1. Reconstruction Process in Memory – Part 1
M.Xavier Punithan

2. Question Contents Schemas Malleability of Generic Memory
Mr.Truth is always a trusted person. He never lies. In a murder trial on Mr.Killer, Mr.Truth is considered as one of the main witnesses. Another witness Mr.Lier has changed his stance several times in court trials. However in case of Mr.Truth he never changed his stance since his First witness Test. Also Narcotic test results reveal that whatever Mr.Truth says is true – The students at are asked to take a decision on this trials. Mr. Truth says “ I still remember the day. It was on when I received a call from my sister who informed the sudden death of my elder brother” What do you say ?
Clue: Mr.Lier’s testimony was taken very much earlier than Mr.Truth
Contents
Schemas
Malleability of Generic Memory
Eyewitness Memory
Flashbulb Memory
Hypnosis and Memory

3. Memory Changes Continuously
Memories are highly malleable (adaptable/mouldable)
In this Session– review the ways in which memories change or are constructed
Memory Changes Continuously
Sometime people gives too much of information (Confabulation) that is not part of original episode
Original Experience
People think
Gradually becomes less clearer and more distorted
Original Experience
Researchers think
Continuously Constructed and Reconstructed

4. Let me introduce them ! What do you think about these people ?
Who are they ?
How do they look like ?

5. Let me introduce them !
How about these people ?

6. Schema Factor
Well dressed gentle men are standing and holding hands (twin brothers or friends ???)
We could not get much information from this figure
Recollection mechanism invokes multiple results (twin brothers, friends, etc)
No common recollection mechanism occurs
Bride and Bridegroom
Recollection mechanism invokes a specific result (marriage related)
A specific factor recollects a common result from memory related to marriage – SCHEMA !

7. Marriage Schema
Schema is organized knowledge structure (Framework) that represents an individual’s
Knowledge
Experience
Expectations
about some aspect of the world
- Rumelhart & Norman (1985), Rumelhart & Ortony (1977)
Marriage Schema
Bride & Bridegroom
Suite and bridal gown
Bridal bouquet
Bridegroom flower
Exchanging rings (tying knot in India!)
Honeymoon
Food
Analogy:
“Class” in Object Oriented Programming

8. 5 Characteristics of Schema
1. Knowledge
5. Schema has variables
Schemas represents knowledge (individual’s experiences rather than abstractive or objective knowledge)
“A man and woman with specific dressings” leads to marriage couple – this is by experience
Schema can change with new experiences – Marriage Schema will be modified to include Gay and Lesbian marriages
A Marriage schema has variable Bride and Bridegroom
Default Values: Bride = Female ; Bridegroom = Male
Near future , they can take multiple values
Bride = Male ; Bridegroom = Male
Bride = Female ; Bridegroom = Male
Elton John and David Furnish
4. Schema are active dynamic & continually changing
Are used to comprehend sentences - Bransford & Johnson (1972)
Are used to understand sensations
Make predictions
Foster Expectations
Diana & Charles
2. Knowledge at all levels
Schema for Royal family
Schema for death
Schema for marriage
Schema for penny – Nickerson & Adams (1979)
Schema social structure – Schank & Abelson (1977)
3. Schemas can be embedded into each other
A Restaurant schema would involve a commercial transaction schema
Marriage schema would involve a schema for death & Remarriage
Camila & Charles

9. Generic Restaurant schema
Schema can also introduce errors
The more events a subject participate that tapped a particular generic schema , the more likely it was that the subject would incorrectly say that an unstated item had been in that event
Subjects were quite likely to falsely recognize items as being from the event if these items were in their schema
Original Event
Recalled
Other Actions
Stated Script Actions
Not in Original Event Also Not in Schema : Rarely occurs
Generic Restaurant schema
Paid
Free
Shared
Juice
Unstated Script Actions
Kimchi
Kimchi
Not in Original Event but in schema : More likely occurs !
Curry
Shared
Rice
Soju
Noodle
Inferential Error !
63 %
Took the purse from packet but not paid !
Paid
Bower, Black and Turner Experimental results (1979)
Scripts
Stated Script Actions
Unstated Script Actions
Other Actions 1
5.46
3.91
1.71 2
5.40
4.62
1.76 3
5.59
4.81
1.86
Original Text : It was too late at night when the phone rang and a voice gave a frantic cry. The spy threw the secret document into the fireplace just in time since 30 seconds longer would have been too lat
Does this sentence exist in original paragraph ? : The spy burned the secret document just in time since 30 seconds longer would have been too late – 63% judged this sentence was there in original text
Johnson, Bransford & Solomon (1973)

