Introduction to Bartlett (1932)
Have you ever played the game "Chinese Whispers" or "Telephone"? You start with one sentence, and by the time it reaches the last person, it has changed into something completely different. In \( 1932 \), a psychologist named Frederic Bartlett wanted to understand why this happens in our memory. He believed that our memory isn't like a video camera that records things perfectly; instead, it's more like a builder who "reconstructs" a story based on what they expect to happen.
This study is the "classic" study for your Cognitive Psychology unit. It provides the evidence for reconstructive memory and schema theory, which you will have learned about in the previous chapter.
The Aim of the Study
Bartlett wanted to investigate how prior knowledge (our memories and expectations) influences the way we remember new information. Specifically, he wanted to see how people would remember a story that was "culturally unfamiliar"—meaning it contained ideas and styles that didn't fit with their own social background.
The Procedure: How did he do it?
Bartlett used a Native American folk tale called "The War of the Ghosts." He chose this story because it was full of strange names, unusual events (like ghosts and supernatural elements), and a structure that was very different from typical British stories of that time.
Bartlett used two main methods to test memory:
- Repeated Reproduction: A participant read the story and then had to rewrite it after a short delay (e.g., \( 15 \) minutes). Then, they would rewrite it again days, weeks, months, or even years later.
- Serial Reproduction: This is just like the game "Telephone." Participant A reads the story and writes it down. Participant B reads Participant A's version and writes it down for Participant C, and so on.
Quick Note: Bartlett's study was quite informal compared to modern experiments. He didn't always use strict timings or the same environment for everyone!
The Findings: What changed in the story?
Bartlett found that the participants did not remember the story accurately. Instead, they changed it in very specific ways to make it make more sense to them. He identified three main patterns:
1. Rationalisation
Participants changed parts of the story that didn't fit their own culture. For example, the story mentions "hunting seals," which was strange to British participants. Many changed this to "fishing." They made the story more "rational" (logical) for a British person.
2. Omissions
Information that seemed irrelevant or too confusing was simply left out. Participants often forgot the mention of "ghosts" or the specific details of why the characters were fighting, because these parts didn't fit their schemas of how a story should work.
3. Transformation of Detail
Unfamiliar names or objects were changed into familiar ones. For example, a "canoe" might be remembered as a "boat." The story also became much shorter and more "coherent" as time went on.
Key Takeaway: Memory is an active process. We don't just store facts; we change information so it fits into our existing schemas (mental frameworks).
Evaluation of Bartlett (1932)
In your exam, you may be asked to evaluate this study using specific terms. Here is a breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses:
Reliability
Weakness: The study has low reliability. Bartlett did not use a standardised procedure. He didn't always control the environment where people recalled the story, and the time delays for "repeated reproduction" varied for different people. This makes it hard for other researchers to replicate his exact steps and get the same results.
Validity
Strength (Ecological Validity): Reading a story and telling it to others is a natural task we do in real life. This gives the study higher ecological validity than memorising lists of random numbers.
Weakness (Internal Validity): Because the instructions weren't always clear, some participants might have just been "guessing" or trying to be helpful rather than actually "remembering" wrongly. This is called demand characteristics.
Objectivity vs. Subjectivity
Weakness: Bartlett’s analysis was quite subjective. He interpreted the changed stories himself. Because he already believed in his theory of "reconstructive memory," he might have been biased toward seeing "rationalisations" that weren't really there. Modern psychology prefers objective data (like scores and percentages).
Generalisability
Weakness: Bartlett used a small group of participants (mainly students and colleagues from Cambridge University). This means the results might not generalise to people from different backgrounds or cultures who might have different memory habits.
Credibility
Strength: Despite the scientific flaws, the study is very credible because the results have been supported by many later, more controlled experiments. It changed the way we think about memory—from a passive store to an active process.
Summary Table: Quick Review
The Aim: To see how schemas affect memory for an unfamiliar story.
The Method: Serial and Repeated reproduction of "The War of the Ghosts."
The Results: Participants used rationalisation, omission, and transformation.
The Conclusion: Memory is reconstructive, not a perfect recording.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Don't say that the participants were "lying." They genuinely believed they were remembering the story correctly; their schemas were working unconsciously.
- Don't confuse Serial Reproduction (passing it through a chain of people) with Repeated Reproduction (one person repeating it over and over).
- Don't forget to link this study to Schema Theory—it is the evidence that proves schemas exist!
Did you know?
Bartlett’s study is nearly \( 100 \) years old! Even though we have fancy brain scans now (like the PET scans used in Topic C), Bartlett’s idea that our expectations shape our reality is still one of the most important concepts in all of psychology.