IB Psychology HL - CLOA - Evaluation of Schema Theory

encounters are rarely completely new

the way we process information and act is determined by relevant previous knowledge (schemas)

schemas are constructed through personal experience and taught beliefs

fairly stable, resistant to change => helps us exhibit consistent behaviour

supporting studies:

Bartlett (1932)

Bransford and Johnson (1972)

organise info

increase information-processing efficiency

gives prior info/expectations about people/events/etc

regulates behaviour

allows for consistency in behaviour (as schemas are resistant to change)

cognitive structure that provides framework for organising info about people, the world, events, and actions

to support the theory that memory is an active reconstructive process

to prove that schemas influence certain details during memory reconstruction

English participants were asked to read a Native American folk tale (War of the Ghosts)

Their memory of the story was tested using serial reproduction or repeated reproduction

with successive reproductions, the story became progressively shorter

distortions were introduced in the recollection of the story (e.g. hunting seals became fishing, canoe became boat…)

more complex info = higher chance of distortion

people use existing schemas to subconsciously fill in gaps in memory

according to Bartlett, memory is an imaginative reconstruction of experience

new information is strongly influenced by activated schemas

unsophisticated methodology:

Bartlett didn’t explicitly ask participants to be as accurate as possible

environment not controlled

The process of making a story conform to the cultural expectations of the listeners

to identify the processing stage at which schemas are likely to exert influence

Participants heard a long speech that made vague references with no context

3 conditions:

- no title

- title before

- title after

Participants were asked to indicate how easy they found it to understand the speech, and were asked to recall as much of it as possible

participants of the ‘no title’ and ‘title after’ conditions found the paragraph much more difficult to comprehend

participants of the ‘title before’ condition remembered much more of the speech

in the ‘title before’ condition, the background information given prior to the speech activated schemas involved with the subject

this helped disambiguate the speech

perceiving the passage within the context defined by the relevant schemas improved understanding.

in the ‘title after’ condition, the context was given too late for participants to comprehend the material as they had already forgotten most of it

lots of empirical evidence

schema theory is helpful in understanding how the mind:

processes and stores information

distorts memory

provides expectations

not many studies evaluate limitations of schema theory

unclear why info that doesn’t suit our schemas are forgotten or distorted

unclear how schemas are acquired

unclear why the rationalizations may be inaccurate

unclear how schemas influence cognitive processes

o unclear how people choose between relevant schemas when categorising people

Schema theory focuses too much on inaccuracies of„ memory – most of„ the time people remember accurately

Cohen (1993): concept of schemas too vague and hypothetical to be useful

define schema

define schema theory

functions of schema

real life applications (e.g. eyewitness testimony, Loftus 1987)

weigh strengths and weaknesses

for empirical support, cite: Bartlett, 1932 – war of the ghosts, and Bransford and Johnson, 1972 – speech on laundry (title before, title after, no title)

for weaknesses, remember Cohen (1993): concept of schemas too vague and hypothetical to be useful