10. Switching Schemas Facilitate memory Recall 2 (perspective change)
Usefulness of Schemas
Schemas are useful in improving recall
Switching from One Schema to another Schema can facilitate memory
New information is remembered in terms of already existing structures – Sir Frederic Bartlett (1932)
Bartlett’s 3 Types of constructive Errors in “War of Ghosts”
Omissions – unusual or unfamiliar items tended not to be reported
Linkages – Subjects added made-up reasons to give story greater coherence
Transformations – Unfamiliar names were changed
Switching Schemas Facilitate memory
- Anderson & Pichert (1978)
Original Stories
Recall 1
Recall 2 (perspective change)
“Memory of an event is quite likely to be different now from when the event was originally experienced” - Plato
64 % recalled
Perspective 1 : Burglar
Safe, coin collection, furs, silver, etc.
10% more information recalled
Perspective 2 : A person interested in buying Home
Yard, new siding, new fireplace, fresh paint, etc.

11. Specific Schemas – Defining Schemas is a challenging task
Criticism on Schemas
Too vague Concept
Explains everything but predicts nothing
Rumelhart, Smolensky, McClelland & Hinton (1986) attempted to provide a more precise definition
Provides General Information at the expense of particular details – Increase in efficiency results in loss of accuracy
Schemas reduce the memory load – In case of equations it is just single item schema itself
Response = (2 x stimulus) + 1
Schemas allows expectations to be generated - for a given value one can identify the resultant value using equations but can not know whether the resultant value is correct or not
Model Developed by Rumelhart (1986) using Schemas – To refine the concept of Schema
Set of Equations for Room Schema
Here the Schema is the pattern of activation over all the elements within the network
Sink is in bathroom
Sink has strong link with bathtub
Sink is in Kitchen
Sink has strong link with stove
No Link

12. Having a sense of uncertainty over a well known fact !
Malleability of Generic Memory
Generic Memory
Seoul is the capital of Korea
LG & Samsung are Korean Companies
The Climax of “The Exorcist” movie – Or Climax of any suspense movie you have watched before
Having a sense of uncertainty over a well known fact !
Verify the Following sentence:
George Washington was elected first President of United States
No Suspense
George Washington was a famous figures after the Revolutionary War. Washington was a popular choice to lead the new century. Few people had thought that British could be defeated. The success of the Revolutionary War was attributed largely to Washington. His friends worked to convince him to go on serving his country. Washington agreed that he had
abundant experience as a leader.
Suspense
George Washington was a famous figure after the Revolutionary War. Washington was a popular choice to lead the new country. Washington, however, wanted to retire after the war. The long years as general had left him tired and frail. Washington wrote that he would be unable to accept the nomination. Attention turned to John Adams as the next
Most qualified candidate.
Viewer does not access all the relevant knowledge or even the key parts of the relevant knowledge , if that information would destroy the suspense – Gerrig (1989)

13. Loftus & Palmer Experiment Average Speed entered by Subjects (mph)
Eyewitness Memory
Memory of Eyewitness’s changes with time - Spiro (1980)
Original Experience
Recall at t
Recall at t+T
Confidence Level of the subjects on constructed memory is higher than the accurate memory
Can not distinguish between Original Memory and Reconstructed memory
Verb used in the Questions (which are used to recall) also lead to a reconstruction of memory – Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Loftus & Palmer Experiment
Verb used
Average Speed entered by Subjects (mph)
Smashed 41
Collided 39
Bumped 38
Hit 34
Contacted 32
How fast were the cars going when they__________ each other ?
Follow up Question : Whether there was a broken glass?
1/3 of subjects who had the verb smashed said YES
1/10 of subjects how had the verb Contacted said YES
Did you get headaches frequently and if so how often ? – 2.2 headaches per week
Did you get headaches occasionally and if so how often ? – 0.71 headaches per week
- Loftus (1975)
Did you see the broken light ? Vs Did you see a broken light ? – Loftus & Zanni (1975)

