reproduction in memory research

One question which I have continued to have in response to our first data collection experiment, and in response to Bartlett’s paper on similar experiments, has to do with the issue of remembering versus recognition. We have discussed several times in class, and in online postings, the issue of the psychologist’s inability to reproduce a thoroughly convincing simulation of everyday instances in which memory is being used. Ebbinghaus seems to have neglected this issue by experimenting with a set of variables that, although controlled, are difficult to apply to ordinary memory. However, despite the seemingly short-sighted nature of these controlled variable experiments, they have proven to be useful in their nature of quantification of data that has otherwise been too difficult to quantify.

My question is in regards to Bartlett’s experiments on reproduction (and the similar experiment which our class is currently analyzing). Bartlett gives many engaging examples of instances in which his subject has forgotten, changed, or altered the material in some way. The most notable examples to me are the subjects he mentions testing over extended periods of time, sometimes even years. Ebbinghaus’ experiments with the nonsensical syllables revealed to us that most of what someone is going to forget they forget within the first few minutes. Bartlett’s experiments, while going into more detail on the specifics of each aspect of the story which he was testing, also revealed that after the first reproduction the changes to the story stayed more constant. Any thematic or stylistic changes were already made, or on their way to being fully formed by the first reproduction.

My question is what role the act of reproduction plays in these experiments. Bartlett shows us that when someone doesn’t reproduce the story for many years they may still remember certain parts (which vary on an individual basis). The experiment seems to act as a very interesting view into the methods of reproduction and the ways in which certain people in a certain society reconcile the faults they find in a story. The experiment also tests which elements of a story a subject is most inclined to initially reproduce. For example, if a subject initially leaves out the proper nouns in a story they will probably not re-introduce them. The subject’s ability to remember a specific detail from the story relies on the subject’s initial ability to reproduce that detail (with few exceptions where the subject reintroduced details they previously left out). I think that this is key to note because it highlights the influence of the reproduction in the subject’s ability to remember a given detail. The act of reproduction is often a tool used for remembering something (for example taking notes in class or from a book or making a study guide). The instances when the subjects did add in information they had previously left out of the story was most striking to me because it revealed the workings of that person’s memory. For example someone may have a feeling of a rock, but they initially leave the rock out. Several weeks or months or years later, however, they will have forgotten that that rock was not in the story, but the feeling they initially had of the rock being present remains, and thus they put the rock into their reproduction of the story. I would find it hard to believe that in their initial reproduction if someone thinks about the rock’s place (or lack of place) in the story, this thought process doesn’t resonate and linger until later reproductions. Although someone may not remember that the initial story didn’t have a rock in it, they may be very likely to remember that their initial reproduction didn’t have a rock in it. This is the issue I have with the place of reproduction in experiments testing memory.