With+reference+to+relevant+research+studies,+to+what+extent+is+one+cognitive+process+reliable.+(Sanjay)

Memory, one of the most important cognitive processes, is not always considered reliable because of its reconstructive nature. This means that since the brain actively processes information, memories can be altered at any time by various factors.

There is a debate regarding the accuracy of recovered memories. According to Freud's theory, people force themselves to forget painful memories by repressing them to the unconscious. He thought that these memories continue to exist, however, and appear in subtle ways such as "Freudian slips of the tongue." The next part of his theory is that therapists or other individuals can retrieve these memories through close study of the patient. Many researches disagree - they instead think that these supposed "retrieved memories" are actually created memories that never happened.

Loftus's article about the Washington sniper gives an example of how post-event information impacts memories. Many witnesses claimed to have seen a white van, while the sniper's van was dark green. Eventually, Loftus discovered that one individual mentioned a white van, and the others subsequently modified their memories (incorrectly) to include this white van as well.

Bartlett's study on serial reproduction also points to the inaccuracy of memory. In serial reproduction, an original story is told to an individual. This individual then repeats the story by memory to another person, and so on. After six or seven cycles, the story is usually much different. This process replicates how rumors begin. When Bartlett told people //The War of the Ghosts//, their reproduction of the story was even worse than usual because the unique Native American aspects did not fit into existing schemas that the subjects had. Bartlett concluded that memory is "an imaginative reconstruction of experience," not that it is perfectly accurate.

Loftus's research also supports the idea that memory has a reconstructive nature. She specifically points to how leading questions can clearly alter one's memory of events. By simply altering the wording of questions regarding a video of a car crash, the researchers found that a significant amount of people recalled seeing broken glass when in fact there was none.

On the other hand, Yuille and Cutshall argue that Loftus's research lacks ecological validity because it took place in a laboratory setting. In their own research, they found that misleading questions do not alter memory. They also found that the people who are most emotionally distressed by a situation tend to remember the events most accurately. This contradicts the theory that emotional memories are not always accurate.