14. Eyewitness Memory - Most Famous Red Datsun Study1 1 29 29 30 30
Red Datsun hits pedestrian
Red Datsun hits pedestrian
50% subjects(people)
50% subjects(people)
Q: Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was stopped at the ______sign ?
Loftus,Miller & Burns (1978)
50% subjects
50% subjects
Consistent
Misleading
Did another..... RED sign ?
Did another……..GREEN sign ?
Did another…..….GREEN sign ?
Did another-----RED sign ?
Delay min/2 weeks
Results:
Misled Subjects recalled planted information more likely than original Information
Misled Subjects responded as quickly as their counterparts who remembered accurately – Cole & Loftus (1979)
Misled Subjects expressed as much confidence as their counterparts who remembered accurately – Loftus,Donders, Hoffman & Schooler (1989)
90% of the misled subjects believe they received consistent information – Loftus,Miller & Burns (1979b)
Which one of the following 2 photographs they had seen ? 30 30
Red Datsun hits pedestrian
Red Datsun hits pedestrian
75 % were Accurate (20 min later)
40 % were Accurate (20 min later)
20 % were Accurate (2 weeks later)

15. Eyewitness Memory - Biased Guessing Account Experiment
Misleading Information is more recent than the Original Information
- McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985) and Zaragoza & Koshmider (1989)
Consistent Information
Misleading Information
Control Group
Experimental Group
Both Control Group and Experimental Group were asked to choose between Consistent and Misleading Information
Assumptions
50 % recall correctly
50 % has forgotten (Half of this choose correct information by choice)
Average Correct Answer = 75%
50 % recall correctly
30% will remember misleading information
20 % does not remember anything (Half of this – 10% will choose correct answer by choice)
Average Correct Answer = 60%
Control Subjects identify the Original Information far more accurately than the experimental subjects
Percentage of Subjects Who
Remember & Pick
Forget & Guess
Original
Misleading
Total Correct
Control
50% -
25%
75%
Experimental
30%
10%
60%
Note: All the above cases belong to Content Errors in Memory – recalling a sign that was not present
Many times contents of eyewitness may be accurate but there is an “Attribution Error” Example : Donald Thomson Case – Braddeley (1990)

16. Eyewitness Memory - Conclusions
Main Inference :
People were very likely incorporate into their memories and subsequently report extraneous information - Weingardt, Loftus & Lindsay (1995)
Critisism on this research
Events are not as emotionally intense or arousing as real events
Answer
Wagenaar & Groeneweg (1990) studied memory of concentration camp survivors
The intensity of emotion at the encoding of information is no guarantee for accurate eyewitness testimony
General Conclusions
There is no way to assess whether a memory is accurate – Kihlstorm(1994)
Neither vividness nor speed of recall nor intensity of the experience nor emotionality is correlated with accuracy
Subject may report accurately the contents of his memory and thus not lying. Nonetheless the contents of the memory can include information from other sources
What you see is not true and What you hear is not true. Only a depth of investigation reveals the truth - An Indian proverb

