Ebbinghaus and Bartlett theories of memory compared
Compare and contrast the theories of memory developed by Ebbinghaus and Bartlett, discussing the key concepts of each, then judge which elements of each theory you find valid and which lack validity, supported by scholarly sources.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 12, 2026
Why were nonsense syllables invented in the first place?
These two are set against each other because they disagree about method before they disagree about memory, and a post that compares their conclusions without noticing that has missed what makes the pairing worth teaching. Ebbinghaus wanted to study memory as a pure process, so he invented nonsense syllables precisely to strip out meaning, and ran the experiments on himself under rigidly controlled conditions. Bartlett gave people meaningful material — a folk narrative from an unfamiliar culture — and watched what they did to it over time. The first design assumes that meaning is a contaminant to be removed; the second assumes that meaning is the thing memory actually operates on. Every difference in their findings follows from that one methodological choice, so name that choice in your opening lines and the rest of the comparison has somewhere to hang. It also stops the post becoming a list of two men's results.
The key concepts are correspondingly different in kind. From Ebbinghaus you get the forgetting curve, the savings method for measuring relearning, the serial position effect and the spacing effect — quantitative regularities, several of which have replicated for well over a century and underpin modern spaced repetition. From Bartlett you get the schema, reconstructive memory, the method of repeated reproduction, and the observation that recall systematically distorts unfamiliar material toward the rememberer's existing expectations: details drop out, unfamiliar elements are rationalised into familiar ones, and the narrative shortens and conventionalises a little more with each retelling. One tradition gives you laws about how much is retained over time; the other gives you an account of what the act of retention does to the thing retained. Those are not competing answers to one question, and saying so is more accurate than staging a contest between them.
The validity question is the part that separates a good post, and the honest answer is that each is strong where the other is weak. Ebbinghaus has high internal validity and low ecological validity: rigorously controlled, and studying a task nobody performs outside a laboratory, with a sample of one. Bartlett has the opposite profile — material and process that resemble real remembering, and methods loose by modern standards, with inconsistent testing intervals and qualitative reporting. Say which elements you accept and why, in those terms, rather than declaring an overall winner. A post that accepts the forgetting curve and doubts its generalisation to meaningful material, while accepting schema distortion and doubting Bartlett's measurement of it, is doing exactly what the question asks. And where a claim has been tested since, say so: the forgetting curve has been replicated, and schema effects on recall are among the better-established findings in cognitive psychology, so neither belongs in the post as a historical curiosity.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Trace differences in findings back to differences in method.
- 02Distinguish quantitative regularities from process accounts as kinds of theory.
- 03Apply internal and ecological validity as separate criteria.
- 04Judge specific elements of a theory rather than the theory as a whole.
- 05Distinguish a historical study from a superseded one.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument. Compare and contrast the theories of memory DQ ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours. Compare and contrast the theories of memory DQ
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A comparison and contrast of Ebbinghaus's and Bartlett's theories of memory.
- 02The key concepts of each theory, discussed.
- 03A judgement on which elements of each theory are valid and which lack validity.
- 04Assertions supported by references to scholarly sources, cited appropriately.
Concepts, then contrast, then the validity judgement
The methodological split
State the opposing assumptions about meaning that shaped each design, in two or three sentences.
Ebbinghaus: the key concepts
Forgetting curve, savings method, serial position, spacing — and what each was measuring.
Bartlett: the key concepts
Schema, reconstructive memory, and the specific distortions repeated reproduction produces.
Where they conflict and where they do not
Note that they largely study different questions, so the conflict is narrower than it first appears.
Validity, element by element
Judge specific claims from each against internal and ecological validity, and say what would settle the doubtful ones.
What has survived
Note which findings have replicated and which have been refined, and cite for it.
Where the original studies and their replications are
Recommended databases
- Classics in the History of Psychology (York University)
- PubMed
- PMC
Search sequence
- 1.Read at least the opening of Ebbinghaus's own text; his statement of why he used nonsense syllables is the shortest route to the methodological point.
- 2.Find one modern replication of the forgetting curve, which exists and is worth citing.
- 3.Search for recent work on schema effects in recall so the Bartlett half is not purely historical.
- 4.Write the validity paragraph last, once both sets of concepts are on the page.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Classics in the History of Psychology — Ebbinghaus (1885/1913)
York University · 1885
Ebbinghaus's own text, including his rationale for nonsense syllables — the primary source for the methodological argument the whole post turns on.
- 02
Stages of Change Theory
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
A worked example of how a psychological model is evaluated for validity and revised over time, which is the kind of judgement the third question asks for.
- 03
Study Bias
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
The vocabulary of internal validity and its threats, which is what makes the validity judgement precise rather than impressionistic.
- 04
The Mozart Effect on the Episodic Memory of Healthy Adults Is Null, but Low-Functioning Older Adults May Be an Exception
PMC, National Library of Medicine · 2020
A modern memory study showing current standards for sampling and reporting, useful as the benchmark against which both historical designs are being judged.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Comparing the findings without noticing that the methods were designed on opposite assumptions.
- Treating nonsense syllables as a limitation Ebbinghaus failed to notice, when they were the point of the design.
- Declaring one theory correct instead of judging elements of each.
- Using validity as a single verdict rather than distinguishing internal from ecological validity.
- Presenting both as historical, when the forgetting curve and schema effects both still hold.
- Describing Bartlett's schema as a general term for background knowledge rather than as an active reconstructive mechanism.
Submission checklist
- The methodological difference is stated before the findings are compared.
- At least two key concepts are named from each.
- Internal and ecological validity are used as separate criteria.
- The judgement is element by element, not theory against theory.
- Ebbinghaus's single-participant design is noted.
- Bartlett's methodological looseness is noted alongside his design's realism.
- Later replication evidence is mentioned for at least one claim.
- Scholarly sources are cited for the assertions made.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.