Aim: is unfamiliar material rebuilt to fit?
Bartlett wanted to know what happens when people try to remember material that does not fit their existing knowledge, so he chose an unfamiliar Native American folk tale. Write the aim as: to investigate whether people recall unfamiliar material accurately, or alter it to fit their own cultural expectations. It was not a test of memory capacity, and not an attempt to show people have poor memories — Bartlett cared about the pattern of the changes.
Procedure: read twice, recall repeatedly
Learn the procedure as distinct steps. English adults with no knowledge of Native American culture each read the folk tale The War of the Ghosts twice. After ~15 minutes they wrote it from memory (the first reproduction), then again after days, weeks and months — repeated reproduction. Bartlett also used serial reproduction (one person''s recall passed to the next). Participants were not told to be accurate, and the gaps were not standardised.
Findings: results vs conclusions
The spec asks for results and conclusions — two different things. Results (what happened): each reproduction was shorter, settling near half length; the ghosts and the black thing from the mouth were omitted; canoe became boat, hunting seals became fishing (transformation); readers added reasons (rationalisation); the theme survived. Conclusion: remembering is an active reconstruction shaped by schemas, so memory is distorted by culture, not faded.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Using the theory when the study was asked
Asked about War of the Ghosts, candidates write a general account of schemas and never mention the study. The theory is 2.1.4; the study is 2.2.1. For study marks, name the specifics: an unfamiliar folk tale read twice; repeated reproduction over days to months; canoe becoming boat, the ghosts omitted, reasons added; then the reconstruction conclusion.
Candidates apply this study without separate knowledge of it (Nov 2021 P1 Q9), though the findings alone were recalled reasonably (Nov 2020 P1 Q5). The wider "use study X, answered with theory X" failure is at June 2022 P2 Q32 and June 2019 P2 Q13. Nov 2020/2021 were small COVID-era cohorts, treat as indicative.
Result vs conclusion
A study question''s hardest mark. A result is what was observed — canoe recalled as boat, the ghosts omitted, the story halving. A conclusion is the inference — remembering is reconstruction, so material is altered to fit the reader''s schema. A result needs no psychology to state; a conclusion does. "Memory is reconstructive" scores zero as a result.
Offering a result where a conclusion was required scored zero at June 2023 P2 Q1f, and recurs at June 2024 P1 Q5a and Q11a.
Identifying a point without justifying it
"A weakness is that it was not standardised" identifies a point and stops. A creditworthy evaluation has three parts: the point, why it follows from this study, and the consequence. E.g. the material was a meaningful folk tale (point), not nonsense syllables (why), so the changes resemble everyday remembering, supporting the conclusion''s validity (consequence).
Identification without justification on strength and weakness items is recorded at June 2024 P1 Q11b and Q15b, and the "do not only describe" instruction at the June 2023 and June 2024 P2 Summaries.
An improvement is not a restated weakness
An improvement is what you would change if the study ran again — a standardised gap between reproductions, or telling participants accuracy matters — not a restated weakness. Identify a relevant change and justify how it improves this study. "It was not standardised" answers a weakness question; the improvement is to standardise the intervals and explain why.
Improvement answered as a weakness is recorded at June 2019 P2 Q3c and June 2024 P1 Q5b and Q18b.
Two definitions are not a difference
"Describe the difference" and "compare" set the ideas against each other, not two definitions side by side, which leaves the contrast implicit — one mark at most. A connective (whereas) earns the second mark: Bartlett''s study supports memory as active reconstruction through schemas, whereas the multi-store model treats it as a flow through fixed stores.
The describe-the-difference failure — two definitions with no connective, credited as one mark — is recorded at June 2019 P1 Q6 and June 2022 P1 Q7.
Describe the procedure, not the findings
A "describe the procedure" answer needs distinct, accurate steps — the participants, the tale read twice, the timed first reproduction, the repeated reproductions. Two rewordings of one step score once (two unique points are required). And do not drift into findings: canoe becoming boat is a result, so it belongs in a different answer, not the procedure.
A 2-mark describe needs two unique points, not the same point reworded (June 2023 P2 Q22).
The changes are not simple forgetting
Forgetting and reconstruction differ. Forgetting would leave random gaps. Bartlett found a version that was shorter and changed in one direction — towards what an English reader expects: canoe did not vanish, it became boat; the death gained a reason. Random loss cannot explain why changes went the same way for everyone — the evidence for schemas.
Not proof that memory is always unreliable
The study shows recall of deliberately unfamiliar material drifts towards the reader''s culture — not that all memory is unreliable. The tale was chosen because it was strange, so material that fits a schema is recalled much more accurately and the study likely exaggerates everyday distortion. Bartlett also coded the changes himself, limiting objectivity.
Reaching the 7-9 band on the 9-mark Assess
The 9-mark Assess splits AO1 3 / AO2 3 / AO3 3; the yearly weakness is AO3 and balance. Give the aim, procedure and key changes, apply the scenario''s own details, then a supported strength and weakness and a conclusion that follows.
Application means the scenario's own detail
Marks live in the specific detail given; because AO3 needs AO2, an unapplied answer loses those marks. Not application: the name, repeating the stem, lifting a line. Application reads a detail through the study, e.g. the car recalled as the make the witness owns.
Write AO2 before AO3, in prose
Writing order is free, but starting with AO3 leaves the AO2 too thin to credit, and since AO3 needs AO2 that forfeits the marks. Apply the study to the scenario first, then evaluate. Write in continuous prose: bullet-pointed essays are not accepted.
For study marks, give concrete specifics
AO1 credit needs concrete specifics, not a vague gesture at "reconstruction". Name the material (an unfamiliar folk tale, read twice), the design (repeated reproduction over days to months) and two specific changes (canoe to boat, the ghosts omitted), then the conclusion.
The specification asks for four things about this study: its aim, its procedure, its findings (results and conclusions), and its strengths and weaknesses. Learn them as four separate blocks, because that is how the questions are set.
Schema — a package of knowledge, built from past experience, that tells you what to expect in a familiar situation.
Reconstructive memory — remembering as an active rebuilding of an event rather than the replay of a stored copy.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