17. Flashbulb Memory – Initial Study
Examples of Highly Surprising & Personally Relevant Events
Assassination of John.F.Kennady
Sadam Hussein’s Capture
Park Tae-Hwan’s 400m Freestyle Gold medal
Assassination of Olof Palme
Nord-Ost crisis (Moscow Theatre Hostage)
Benazir Bhutto’s assassination (Pakistan former PM)
E3 is another collection of events occurred during event E E3
Events E1 E2 E4 E5
Highly Surprising & Personally relevant Event E
Time
Recording
Researchers
Colegrove (1899) – Abraham Lincoln’s Assassination
Brown & Kulik (1977) – Coined the term Flash bulb E E E
Proposed Differences of Flashbulb Memory with other memories ( Remembrance of events such as E3 when compared with Events E1,E2 etc)
Photographic - Very like a photograph that indiscriminately preserves the scene - Vivid
Qualitative
Remain fixed in the memory – Key Claim
Detailed & Accurate - Provide lot of details of the event during recollection
Special mechanism for reconstruction E3 E3 E3 E5 E2 E5
Events E2 E4 E1
Time
Recollection

18. Space Shuttle Challenger Tragedy
Flashbulb Memory – Later Days Research
Challenger Tragedy Study- Neisser & Harsch (1992)
Number of participants (Subjects) (During Initial Assessment)
Number of Subjects for recall after 3 years
“Researchers examined the consistency of responses between the Initial Assessment and of an event and subsequent recollection several months or years later”
What they were doing , who they were with when they learned and so forth E E E
Space Shuttle Challenger Tragedy
1 Day
Time
28th Jan :38 EST
Initial Assessment
3 years
1989
Second Assessment
Study Results
Mean Score 2.95 attributes out of 7 correct
Only 3 subjects received perfect score – 7 score
25% subjects were wrong completely – 0 score
Overall Confidence on their recollection 4.17 out of 5
93 completely wrong, 60 partially wrong and 67 were correct – out of 220 attributes
Conclusions
Little Evidence for difference from other memories
Same Reconstructive process as other memories
Vivid and more detailed recollection but not necessarily accurate
Changes over time
Predictions
Prediction 1 : More consistency in recollection with delayed Initial Assessment than immediate Initial assessment
Prediction 2 : When compared to other memories(except for subjective measures - confidence & vividness) No qualitative difference in objective measures of memory
Why There is Vividness and High Retention
Events make good stories so that people tempted to add details - Bell & Loftus (1989)
Flashbulb memories are kind of stories people would love to tell and retell - Loftus & Kaufman(1992)
More rehearsals (subsequent recollection) compared to other memories giving the illusion of accurate information
Accurate retention of constructed details (Arnold & Lindsay 2002)

19. First Prediction : More Consistency in recollection with delayed Initial Assessment than Immediate initial Assessment
Winningham,Hyman & dinnel (2000) tested the First Prediction
2 Groups of Subjects (people) were asked standard Questions : Who told them, When did they find out, Where were they, What were they doing
Group 1 : Immediate Initial Assessment
More changes from Initial Assessment
Systematic change of memory over time suggests same reconstructive process as other memories E E E
O.J.Simpson murder acquittal verdict
22 % scored 7~8
Time
5 hours
Occurrence
Initial Assessment
Second Assessment
If there is a special mechanism for reconstruction then there should not be such huge difference in results
The Study results with delays more than 1 day or so were very consistent. This is not due to special mechanism of reconstruction but because of the construction of Coherent Narration
8 weeks
Delayed Initial assessment leads to addition of constructed details into the memory
Group 2 : Delayed Initial Assessment
Less changes from Initial Assessment
Making of Coherent narration with constructed details E E E
O.J.Simpson murder acquittal verdict
53 % scored 7~8
Time
1 week
Occurrence
Initial Assessment
Second Assessment
8 weeks
Score : 0 – No details were same; 8 – All Details were same

20. Second Prediction : No Qualitative difference in objective measures of memory except subjective measures such as confidence and vividness
Weaver (1993) tested the Second Prediction
A Single Control Group of Subjects (people) were asked same standard questionnaire for two different situations
Situation 1: Mundane(Normal) Event
Subjects expressed less confidence in their memories
Accuracy decrement according to Ebbinghaus’s forgetting function E E E
No changes from Initial Assessment
Large Drop in Accuracy
Subjects meet a friend/room mate
Time
3 Months
Occurrence
Initial Assessment
Second Assessment
Accuracy Level of memories was same in both Situations
Flashbulb memories are distinguished from other memories by 2 characteristics
1 Year
Situation 2 : Flashbulb(Surprising) Event
Accuracy decrement according to Ebbinghaus’s forgetting function
Elevated Confidence
A compulsion or intent to remember the event – missing in prosaic(mundane) events
Subjects expressed greater Confidence in their memories E E E
No changes from Initial Assessment
Bush ordered Bomb attack on Iraq
Large Drop in Accuracy
Time
3 Months
Occurrence
Initial Assessment
Second Assessment
1 Year
Score : 0 – No details were same; 8 – All Details were same

