive recall showed more changes. This implies that an EWT’s reporting of events may become less accurate with time, which may be a problem where great accuracy is needed.
A study by Allport and Postman (1947) also appears to support Bartlett’s view that memory becomes distorted over time and distorted in ways that are in keeping with their schema. This research showed that people who had been exposed to a picture depicting a crime tended to remember that the knife in the picture was in the Black man's hand rather than in the White man’s when in fact the knife was in the White man's hand in the original picture. This supports Bartlett’s view that people's recall is influenced by their expectations and would consequently suggests that EWT is unreliable.
Research has also shown that language, such as used in questioning a potential eyewitness, can distort a witness’s memory of an event. For example Loftus has revealed the importance of language in memory reconstruction as a factor in the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Loftus contends that a memory can be altered by information received from others and therefore proposes that people, such as lawyers, can alter a witness’s recollection by asking a question in a particular way. Loftus’ research has shown this to be the case. For example, after witnessing a slide presentation of a minor accident at an intersection Loftus asked participants one of two questions: "did you see the broken headlight" or "did you see a broken headlight." The key words are "the" versus "a." Findings showed that participants asked the first question were much more likely to report that they observed a broken headlight than those asked the second question. It appears that the word "the" implies a certainty that there actually was a broken headlight, which there was not; consequently leading questions may affect a participant’s accuracy of vital information.
Finally, one might consider how good people are at recognising a face in relation to the accuracy of EWT. Again research into this aspect of EWT has questioned the accuracy of EWT. For example Bruce et al concluded from their findings into the accuracy of recognizing faces portrayed in different medias (e.g. photo-fit and CCTV still pictures) that a significant number of errors are made when it comes to matching faces from different media. This throws into doubt the previous assumption that EWT that involves matching your suspect to a still from a CCTV camera is a reliable and safe technique.
In conclusion it would appear from the research considered above that memory is not reliable and therefore EWT is not reliable but as EWT can have a huge effect on a person’s future perhaps its use should be limited.
(Word count: 628 words)
Examiner’s comments:
The response is well organised and presents a coherent argument. There is substantial evidence that the candidate's opinion is informed by psychological evidence and this knowledge has been used effectively. The candidate has selected a good range of appropriate research findings to answer the question set and shows a good knowledge and understanding of these studies as well as a clear understanding of the implications of the findings from these studies for EWT.
AO1 = 6 marks AO2 = 12 marks 18/18 = 100% Grade A