Discuss reconstructive memory.

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

The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of reconstructive memory.

Description of the nature of reconstructive memory could include, but is not limited to:

• confabulation—a memory based on a fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memory, often believed to be true in spite of contradictory evidence
• schema processing—memory processing based on prior knowledge in the form of schemas that could result in distortion
• false memories—recalling an event that never happened and believing it to be true.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study into reconstructive memory (automobile study)
• Riniolo et al.’s (2003) study in accuracy of eyewitness testimony
• Miller and Gazzaniga’s (1998) study on creating false memories from visual scenes
• Allport and Postman’s (1947) study in reconstructive memory for imagery
• Yuille and Cutshall’s (1986) study of real life eye-witnesses
• Bartlett's (1932) war of the ghosts study.

Discussion may include, but is not limited to:

• factors related to the false creation of memory
• methodological and/or ethical considerations related to research into reconstructive memory
• assumptions and biases
• areas of uncertainty
• supporting and/or contradictory evidence applications of the research.

This was the most popular essay question and the majority of candidates were able to cite relevant research studies, the most popular of which were Loftus and Palmer's (1974) automobile study into reconstructive memory, Yuille and Cutshall's (1986) study of real life eye-witnesses, and Bartlett's (1932) war of the ghosts study.

The best candidates gave a detailed explanation of reconstructive memory and referred to role of schemas in their explanation. They provided relevant and well detailed descriptions of research, often with contrasting arguments about the nature of reconstructive memory. Their discussion was well developed, going beyond generic evaluation of methodology, providing a holistic discussion of the importance of reconstructive memory, applications of the research and contradictory evidence.

Common mistakes made in weaker responses included the inclusion of irrelevant research that focused only on schemas but not memory reconstruction, or the role of flashbulb memories but using studies that showed no memory reconstruction.