Home > Positioning > Persons > Bartlett

Frederic Bartlett (1886–1969)

Remembering, on Bartlett’s account, is not retrieval but reconstruction. The experimental study of memory had been founded a generation earlier by Hermann Ebbinghaus, who invented the nonsense syllable precisely to strip meaning out — memory measured as the retention of items that mean nothing, so that nothing but retention is measured. Bartlett inverted the design: give people meaningful material — stories, pictures, arguments — and watch what happens to it. What happens is transformation. Recall shortens, rationalises, and reshapes toward the familiar; details that fit a reader’s expectations survive and details that do not are dropped or converted. Remembering, he concluded, is an active construction in the present, built from an attitude toward the past together with schemas — the organised residue of prior experience — and a little genuinely recalled detail. What experience leaves behind is not a store of experiences but an acquired organisation that shapes both recall and new intake.

Life

Born 1886 in Stow-on-the-Wold, Gloucestershire; childhood illness kept him out of school, and his early education was largely private. He came to experimental psychology at Cambridge through the anthropologist-psychologists of the St John’s circle — W. H. R. Rivers, C. S. Myers, James Ward — and the anthropological formation shows in everything that followed: his questions were about how culture and convention shape what individuals take in and pass on. Director of the Cambridge Psychological Laboratory from 1922, he became in 1931 the university’s first professor of experimental psychology. In the Second World War his laboratory turned to applied problems — fatigue, skill, equipment design for the services — out of which grew the Medical Research Council’s Applied Psychology Unit and a whole British tradition of applied cognitive research; his later book Thinking (1958) treated thought itself as a skilled activity. Knighted in 1948, Fellow of the Royal Society — one of the first psychologists elected.

Remembering

The method. Bartlett’s instrument was repeated and serial reproduction: a person reads a story, reproduces it after an interval, then again after longer intervals — or passes their reproduction to the next person, chain-fashion, like the children’s game. His most famous material was “The War of the Ghosts,” a Native American tale chosen because its narrative conventions and causal texture were unfamiliar to his Cambridge readers. Across reproductions the story shortened, its unfamiliar elements dropped away or turned into familiar ones — canoes became boats, hunting seals became fishing — and its supernatural pivot, the very thing that gives the tale its point, was rationalised or lost. He called the process conventionalisation: material moving toward the forms a culture already holds. The choice of material carries the design’s standing methodological objection: a story selected for its strangeness maximises the gap between text and reader, and what the experiments demonstrate may be what happens to unfamiliar material rather than a general property of remembering — conventionalisation, on this objection, an artefact of the distance the design built in.

Effort after meaning. Behind the transformations Bartlett saw a single tendency he called effort after meaning: perceiving and remembering alike reach for a setting in which the material makes sense, and what is stored and revived is shaped by that reach. The experiments on perceiving and imaging in Remembering (1932) come before the memory experiments, deliberately — the constructive work begins at intake, not at recall.

Schema. The organised residue he named with a term borrowed from the neurologist Henry Head, whose “postural schema” was the body’s running model of its own position. A schema, in Bartlett’s use, is an active organisation of past experience that functions as a unit: recall does not reach back to a stored trace but rebuilds, using the schema’s general form plus an attitude — a felt orientation toward the past event — plus a few salient details. He was uneasy with his own term, calling it over-static and saying he disliked it; the unease was prescient, since the word’s later career mostly shed the activity he insisted on. He himself largely left the concept where the 1932 book put it, turning to skill and then to thinking; part of why schema was available for wholesale reinvention four decades later is that its author had stopped developing it.

The social half. Remembering is subtitled “A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology,” and its second half treats conventionalisation at the scale of groups and cultures — how material passing through many hands moves toward collective forms. That half was largely ignored in the book’s later reception, which took up the individual cognitive machinery and left the social theory where it stood.

Reception and afterlife. The book landed quietly — in the behaviourist decades there was little room for internal organisation. The most direct line out of the laboratory ran through his student and successor Kenneth Craik, whose The Nature of Explanation (1943) put the mind-as-model idea into circulation; the wider revival came four decades later, when cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence rebuilt on the schema idea — Minsky’s frames, Schank’s scripts, and the schema theories of the 1970s all descend from it, with the debt acknowledged. Elizabeth Loftus’s misinformation effect — memories rebuilt to include what arrived after the event — descends from the reconstructive account, though its own mechanism has been argued over for forty years: trace alteration, source misattribution, and demand characteristics all have their advocates. And from the 1990s reconstruction became the standard account of episodic memory itself: on Daniel Schacter and Donna Rose Addis’s constructive episodic simulation hypothesis, episodic retrieval is recombination rather than replay, its characteristic errors the cost of a system flexible enough to simulate future events from the pieces of past ones — the memory system Tulving named, running on the process Bartlett described. Bartlett’s own reporting has drawn scrutiny: his experiments were informally conducted and selectively reported by later standards, and modern replications of the serial-reproduction work — Bergman and Roediger’s among them — confirm the qualitative pattern while finding the distortions less dramatic than the classic account suggests. The schema concept has been criticised from his day to this as too vague to constrain prediction; its defenders answer that the vagueness is the price of naming a real level of organisation.

Where Bartlett stops

Bartlett offered a description of remembering, not a mechanism for it, and said so: schema, attitude, and construction name what the process does, while how an organised mass of past experience is held and deployed he left open — his own dissatisfaction with “schema” was dissatisfaction on exactly this point. And the account is an account of transformation; it does not itself say when remembering is nonetheless accurate, or why it so often is. How reconstruction and reliability fit together is the question his framework hands on, and the modern literature that inherited his account still carries it.

Key works

See also: Tulving · Piaget · Behaviourism