The Constructive Nature of Memory • 213Rubin, 2009). However, whatever mechanism is involved, perhaps the most important
outcome of the fl ashbulb memory research is what it tells us about memory in gen-
eral. It confi rms that the specifi c context surrounding an event can infl uence memory.
Both the emotional context of an event and things that happened after the event can
potentially affect later reports about the event. The idea that people’s memories for an
event are determined by the event context and by things in addition to what happened
at the time has led many researchers to propose that what people remember is a “con-
struction” that is based on what actually happened plus additional infl uences. We will
discuss this idea in the next section.- What is autobiographical memory? What does it mean to say that it includes
both episodic and semantic components? - What does it mean to say that autobiographical memories are “multidimensional”?
How did Cabeza’s “photography” experiment provide evidence for this idea? - What types of events are often the most memorable? What would a plot of
“events remembered” versus “age” look like for a 50-year-old person? What
theories have been proposed to explain the peak that occurs in this function? - What is the evidence that emotionally charged events are easier to remember
than nonemotional events? Describe the role of the amygdala in emotional
memory, including brain scan (fMRI) and neuropsychological (patient B.P.)
evidence linking the amygdala and memory. - The idea of fl ashbulb memories has been debated by psychologists. What is
behind the idea that some memories are “special” and are therefore labeled as
“fl ashbulb” memories? What evidence indicates that memories for fl ashbulb
experiences are not long-lived like photographs? What evidence suggests that
there may, in fact, be something special about memory for fl ashbulb events?
The Constructive Nature of Memory
We have seen that we remember certain things better than others because of their special
signifi cance or because of when they happened in our lives. But we have also seen that
what people remember may not match what actually happened. When people report
memories for past events, they may not only omit things, but also distort or change
things that happened, and in some cases even report things that never happened at all.
These characteristics of memory refl ect the constructive nature of memory—what
people report as memories are constructed by the person based on what actually hap-
pened plus additional factors, such as the person’s knowledge, experiences, and expec-
tations. This approach to memory is called constructive because the mind constructs
memories based on a number of sources of information.^1 One of the fi rst experiments
to suggest that memory is constructive was Bartlett’s “War of the Ghosts” experiment.BARTLETT’S “WAR OF THE GHOSTS” EXPERIMENT
The British psychologist Fredrick Bartlett conducted a classic study of the constructive
nature of memory, known as the “War of the Ghosts” experiment. In this experiment,
which Bartlett ran before World War I and published in 1932, his participants read the
following story from Canadian Indian Folklore.(^1) Some researchers use the term constructive memory to refer to constructive processes that infl uence memory
during encoding and reconstructive memory to refer to constructive processes that infl uence memory during
retrieval. The distinction between these two terms is, however, often subtle. Both refer to the idea that our
memory reports are the result of processes in which we create memories based on what actually happened plus
other factors, including inferences based on our previous experiences and knowledge of the world. In this book,
therefore, we will follow the lead of those who use only the general term constructive (see Schacter et al., 1998).
TEST YOURSELF 8.1
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.