The effect of memory schemata on memory and the phenomenological experience of naturalistic situations

Abstract

Two experiments document the effect of memory schemata in naturalistic situations. Participants in both experiments watched a short videotaped lecture in which the instructor enacted several schemaconsistent actions (e.g. writing on a whiteboard) and schema-inconsistent actions (e.g. smoking a cigarette). Following the videotaped lecture, participants completed a recognition test and rated the phenomenological content of their memories. In both experiments, memory was more accurate for schema-inconsistent actions than for schema-consistent actions. Participants also indicated that their memories of schema-inconsistent actions were more vivid than schema-consistent actions. Interestingly, in Experiment 2, the false memory rate for typical items increased across both 48-hour and one week retention intervals. These results have important implications for the processes of normal human memory in everyday situations.

The cultural life script as cognitive schema: How the life script shapes memory for fictional life stories

“…Brewer and Treyens' (1981) initial report, though more consistent with Pezdek et al 's (1989) reanalysis, schema-inconsistent items are generally remembered better than schema-consistent items, at least when memory is tested through recognition (e.g., Graesser et al, 1979;Lampinen et al, 2001;Neuschatz et al, 2002;Shapiro & Fox, 2002), as has most often been the case.…”

“…Second, false recall or recognition tends to be greater for schema-consistent items, or is otherwise in the direction of rendering material more schema-consistent than was actually the case (e.g., Graesser et al, 1980;Kleider, Pezdek, et al, 2008;Lampinen et al, 2000;Neuschatz et al, 2002;Roediger et al, 2001; Sherman & Bessenhof, 1999;Smith & Studebaker, 1996; but see Nemeth & Belli, 2006). This effect, we should note, is mirrored in a separate but related line of research, which looks at the role of script knowledge in leading to false memories.…”

“…for the behavior of instructors in a classroom (Neuschatz, Lampinen, Preston, Hawkins, & Toglia, 2002); for common scenes such as taking one's dog to the veterinarian or going to the beach (Bower, Black, & Turner, 1979;Graesser, Gordon, & Sawyer, 1979; Graesser, Woll, Kowalski, & Smith, 1980;Lampinen, Faries, Neuschatz, & Toglia, 2000;Shapiro & Fox, 2002;Smith & Graesser, 1981); for stereotypes about categories of people (e.g., gender stereotypes;…”

“…Based on prior research, and our own suppositions as to how the life script would serve to structure memory and its phenomenological properties, we began with the following four hypotheses: (1) In light of the von Restorff effects that have been found with schemainconsistent material in prior schema research, particularly when memory has been tested through recognition (e.g., Graesser et al, 1979;Lampinen et al, 2001;Neuschatz et al, 2002;Shapiro & Fox, 2002), we hypothesized that correct recognition would be greater for schemainconsistent than schema-consistent events; (2) following from Berntsen and Rubin's (2004) contention that life script events are rendered more memorable than non-life-script events, we hypothesized that, given that high-frequency events are considered to be a life script event by more people than are low-frequency events, correct recognition would correspondingly be greater for high-frequency events; (3) based on the distinctiveness effects on remember/know judgements in prior schema research, in which schema-inconsistent items have received more remember judgements (e.g., Lampinen et al, 2000;Lampinen et al, 2001;Tuckey & Brewer, 2003), we hypothesized that the same would hold true here; and (4) based on the prior findings of greater false recognition and recall for schema-consistent than inconsistent material (e.g., Neushatz et al, 2002;Roediger et al, 2001), we likewise hypothesized that false recognition would be greater for life script events than for non-life-script events. That is, given that life script events are attached to the life script, while non-life-script events are not attached to the script, non-life-script events should not be the object of schematic false alarms to the same extent as life script events.…”

“…Second, retention interval is an important factor as well. Most prominently, it plays a role in false recognition and recall, with schema-consistent false alarms and intrusions increasing over longer retention intervals Kleider, Pezdek, et al, 2008;Lampinen et al, 2001;Neuschatz et al, 2002). These disparate findings across varying retention intervals reflect the greater reliance on schemata over time.…”