Let's Explore our Memory: Memory Distortions - Schema.

Let's continue from where we left off in yesterday's blog-isode. Please visit our previous episode to get a better understanding of today's discussion.

https://peakd.com/hive-196387/@serenecounsel/lets-explore-our-memory-memory-distortions

Source

Schema-induced Distortions:

The mistakes caused by the schema we talked about weren't too bad. The person didn't remember all the small details correctly, but it wasn't a big deal because they remembered the main idea. So, it didn't cause any harm because our main goal is to remember what a statement is about, not every single word in it.

One might even argue that schematized remembering is beneficial since its efficiency lets us package, store, and retrieve more material than we could otherwise manage in an information-cluttered world .

The problem is that while this improved efficiency is good, it also has a downside. Sometimes, the details are really important. They're important for students who have to remember specific things like chemical formulas or where the cranial nerves are, or details from a novel. And they're important for lawyers and judges who need accurate eyewitness testimony.

In all these situations, when details get mixed up, it can cause problems. Sometimes, witnesses feel very sure about certain things that match what they think happened but don't match what actually happened. For example, if there was an accident a while ago and someone is trying to remember it, they might fill in the missing pieces with something they think happened, even though they don't realize it.

A series of studies by Elizabeth Loftus, an American psychologist, and her associates have highlighted the issue of schematized memory processes in eyewitness testimony.

An important factor is the way in which recall is questioned.

In one study, subjects were made to watch a short video of a car accident. Right after, they were asked questions in two different ways:

Did you see "the" broken headlight?

or

Did you see "a" broken headlight?

The findings revealed that people who were asked about "the" headlight were more likely to say they saw one, compared to those asked about "a" headlight. This was true whether or not the video actually showed a broken headlight.

Basically, using the word "the" makes the question kind of lead people to think there was definitely a broken headlight, and the only question is if they noticed it. But if we use "a" instead, it doesn't suggest that there was definitely a broken headlight.

Another study revealed that appropriate leading questions during an initial interrogation could result in a reinterpretation of a recently witnessed event. Subsequently, when questioned again later, the witness will remember this reinterpretation.

Subjects were again shown film segments of a car accident. Shortly afterward, some were asked leading questions such as:

• "Did you see the children getting on the school bus?" *

A week later, all subjects were asked the direct question:

"Did you see a school bus in the film?"

Actually, there wasn't a school bus. But when compared to the control group, people who were asked the leading question about the school bus were three to four times more likely to say they saw one.

These results are of considerable relevance both to the legal process and to the psychology of memory.

To legal scholars they reemphasize the crucial importance of how questions are worded, not only in the courtroom but also in prior interrogations. To students of memory, they underline the fact that remembering is in part a reconstructive process in which we sometimes recreate the past while we try to retrieve it.

Alright!

So the fact that schematic processing leads to memory distortions seems clear enough at this point.

But the question is:

What are the mechanisms that lead to these distortions?

One possibility is that the distortions are really reconstructions.

According to this view , the subject reconstructs the past from her partial knowledge in the process of trying to remember it.

Think about the video of the car accident videos. Based on the reconstruction idea, the person forgets if they saw a broken headlight or not. They fill in the gap by guessing: Since the experimenter asked about the headlight, there must have been one.

The person tries to remember what they really saw, but they end up telling what they think they must have seen. Here, just like in perception, our brain might try to figure things out by using what we already know. In perception, it's like the person asks themselves:

"What can it possibly be?"

In memory, the equivalent question is:

"What could it possibly have been?"

In the first situation, the guess is about what's happening now, in the second, it's about what happened before. And in both cases, the guess might have been made without realizing it.

It's not really surprising that mistakes in remembering like this happen more often when a lot of time passes between when something happened and when we try to remember it.

As time goes by, we forget more, which means we rely more on guessing to fill in the gaps in our memory.

Some researchers think that schemas don't just fill in the missing parts; they might also change memories we already have. For instance, in one study, subjects were shown pictures of a car accident again.

Not again right 🤭. Sorry guys, it's what was suitable for the researchers at that time.

Anyways, later, they were asked one of two questions:

• "How fast were the cars going when they hit each other? *

" or "

*"How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" *

A week later, the people were asked if they remembered seeing any broken glass in the pictures they saw. (Actually, there wasn't any.)

People who were asked about the cars that "smashed into each other" were way more likely to say they saw broken glass than those who were asked about the cars that "hit each other." It seems like the question asked after they saw the pictures influenced how they remembered them.

In this and similar studies, earlier memories seem to be changed to adjust to some later interpretation, as if the past were rewritten and updated to fit into our view of the present.

These changes to memories are called accommodative distortions. Whether these events actually show that old memories can be erased and updated so easily is still being argued about.

Source

The Bus Stops Here for today:

Thank you for joining me in today
's blog-isode. I hope you found it interesting. I value your thoughts on this subject or any of my blog-isodes, so feel free to drop them below. I enjoy writing and want to ensure my readers enjoy reading. Until next time, stay safe, friends.

References and Links:

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-schema-2795873#:~:text=When%20learning%20new%20information%20that,the%20face%20of%20contradictory%20information.

https://www.britannica.com/science/schema-cognition

https://www.thoughtco.com/schema-definition-4691768

https://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/memory/section6/

https://www.psychologs.com/the-psychology-behind-memory-distortion/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03205807

Posted Using InLeo Alpha