Describe one study investigating reconstructive memory.

Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating reconstructive memory.

The description of the study should include the aim, procedure and results of the study. The description should explicitly demonstrate conceptual understanding of reconstructive memory.

Examples of appropriate studies could include but are not limited to:

• Bartlett (1932), Brewer and Treyens (1981) on the role of schema
• Neisser and Harsch (1992); Loftus and Pickerell (1995); Shaw and Porter (2015) on reconstruction of autobiographical memory
• Loftus (1993) and Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) studies on eyewitness memories
• Yuille and Cutshall’s (1986) study that argued that in highly emotional situations, memories may not be reconstructed or open to distortion.

If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.

If a candidate describes or explains a theory of reconstructive memory – for example, the role of schema or emotion on memory – but does not refer to an appropriate study, apply the markbands up to a maximum of [4]. 

HL - Not many candidates were able to show explicit conceptual understanding of reconstructive memory beyond a superficial statement of memory being unreliable. Several candidates focused on schema theory which was described in unnecessary detail but was not clearly linked to reconstruction. Weaker responses provided descriptions of a relevant study that were lacking in important detail or contained inaccuracy.

The most popular choice of study was Loftus and Palmer's 1974 experiment but a surprisingly high number of responses could not accurately describe the procedure. A minority of responses provided any depth of detail in terms of results.

SL - This question asked candidates to describe a study. Some candidates instead wrote long responses about reconstructive memory with very little detail of the study. Top responses were able to correctly identify the aim, procedure and findings of a study, then use the conclusion to demonstrate conceptual understanding of reconstructive memory. However, many candidates did not describe the procedures in adequate detail or make use of terminology linked to research methodology – e.g. the design, independent/dependent variables or controls.

Bartlett (1932), Loftus and Palmer (1974), and Brewer and Treyens (1981) were the most prolific choices, varying in detail and link to reconstructive memory. Most responses fell into the middle markband based on the detail of descriptions of the procedures of the relevant study.

Weaker responses provided descriptions of a relevant study that were lacking in important detail or contained inaccuracy. The most popular choice of study was Loftus and Palmer's (1974) experiment but a surprisingly high number of responses could not accurately describe it with accuracy. There was sometimes confusion with mixed descriptions of the two Loftus experiments, eg using all five verbs and asking about broken glass. In addition, very few candidates relayed accurate descriptions of the Loftus and Pickrell’s (1995) ‘lost in the mall’ study.

Some candidates failed to be credited because they presented studies on flashbulb memory which did not relate to reconstructive memory.