Is Reconstructive Memory Reliable

Intro: Memory is a cognitive process involved in the storage and subsequent retrieval of information. Reconstructive memory, then, refers to the process of using one’s schema, or categorized previous knowledge, to assemble information of an event when a clear/coherent memory of it does not exist. This happens especially with traumatic events, since the victim’s cortisol levels heighten and their emotions are at a peak. Reconstructive memory is reliable to the extent that it can be altered by existing schemas, as proved by Bartlett (1932), Loftus and Palmer (1974), and Neisser and Harsch (1992), however, there are confounding variables such as levels of importance, stress, and the questions asked, all which may enforce one’s remembrance, as

They aimed to test the reliability of flashbulb memories, which are detailed/vivid memories stored on one occasion and retained for a lifetime. These memories are usually of events that are shocking, surprising, or even national tragedies. They could also be of important personal events, such as hearing about the death of a loved one, or witnessing an unusual trauma. Neisser and Harsch performed the study on 106 students that were taking an introductory psychology course in Emory University. On the morning after the Challenger disaster - less than 24 hours after the event - the participants were given a questionnaire about the tragedy. The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which occurred in January 28, 1986, depicted a broken NASA space shuttle 73 seconds into flight, killing all 7 of its crew members. The students were asked questions referring to the time, place, event and circumstance of when they first heard about the news. Two and a half years later, 44 of the original participants were now seniors at Emory University. They were given the original questionnaire to fill in again. This time they were also asked to rate how confident they were of the accuracy of their memory on a scale from 1 (just guessing) to 5 (absolutely certain) for each response. Due to inconsistencies, semi-structured

In their 1986 study, they aimed to investigate the accuracy of eyewitness testimony to a real crime, in response to leading questions. They also wanted to examine the issues raised by laboratory research, so to disprove Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study on the topic. The participants used were 13 eyewitnesses of a real gun shooting incident in Vancouver, Canada. A thief had entered a gun shop, and tied up the owner, so to steal the money and guns from the shop. Once the thief had left the shop, the owner managed to free himself and attain a revolver. Thinking the bandit had left in a car, the owner went outside the shop to registrate the car’s number. The robber, however, was about to enter his car, roughly six feet away, and shot the owner twice. In return, the man shot the thief with all six bullets in his revolver. The robber was killed, and the owner managed to recover after surgery. 21 of the witnesses who had seen the crime from the street, shops, or from inside their cars, were then interviewed by the police. Four to five months later, Yuille and Cutshall contacted 20 of the original eyewitnesses. 13 of them, ages 15-32, agreed to take part in the study. Three were female, while the rest were male. The victim was not asked to participate, for he did not wish to relive the trauma. The interviews were then set, using the same procedure as the