Anderson and Pichert (1978)
To investigate if schema processing influences encoding and retrieval.
Half the participants were given the schema of a burglar and the other half was given the
schema of a potential house-buyer.
Participants then heard a story which was based on 72 points, previously rated by a group of
people based on their importance to a potential house-buyer (leaky roof, damp basement)
or a burglar (10speed bike, colour TV).
Participants performed a distraction task for 12 minutes, before recall was tested.
After another 5 minute delay, half of the participants were given the switched schema.
Participants with burglar schema were given house-buyer schema and vice versa.
The other half of the participants kept the same schema.
All participants’ recalls were tested again.
Shorter Method:
o Participants read a story from the perspective of either a burglar or potential home
buyer. After they had recalled as much as they could of the story from the
perspective they had been given, they were shifted to the alternative perspective
(schema) and were asked to recall the story again.
Participants who changed schema recalled 7% more points on the second recall test than
the first.
There was also a 10% increase in the recall of points directly linked to the new schema.
The group who kept the same schema did not recall as many ideas in the second testing.
Research also showed that people encoded different information which was irrelevant to
their prevailing schema (those who had buyer schema at encoding were able to recall
burglar information when the schema was changed, and vice versa).
o This shows that our schemas of “knowledge,” etc. are not always correct, because of
external influences.
Summary: On the second recall, participants recalled more information that was important
only to the second perspective or schema than they had done on the first recall.
To investigate if schema processing influences encoding and retrieval.
Half the participants were given the schema of a burglar and the other half was given the
schema of a potential house-buyer.
Participants then heard a story which was based on 72 points, previously rated by a group of
people based on their importance to a potential house-buyer (leaky roof, damp basement)
or a burglar (10speed bike, colour TV).
Participants performed a distraction task for 12 minutes, before recall was tested.
After another 5 minute delay, half of the participants were given the switched schema.
Participants with burglar schema were given house-buyer schema and vice versa.
The other half of the participants kept the same schema.
All participants’ recalls were tested again.
Shorter Method:
o Participants read a story from the perspective of either a burglar or potential home
buyer. After they had recalled as much as they could of the story from the
perspective they had been given, they were shifted to the alternative perspective
(schema) and were asked to recall the story again.
Participants who changed schema recalled 7% more points on the second recall test than
the first.
There was also a 10% increase in the recall of points directly linked to the new schema.
The group who kept the same schema did not recall as many ideas in the second testing.
Research also showed that people encoded different information which was irrelevant to
their prevailing schema (those who had buyer schema at encoding were able to recall
burglar information when the schema was changed, and vice versa).
o This shows that our schemas of “knowledge,” etc. are not always correct, because of
external influences.
Summary: On the second recall, participants recalled more information that was important
only to the second perspective or schema than they had done on the first recall.
