research report

docx

School

University of Waterloo *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

204

Subject

Communications

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BaronLapwingPerson2146

1 The Contrast in Communication between Frederic Bartlett and Loftus & Palmer in Proving that Memory is Reconstructive Joanna Thibble University of Waterloo SPCOM 193: Communication in the Sciences Dr. Sider Word Count: 829 January 31 st , 2022

2 It is no surprise that almost every theory ever proposed was immediately shut down by other scientific researchers. In 1932, a British psychologist named Sir Frederic Bartlett published his most famous work, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (1932). His work stated that memories and events that occur are reconstructed due to personal habits and cultural attitudes rather than how the event played out ( Frederic Bartlett | British Psychologist , 2021). However, his work was quickly criticized due to his method of communication. The results did not demonstrate a proper scientific approach which led to it not being widely accepted by other researchers. In 1974, Loftus and Palmer revisited Bartlett’s theory and conducted multiple experiments to further prove that memory is reconstructive (Mcleod, 2021). They used experimental controls and standardized procedures which makes it more credible to the scientific world. Although both sides wanted to prove the same theory, their approaches were different. This further proves just how much communication using proper techniques is necessary for it to be accepted by other research scientists. This is demonstrated via Bartlett’s approach using his method of repeated reproduction versus Loftus and Palmer who conducted the car crash experiment. In his experiment, Bartlett gathered people from Cambridge to read The War of the Ghosts twice at normal speed (Wagoner, 2017) . After 15 minutes, they were asked to write down the story from what they could remember. He then used a method called repeated reproduction for his experiment (Wagoner, 2017) . It meant that the participants were brought in at increasing time intervals such as several weeks, months, and years later. They were asked to write down the story each time so he could analyze if and how the story is being altered. The change in story resulted in omitted details, structural differences, and word changes, e.g.: “war cries” were

3 changed to “noises”. His work was criticized due to it not being able to provide inferential statistics (Wagoner, 2017) . Secondly, Bartlett used terms that created a misunderstanding which further aided the disapproval of his work. E.g.: using words such as “remembering” rather than “memory”. It is implied as an activity that is correlated socially and materially rather than a mental faculty sufficient unto itself (Wagoner, 2017) . According to him, remembering assists one enjoys a world filled with change (Wagoner, 2017) . This approach was speculated more during the 1960s and 1970s. Viewing the mind as an information processor used in computers was more favoured than a living creature that creates meaning to withstand its environment (Wagoner, 2017) . This is because his approach of repeated reproduction was not communicated well with his experiments. They could not be easily replicated, no experimental controls were present, and different verb choices lead Bartlett’s work to be criticized. Loftus and Palmer performed a series of experiments where they showed participants clips of automobile accidents and made them answer questions about events in the clips (Loftus & Palmer, 1974) . They analyzed that using verbs such as “collided”, “bumped” or “hit” resulted in different answers when asked about the speed of the car (Loftus & Palmer, 1974) . A week later, they retested every participant and asked if there were any broken glass, and many answered yes due to verbs such as “smashed” being used (Loftus & Palmer, 1974) . Two experiments were performed which proved that a slight change in question can alter the witness’ answer. A second conclusion was that there are two kinds of information that go into a person’s memory, perception of the current event and the external information after the event (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). These conclusions were more enhanced in comparison to Bartlett’s experiment. Although in which they both strived to prove that memory is reconstructive, Loftus and Palmer executed an approach that is more

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 appealing in the scientific world. They conducted two experiments that includes controls that made the results unbiased, measurable, and objective. They communicated their results via scientific research papers that were quickly praised and viewed as significant in the world of Psychology. Their paper includes details necessary to make this experiment a standardized procedure that can benefit mistake identification and wrongful convictions in the justice system (Yogi, 2021) . The car crash experiment portrayed a different side of how scientists communicate which makes their work significant. In conclusion, Bartlett’s approach of using repeated reproduction versus Loftus and Palmer conducting the car crash experiment resulted in two very different reactions from other scientists. Both sides worked on proving that memory is reconstructive over a period. Albeit, Bartlett’s experiments were not as credible. This led to his methods being different and partially omitted. Loftus and Palmer made their study significant by proving that change in verbs can result in different answers from witnesses and stating the two types of information that someone processes. Their study also shed light on the impact memory reconstruction has on the justice system. This demonstrates how important it is to communicate your findings in a way that is accepted by other research scientists.

5 References Cited: Frederic Bartlett | British psychologist . (2021). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Bartlett-psychologist Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 13 (5), 585–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(74)80011-3 Mcleod, S. (2021). Loftus and Palmer | Simply Psychology . Loftus and Palmer. https://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html Wagoner, B. (2017). The Constructive Mind. FREDERIC BARTLETT . https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511920219 Yogi, P. (2021, February 27). Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Eyewitness Testimony | Psych Yogi . Psych Yogi | A Wealth of Free Psychology! http://psychyogi.org/loftus-and-palmer-1974- eyewitness-testimony/

research report

Related Documents