Memory is one of the most mesmerizing cognitive processes psychologists have identified.

It involves
the encoding, storage, and retrieval of information. According to the bettman and Johnson adaptive
model, memory processing goes through meticulous and complex processes for both retrieval and
encoding. Visual information is directed to the visuospatial sketchpad, auditory information is directed
ttothe phonological loop etc. on getting to the long term memory it goes through even more processes.
Despite all these thorough processes of memory encoding an retrieval psychologists have found that it is
actually not allt that reliable. This is because of the way we encode memory. We encode memory in
fragments of information received based on what we pay attention to and what senses we used to
encode them. This simply means that memory isn’t a videotape recording containing detailed accounts
of events that occurred, but rather a construction of fragments that we put together to form an idea of
what be believe to have happened. This can be altered by placing fragments similar to the fragments
already in place, allowing the person to believe something that didn’t happen to have happened. When
we recollect we are actually reconstruction that memory and the added fragment can lad to false
memory. This is why is possible for someone to remember something that didn’t happen so detailedly as
if they experienced it. Schemas we already have in place also contribute to the ability to remember false
memories. This is because it is possible to adpt those fragments into something we already know
altering them a little.

One study that is against the reliability of memory is the Loftus and palmar study from 1974. They
conducted two experiments that both contributed to understanding memory and how its constructed.
The aim of the first experiment was to investigate the effect of leading questions on recollection of
memory. They gathered 45 American university students and played clips of car accidents to all of them.
Each participant watched the same clips as the other. After watching the clips, they were immediately
asked about information from the video. Amongst these questions was, “what was the speed of the cars
when they bumped into each other?” The verb “Bumped” was switch with either a more intense verb
such as smashed, hit or collided, or replaced with a softer verb such as contacted. The idea was that the
participants most likely have schemas in place when they hear such verbs and so their suggested speeds
would be inclined with such schemas. The result was that those that were asked the question using a
more intense verb such as smashed and collided stated the cars were moving at remarkably high
speeds, smashed being the highest with a suggested speed of 40.5mph. Those that were asked the
question using a softer verb such as contacted stated that the cars were moving at lower speeds,
collided being the lowest with 30.1mph. This allowed the researchers to conclude that choice of words
can alter memory. Their research created the avenue for more research and also scrutinized, or beg the
reconsideration of, important foundations such as eyewitness testimony. Now eyewitness testimony is
investigated in more detail than previously which is important as it deals with human life.

Loftus and palmer’s study is commendable as the study was clearly outlined in a way that it is replicable
for other researchers. They outlined the independent variable to be the choice of verbs used in
association with already existing mental schemas and the dependent variable being the suggested
speeds of the car (recollected memory). In addition, they were successfully able to provide quantitative
results that supported their conclusion of leading questions being able to affect memory. However, this
raises questions on internal validity as their results may not actually be due to their memory being
reconstructed but due to response bias from the participant. Another problem arose regarding
generalizability. The sample they sed were all strictly from America making it difficult to generalize to o\\
people of other nations. It is possible that if people from other countries partook of this experiment they
could have different results. Fr example, Nigerian students have a more rigorus school system than an
average american. They way they are brought up also differs from an average American because
children could be physically punished for making mistakes due to lack of attention. So because of all
these factors, it is possible that nigerians students pay more attention to detail than americans so they
could not be swayed by choice of verbs. Moreover, more experienced drivers, other than university
students, who have been driviving for more years could have more accurate suggestions of the speed of
the car. Another weakness would be ecological validity as this was a highly controlled lab experiment
not a real life situation. Although the videos played counts as a possible occurrence in real life, other
studies such as the Yuille and Cutshall study of 1986 shows that results could differ if the participants
experience this in real life. This is because, experiencing this first hand affects the participants emotions
allowing the memory to be deeper ingrained into the person’s mind and so they wouldn’t be swayed
easily.

The Yuille and Cutshall study of 1986’s aim was to see the effect of misleading questions on the
reconstruction of memory. They gathered 21 eyewitnesses to a shooting. A store in Vancouver Canada
was visited by an armed robber who shot 2 times at the owner but the owner shot 6 times in self
defence and killed the robber. Initially, an interview was conducted by the police and they used
evidence they had such as forensic evidence, to match up what the eyewitnesses said. The eyewitnesses
were 87% accurate. After a period of 9 months, the researched called them back to ask them questions
about the shooting once more. This took between 45-90 minutes. The rsearchers made sure to add two
misleading questions which were, “was there any broken glass?”, and , “was the color of the panel of
the car seen yellow?”. There was no broken glass and the panel was blue. The results was quite similar
to that of the initial police interview in that 87% of the participants were correct once more and stated
that they didn’t see broken glass or yellow panel. The researchers thus concluded that misleading
questions does not have an effect on the reconstruction of memory probably dueto emotion being
involved.

This research study had higher ecological validity than that of loftus and palmer making it more reliable
but with high ecological validity comes difficulty in replicating it. Replicating it would have negative
ethical impacts on participants. The study also doesn’t account for other factors that aid in the ability of
the researchers remembering so prominently even after months had passed. Such factors includes how
many times they have veiwed media coverage of the event which would explain why they remember so
well.

In conclusion, memory formation and recollection is an important cognitiveprocss that is important for
varios reasons. Unfortunately, memory isn’t all that reliable due to its ability of being reconstructed but
this can be changed is the memory is associated with high emotional standing as shown through the
Yuille and cutshall study.