Role of Schemata in Memory for Places

Experimental Design

University students

(sample bias)

Laboratory Setting

Positive correlations of schema expectancy with drawing recall and written recall could be the result of schema-based information operating as a framework in memory (2), operating as a retrieval mechanism (4), or becoming integrated with the episodic information (3)

Results

Aim and Hypotheses

• Saliency (14 participants)
• Schema-expectancy (14)

• Written then verbal recall (30)
• Drawing recall (29)
• Verbal recognition only (27)

Present, frame, inferred classification of objects

Most objects in room fit graduate-student office schema, but some omitted (i.e. books) and some items not consistent with schema (i.e. a skull, a toy top)

Very similar findings for writing and drawing recall (.94 correlation)

2.73 x 1.82 x 2.08 m room (office)

1. Schemata determines which objects are encoded into memory

2. Schemata acts as frameworks for new episodic information

3. Schema-based information is integrated with episodic information

4. Schemata facilitate/guide retrieval

5. Schemata influence what is communicated at recall

Writing

Assuming all different: 114 participants total

88 different objects were recalled

7 room-frame, 62 present, 19 inferred

Verbal

3. Integrated

Saliency

Drawing

prominence of object

Of the 51 non-frame items on the verbal recognition test with the highest recognition scores, 13 were not present in the room

77 different objects were recalled

61 present, 16 inferred

Listed items should serve as retrieval cues and should eliminate any effect due to schema-based retrieval processes

Episodic [long-term memory]

Many inferred objects in recall had received high schema-expectancy scores (strong positive correlation)

Will existing schemata of an office influence the memory (recall) of objects in an office?

autobiographical events

(i.e. what, who, where, when)

Participants more likely to state that they had seen a non-present object if the object was a strong member of the office schema

(objects for which no episodic information was available therefore schema-based knowledge)

2. Framework

3. Integrated

4. Retrieval mechanism

Objects described in written recall, participants almost always (96%) gave it a rating of 6 (“absolutely certain I remember seeing the object”) in verbal recognition

Schema

(mental models)

Also gave ratings of 6 to many of the present objects that they had not been able to recall

a mental organization of experience that includes a particular organized way of perceiving cognitively and responding to a complex situation or set of stimuli

Recognition ratio (1 = recalled and rate 6, 0= not recalled and rate 6)

Little correlation between recognition ratio and schema-expectancy as well as saliency

Qualitative Analysis

Canonical location schemata

(i.e. books on shelves, pencils on desk)

Colour and shape schemata

(i.e. gray desks, rectangle tables)

• Reported unusual information with respect to room and object schemata
• Omitted information given by the schemata
• Explicitly denied the existence of information they thought might be mistakenly inferred on the basis of the schemata
• Adjusted their article usage, using the definite article (i.e. the) to introduce objects that they assumed were shared knowledge

Objects of very high schema expectancy (e.g., room-frame objects) are not given in recall as much as might be expected, since the subjects assume that they are known to their audience. The objects of high to medium-high schema expectancy are typically recalled. The objects of low schema expectancy are not recalled as much as might be expected from their recognition scores because there are no schemata to facilitate their retrieval.

5. Communication

Memory Experiment

Learning Outcomes

Written recall and then verbal recognition; drawing recall; verbal recognition only

Written then verbal recall (30)

Drawing recall (29)

Verbal recognition only (27)

Exposed to the experimental room individually (35sec)

Carried out the memory tests in groups of 1 or 2

In conference room working for 15min-30min

• Outline principles that define the cognitive level of analysis (for example, mental representations guide behaviour, mental processes can be scientifically investigated)

Written then verbal:

-describe the room and objects in it

-immediately after, verbal recognition

Drawing:

-provided room outline, draw objects

• Evaluate schema theory with reference to research studies.

Verbal:

-booklet containing lists of 131 object names (61 in office, 70 not)

-rate each item (1 to 6) for how certain they were that they had seen the named object in the experimental room

Evaluation

Informed Consent

Debriefed

Sample bias

Other studies:

Participants were undergraduates fulfilling a course requirement

Artificiality

Experimental Control

Deception

Participants thought the office was a waiting area

(questionnaire asked, “Did you think you would be asked to remember the objects in the office?” On this item, 93% of the 86 subjects responded “no.”)

Bartlett (1932) - subjects’ expectations and experiences distorted their recall of an unusual North American Indian folktale

Participants may have been distracted

Differing number of people in groups

Generalizability

Unknown genders may have an effect

Objects not fitting into three categories were eliminated from the analysis (may have been from misidentification or vague responses)

Minsky (1975) - perception is a schema-based process occurring over time; complex processes can take place rapidly because schemata already exists in memory

No evidence on the use of schemata in encoding (1)

(no data on looking time per object)

Location of objects (what if they're not visible to the participant from the chair; what if participant walks around the room instead of taking a seat)

Ecological Validity

Anderson & Pichert (1978) - schemata are used to guide the search for information in memory; information not related to the schema being used in retrieval will be harder to recall than information which is schema-related

Pre-study

Saliency and schema-expectancy ratings tasks

(how noticeable an object is; index of participants’ graduate-student office schema)

14 different participants each

groups of 2 or 3 to enter room

given booklets containing the 131 objects to be rated

6-point scale, with 1 being lowest and 6 being highest

70 objects not in the room:

correlation is -.69

61 objects present in the room:

correlation is -.41

Negative correlation

Saliency is based on two factors:

-intrinsic to the object

-derived from its schema context

Objects without a high intrinsic saliency are made salient if they deviate from the overall place schema

Role of Schemata in Memory for Places (1981)

By: Priscilla Lo

William F. Brewer and James C. Treyens