Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts
Aims: Results: Strengths:
To investigate whether the memory of a story is affected by previous knowledge Bartlett found that participants changed the story as they tried to remember it The use of a story as recall material can be used as a
To find out if cultural background and unfamiliarity with a story would lead to ● This happened in the early stages (15 minutes) and throughout strength and weakness
distortion of memory when it was recalled further reproductions ● Remembering a story is more naturalistic
To test if memory is reconstructive and whether people store and retrieve information Overall, participants preserved the order of events and main themes in the story as a test of everyday memory compared to
per expectations formed by cultural schemas The reproduction of style was often changed, with reproduction of the story often nonsense trigrams, giving the study
being transformed ecological validity
● 10 participants transformed the title, for example ‘War-Ghost Story’ Bartlett replicated his procedure using various stories
Procedure: Participants tried to make sense of the ‘odd’ story by giving it meaning, resulting and pictures, finding that participants had the same
Sample: 20 British participants, 13 men and 7 women in additions or changes such as making connections or giving reasons for events tendency to omit and transform the material when
Participants were not told the aim of the study, they believed they were being tested (rationalisation) remembering
on the accuracy of recall ● Participants often recalled the original sentence of ‘Something black ● As same findings have been found across
Bartlett used both serial reproduction and repeated reproduction came out of his mouth’ as ‘a man’s dying breath’ or ‘foaming at the other studies, it demonstrates Bartlett’s
● Serial reproduction is where participants retell something to another mouth.’ findings are reliable
participant to form a chain; this is how folk stories are passed down ● Bartlett called this effect ‘effort after meaning’ such as ‘the young The results were gathered using qualitative analysis, a
through cultures man did not feel sick but nevertheless they proceeded home.’ strength because the real nature of reconstructive
● Repeated reproduction is where participants hear/see a story and asked because participants made the material more acceptable to them memory can be understood through its meaning
to reproduce it in a short time, and then again over a period of days, Participants tended to leave out unfamiliar or unpleasant parts of the story ● At the time of the study (1932), statistical
weeks, months or years (omissions), particularly the unfamiliar place names analysis was uncommon for psychologists
The unfamiliar story was selected because it would test how memory may be ● 7 of the 20 participants omitted the title of the story so it was appropriate for him to use
reconstructed based on cultural schema Lots of details became familiarised and simplified (familiarisation) qualitative analysis and see how
Each participant read the story to themselves twice ● For example ‘canoe’ became ‘boat’ and ‘hunting’ was recalled as individuals changed their version of the
● The first reproduction happened 15-30 minutes later, then after there was ‘fishing’ or changing the names of the characters story over time
no set interval and participants recalled the story at further intervals from
20 hours to almost 10 years later Weaknesses:
The use of a story as recall material can be used as a
strength and weakness
● The story was not familiar, it was illogical
Conclusions: and contained strange words and concepts
Accuracy in reproduction of the story is an exception rather than a norm of memory, as style rhythm and precise story so in a way, remembering the story was not
construction is very rarely reproduced an everyday task or a realistic use of
After repeated reconstructions, the form of, and items within, the story became stereotyped and do not change much after this memory after all
occurs Participants did not recall the story at the same time
There is a significant amount of interference with the story from reconstructing it, as the details are altered to fit the intervals, and he allowed each participant to read the
participant’s own tendencies and interests story at their own normal reading pace, causing the
In all recollections of the story, rationalisation reduced material to a form that was more accessible or common to the study to be criticised for lacking good controls
participant ● The experiment did not follow strict timings
● This could be because the material was initially connected to something else in memory and treated as a or have a standardised procedure (where
representation of this the procedure of a study is the same across
● It reflected the character and individuality of the person recalling the story, and names, places and events were all conditions) meaning the study is not as
changed to fit with the social group that the participant belonged to scientific as it could have been
Aims: Results: Strengths:
To investigate whether the memory of a story is affected by previous knowledge Bartlett found that participants changed the story as they tried to remember it The use of a story as recall material can be used as a
To find out if cultural background and unfamiliarity with a story would lead to ● This happened in the early stages (15 minutes) and throughout strength and weakness
distortion of memory when it was recalled further reproductions ● Remembering a story is more naturalistic
To test if memory is reconstructive and whether people store and retrieve information Overall, participants preserved the order of events and main themes in the story as a test of everyday memory compared to
per expectations formed by cultural schemas The reproduction of style was often changed, with reproduction of the story often nonsense trigrams, giving the study
being transformed ecological validity
● 10 participants transformed the title, for example ‘War-Ghost Story’ Bartlett replicated his procedure using various stories
Procedure: Participants tried to make sense of the ‘odd’ story by giving it meaning, resulting and pictures, finding that participants had the same
Sample: 20 British participants, 13 men and 7 women in additions or changes such as making connections or giving reasons for events tendency to omit and transform the material when
Participants were not told the aim of the study, they believed they were being tested (rationalisation) remembering
on the accuracy of recall ● Participants often recalled the original sentence of ‘Something black ● As same findings have been found across
Bartlett used both serial reproduction and repeated reproduction came out of his mouth’ as ‘a man’s dying breath’ or ‘foaming at the other studies, it demonstrates Bartlett’s
● Serial reproduction is where participants retell something to another mouth.’ findings are reliable
participant to form a chain; this is how folk stories are passed down ● Bartlett called this effect ‘effort after meaning’ such as ‘the young The results were gathered using qualitative analysis, a
through cultures man did not feel sick but nevertheless they proceeded home.’ strength because the real nature of reconstructive
● Repeated reproduction is where participants hear/see a story and asked because participants made the material more acceptable to them memory can be understood through its meaning
to reproduce it in a short time, and then again over a period of days, Participants tended to leave out unfamiliar or unpleasant parts of the story ● At the time of the study (1932), statistical
weeks, months or years (omissions), particularly the unfamiliar place names analysis was uncommon for psychologists
The unfamiliar story was selected because it would test how memory may be ● 7 of the 20 participants omitted the title of the story so it was appropriate for him to use
reconstructed based on cultural schema Lots of details became familiarised and simplified (familiarisation) qualitative analysis and see how
Each participant read the story to themselves twice ● For example ‘canoe’ became ‘boat’ and ‘hunting’ was recalled as individuals changed their version of the
● The first reproduction happened 15-30 minutes later, then after there was ‘fishing’ or changing the names of the characters story over time
no set interval and participants recalled the story at further intervals from
20 hours to almost 10 years later Weaknesses:
The use of a story as recall material can be used as a
strength and weakness
● The story was not familiar, it was illogical
Conclusions: and contained strange words and concepts
Accuracy in reproduction of the story is an exception rather than a norm of memory, as style rhythm and precise story so in a way, remembering the story was not
construction is very rarely reproduced an everyday task or a realistic use of
After repeated reconstructions, the form of, and items within, the story became stereotyped and do not change much after this memory after all
occurs Participants did not recall the story at the same time
There is a significant amount of interference with the story from reconstructing it, as the details are altered to fit the intervals, and he allowed each participant to read the
participant’s own tendencies and interests story at their own normal reading pace, causing the
In all recollections of the story, rationalisation reduced material to a form that was more accessible or common to the study to be criticised for lacking good controls
participant ● The experiment did not follow strict timings
● This could be because the material was initially connected to something else in memory and treated as a or have a standardised procedure (where
representation of this the procedure of a study is the same across
● It reflected the character and individuality of the person recalling the story, and names, places and events were all conditions) meaning the study is not as
changed to fit with the social group that the participant belonged to scientific as it could have been