21. Limitations and Issues in Flashbulb Memory Studies
Methodological difficulties
Researchers can not fully be prepared to begin the Flashbulb memory studies as the Flashbulb events are unpredictable
Always there is a long delay between event and Initial Assessment
Lack of Control Groups
Identifying the correct type of Flashbulb event – Conway(1995) disagreed Space shuttle Challenger disaster as Flashbulb event
Effects of emotion and arousal are rarely separated from other effects on memory for a unique event
Conclusions of Flashbulb Memory Studies
There is no special mechanism for Reconstruction Process in Flashbulb Memory - Christianson and Engelberg(1999), Winograd & Neissar (1992)
Recollection varies over time in terms of both subjective characteristics and recalled circumstances – Wright ( Recall of Hillsborough disaster)
Not Accurate. Only Confidence Level on Constructed details are high
Results can be explained with regular principles of memory – Rubin & Korzin (1984), Neissar & Harsch(1992)

22. Hypnosis and Memory General belief on Hypnosis Memory
Hypnosis can increase the accuracy of Eyewitness Memory – Daglish & Wright (1991), Wagstaff,Vella & Perfect(1992)
Hypnosis can unlock the hidden memory
Memories obtained through hypnosis more accurate than those are simply recalled (Yapko 1994)
What Experimental psychology says
What Forensic Studies says
studies show that Hypnosis does not lead to better recall – Orne(1979),Roediger(1996), Smith (1983)
If you can not recall something in normal condition, then you will never be able to recall under hypnosis – Mingay (1986), Murray-Smith,Kinoshita & McKonkey(1990)
A person recalls additional information when under hypnosis – case studies of forensic literature
Problem with Forensic Studies
Lack of Objective evidence that can be compared with the memory produced under hypnosis
Hypnosis can produce new information and the person may be confidence , validity of this information usually can not be assessed
Researchers View on using Hypnosis Memory in criminal Investigations
Hypnotically obtained testimony was first used in a US court of law in an 1846 murder trial – Gravitz (1995)
Possibility of producing an inaccurate memory is too high to warrant the risk - (Orne 1979)
Hypnotized subjects are also more easy to mislead than Non-hypnotized subjects – (Sanders & Simmons 1983)
Subjects can not distinguish between events happened prior to hypnotic session and events happened during the session – Dywan &Bowers (1983)
Results suggests that Non-Hypnotized subjects are more accurate than hypnotized subjects
Increase in accuracy in some hypnotized cases is due to some other processes such as Hyperamnesia (opposite of amnesia)

23. Summary Memory Memories are highly malleable and continually change
Schemas
Recollection is driven by generic knowledge structures – Schemas
Schemas are more obvious for Autobiographical Memory
Eyewitness Memory
Recollections of Eyewitnesses are not accurate
Confidence of Eyewitnesses on constructed memory(Inaccurate) is equal or more than the Original (Accurate) Memory
Can not distinguish between inaccurate and accurate memory without some objective external evidence
Flashbulb Memory
Initial thought
Based on Emotional/Surprise driven Memory
Very Accurate & Detailed
Delay between the Original Event and Initial Assessment is the only Key difference from other memories
Flashbulb Memory also undergo changes and reconstruction
Hypnosis
Does not help increasing the accuracy
Does not facilitate retrieval of forgotten information
Hypnosis facilitate to increase the confidence even when the information is inaccurate
When hypnosis leads to enhanced recollection it is almost always because of some other factor