Introduction to Bartlett's (1932) "War of the Ghosts"
Have you ever played the game "Chinese Whispers"? You start with one sentence, and by the time it reaches the last person, the story has completely changed! In 1932, a psychologist named Frederic Bartlett wanted to find out why this happens. He believed that our memory isn't like a video camera; instead, we reconstruct (rebuild) our memories using what we already know about the world.
This study is a key part of Topic 2: Memory and helps us understand the Theory of Reconstructive Memory. Don't worry if the details seem a bit strange at first—the story Bartlett used was designed to be confusing!
Aims of the Study
Bartlett wanted to investigate how schemas (our pre-existing knowledge and expectations) influence our memory. Specifically, he wanted to see if people would change an unfamiliar story to make it fit their own cultural expectations and "make sense" of it.
The Procedure
Bartlett chose a Native American folk tale called "The War of the Ghosts." He chose this specific story because it was from a very different culture (Native American) compared to his participants (British students and colleagues). The story contained strange events, unusual names, and a different way of describing things.
Bartlett used two main methods to test memory:
1. Repeated Reproduction: A participant read the story twice. Then, they were asked to recall and write it down after different periods of time (e.g., after 15 minutes, then weeks, months, or even years later).
2. Serial Reproduction: This is like a game of whispers. Participant A read the story and wrote it down. Participant B read Participant A’s version and wrote it down. This continued through a chain of people.
Findings (Results and Conclusions)
The Results
Bartlett found that the participants did not remember the story accurately. Instead, they changed it in several specific ways:
1. Rationalisation: This is the most important finding. Participants changed parts of the story that didn't make sense to them to fit their own cultural schemas. For example: "Canoes" became "boats". "Hunting seals" became "fishing". The "Ghost" element was often ignored or explained away because it was confusing.
2. Levelling (Omission): The story became shorter. Participants left out details they thought were unimportant or that they didn't understand (like the specific names of the towns).
3. Sharpening: Participants changed the order of events or added their own details to make the story flow better in a way that made sense to them.
The Conclusions
Bartlett concluded that memory is active and reconstructive. We do not store exact copies of information. Instead, when we try to remember something, we use our schemas to fill in the gaps. We "reconstruct" the memory based on what we think should have happened according to our own culture and experiences.
Quick Review: What is a Schema?
Think of a schema as a mental "pocket" or "folder" of information about a topic. For example, your "birthday party" schema probably includes cake, presents, and music. If someone told you a story about a birthday party with no cake, your memory might "accidentally" add the cake in later because your schema expects it to be there!
Strengths and Weaknesses
To succeed in your GCSE exam, you must be able to evaluate this study using its strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths
+ High Ecological Validity: Unlike some memory tests that use random lists of numbers, Bartlett used a story. Remembering stories is a natural task that we do in real life, making the results more relevant to how memory works every day.
+ Qualitative Data: By looking at the actual words and changes participants made, Bartlett could understand the nature of the errors. This provided rich evidence for how schemas work, rather than just a simple "right or wrong" score.
Weaknesses
- Lack of Standardised Procedures: Bartlett was quite relaxed with his methods. He didn't always use a strictly timed environment, and he didn't give everyone the exact same instructions. This makes the study less reliable (harder to repeat and get the same results).
- Subjective Analysis: Because Bartlett analysed the story changes himself, his own expectations might have influenced what he "found." This means the results could be seen as subjective (based on opinion) rather than objective (based on cold, hard facts).
- Unfamiliarity of the Story: Some critics argue the story was simply too weird. Participants might have changed it because they were confused by the writing style, not necessarily because of how memory works in general.
Key Takeaways for the Exam
Memory is NOT a photocopy: It is a reconstruction based on our schemas.
Rationalisation: We change unfamiliar details to fit our own culture (e.g., "boats" instead of "canoes").
The Study: Bartlett (1932) used "The War of the Ghosts" to prove that memory is active.
Evaluation: The study is great because it's realistic (high ecological validity), but it's weak because it wasn't very scientific or controlled (low reliability).
Note: For more information on the theory behind this study, see the chapter on the Theory of Reconstructive Memory.