Background and aim

1. Braun, Ellis and Loftus (2002) supports Bartlett's theory of reconstructive memory.
2. A suggestive advert acts as misleading information arriving after the event, which reconstructive memory predicts will reshape recall.
3. The aim of Experiment 1 was to see whether autobiographically focused advertising could affect how people remember a childhood experience.
4. The hypothesis was that people would reconstruct their childhood memories to take in information used in an advert.
5. The aim of Experiment 2 was to see whether false information in an advert could make people think those events had happened to them as a child.

Method of Experiment 1

1. The design was a laboratory experiment using independent measures.
2. The IV was whether participants saw a Disney advert or a control advert.
3. The DV was the change in score, two weeks apart, on a question asking how likely it was that they had met and shaken hands with a favourite TV character at a theme resort.
4. The sample was 107 undergraduates from an American university, randomly assigned to condition.
5. In week one participants completed the childhood-events questionnaire plus two distractor tasks, which disguised the aim and cut down demand characteristics.
6. In week two participants saw their assigned advert and were asked to visualise it and imagine themselves in the situation.
   1. An experimenter then returned with a pretext about a problem in the scoring, which was the reason given for completing the childhood questionnaire a second time.
   2. Participants were later asked to describe any memory they had of Disney World, and two independent judges rated the accounts they gave.

Results of Experiment 1

1. Most of those who saw the Disney advert mentioned memories of Disney World and said the advert made them picture the experience, including some who had never visited.
2. Significantly more participants in the Disney condition raised their confidence that they had personally shaken hands with a famous TV character, 90% against 47% in the control condition.
3. The Disney condition also produced more positive thoughts and worked more of the advert's own details into participants' accounts.
4. None of the participants worked out the aim when they were asked about it at the end, so demand characteristics cannot explain the results.

Method and results of Experiment 2

1. The design was again a laboratory experiment with independent measures, this time using 167 undergraduates from an American university.
2. All three conditions used Disney adverts: one suggesting they had shaken hands with Bugs Bunny, one suggesting they had shaken hands with Ariel, and a factual advert as the control.
3. The target question was reworded to ask about shaking hands with a cartoon character in a theme park, measured on a 10-point rating scale.
4. The procedure followed Experiment 1, except that all participants were given a Disney advert, which tested whether the Disney name on its own triggers autobiographical memories.
5. All three groups became more confident that they had shaken hands with a cartoon character, and the rises were larger in the autobiographical conditions, at 78% for Bugs Bunny and 76% for Ariel against 62% for the factual advert.

Conclusions

1. Autobiographical advertising can make people more confident that they experienced a childhood event the advert suggests, so it can change how they remember the past.
2. Putting false events into an advert can make people believe those events happened to them, which produces false or distorted memories.
3. Participants filled the gaps in a vague childhood memory with what they already knew about Disney plus the advert's details, which is the reconstruction Bartlett described.

Criticisms

1. Cause and effect is a strength, because the control condition allows the change to be attributed to the advert.
2. Controls and replication are strengths, because demand characteristics were tested for and not found, two judges agreed closely on the accounts, and Experiment 2 replicated and extended Experiment 1.
3. Low ecological validity is a weakness, because people do not meet an advert like this in everyday life and studying one this closely is artificial.
4. Low construct validity is a weakness, because imagination inflation was measured very narrowly, on one event with a crude rating scale.
5. Age bias is a weakness, because undergraduates are a narrow age band and children or older adults may respond differently to advertising that trades on the past.
6. Cultural bias is a weakness, because Americans see a great deal of advertising, which may make them more resistant to it than people in other cultures.
7. Ethics and design are weaknesses, because participants were deceived and had their memories manipulated without consent, and with independent measures some of the difference may reflect participant variables.
8. Reductionism and holism is a criticism of reconstructive memory itself, because explaining every memory error as reconstruction leaves out other influences such as anxiety, age and how long ago the event was.

Turning this into marks

1. Name Braun, Ellis and Loftus (2002) and the advert, because writing that a study showed adverts change memory does not secure the knowledge mark.
2. Quote one figure from each experiment, such as 90% against 47% in Experiment 1, because a general statement that confidence rose gains no development mark.
3. Say why Bugs Bunny matters, because he is a Warner Bros. character and could not have been met at a Disney resort, which is what makes the memory false.
4. The mark most often lost is describing only one experiment when the question asks about the study as a whole, so cover both.