Schema Theory In Psychology

A schema is a mental structure that organizes what we know about a person, object, or event, built from past experience. Schemas let the brain interpret new information quickly by filling in expected details, but that same shortcut can distort what we remember.

Psychologists have used the idea to explain how people misremember stories (Bartlett, 1932) and how children’s understanding of the world develops (Piaget, 1952).

Historical Background

Schema theory is a branch of cognitive science concerned with how the brain structures knowledge. Schema (plural: schemas or schemata) is an organized unit of knowledge for a subject or event based on past experience.

Individuals access schema to guide current understanding and action (Pankin, 2013). For example, a student’s self-schema of being intelligent might form after years of teachers praising their work. That praise then encourages genuinely studious habits.

Information that does not fit into the schema may be comprehended incorrectly or even not at all.

For example, a waiter might ask a customer if he would like to hum with his omelet. The customer would likely struggle to interpret the question. Humming is not something patrons typically do with omelets in a restaurant (Widmayer, 2001).

The concept of a schema can be traced to Plato and Aristotle (Marshall, 1995). Scholars consider Kant (1929) the first to describe schemas as organizing structures that people use to interpret the world (Johnson, 1987).

F.C. Bartlett was the first psychologist to study schemas in depth, in his 1932 book Remembering.

Bartlett argued that remembering is not a passive playback of stored information. It is an active, reconstructive process. We rebuild the past by fitting it to the schemas we already hold.

The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget was best known for his work on child development. He was first to add schemas to a developmental theory.

Piaget (1952) saw schemas as mental structures altered by new information. In Piaget’s theory, new information can be added or assimilated into current schemas. These schemas are people’s ideas about how the world works.

However, new information that cannot be integrated into an organism’s current schemas can create disequilibrium. When this happens, the schemas must change to accommodate the new information.

Key Study: The War of the Ghosts

Aim: Bartlett wanted to see whether memory for an unfamiliar story changes in a systematic, schema-driven way as it is retold. He wanted to rule out simple random fading.

Method: He gave English participants a North American folk tale called “The War of the Ghosts,” unfamiliar in its style, imagery, and supernatural content.

Using serial reproduction, one participant’s retelling was passed on and reproduced by another, and so on for six or seven reproductions. This is similar to a game of Chinese whispers.

He also used a second method: repeated reproduction. This meant asking the same participants to recall the story again on several later occasions.

Results: With each retelling, the story grew shorter, shrinking from about 330 words to around 180 words as unfamiliar details dropped out.

It also grew more coherent and more conventional: unfamiliar elements were changed into familiar ones, such as canoes becoming “boats.” Bartlett called these three changes levelling, sharpening and conventionalisation.

Certain details were also sharpened, made more vivid or reordered to fit the emerging version. The story survived, even if changed.

Conclusion: Bartlett concluded that remembering is an active, reconstructive process rather than a passive readout of the past.

Participants were engaged in what he called “effort after meaning,” unconsciously editing the story to fit the schemas of their own culture.

Memory, Bartlett argued, is not a faithful recording but an “imaginative reconstruction” of the past.

Bartlett’s method has since been criticized as methodologically loose. He did not standardize his instructions, and his conclusions rested on a small, unrepresentative sample rather than systematic data. Even so, Hunter (1964) later replicated the same pattern of change using the same method.

Key Study: Brewer and Treyens (1981) – Memory for Places

Aim: To test whether an office schema shapes memory for a real room. Also to see whether it creates false memories of objects that were never there.

Method: Thirty participants waited alone in a room they believed was an office. It looked ordinary, but held a skull among the objects. It also lacked books, an object the office schema strongly predicts. Participants were then asked, without warning, to recall everything in the room.

Results: Recall closely matched the office schema. Around a third of participants, 9 of 30, wrongly recalled seeing books that were never there. Objects that clashed with the schema were remembered less well. The odd skull was an exception: it stood out and was easier to remember.

Conclusion: Memory for a place is rebuilt from a schema, not copied like a photograph. The schema aids recall but also inserts convincing, false detail.

Characteristics of Schemas

Theorists in the 1970s and 1980s described schemas as structures for representing broad concepts in memory (Ortony & Anderson, 1977).

McVee and colleagues (2005) revisited the idea. They argued that a schema is not just a private, internal packet of knowledge. It is also social and physical: spread across people, tools, and the surrounding context, not sealed inside one person’s head.

This “transactional” reading answers an old criticism. Tying schemas to observable activity, not just private thought, makes the theory easier to test.

Rumelhart (1984) set out the features that any schema shares, whatever the theorist’s angle:

• Variables: A schema has slots that can be filled in different ways, such as the amount paid in a “buying in a shop” schema.
• Embedding: Schemas nest inside one another; a “picnic” schema sits inside a larger “outing” schema.
• All levels of abstraction: Schemas represent everything from concrete objects, like a face, to abstract ideas, like justice.
• Knowledge, not definitions: Schemas store experience of the world, not dictionary-style rules.
• Active processes: Schemas actively organise incoming information rather than sitting passively in memory.
• Recognition devices: Schemas constantly check how well new information fits what they already predict.

Examples of Schemas in Everyday Life

Piaget developed the notion of schemata, mental “structures,” which act as frameworks through which the individual classifies and interprets the world.

These schemas let us distinguish between horses and cows by looking for key characteristics.

A schema can be discrete and specific or sequential and elaborate. For example, a schema may be as specific as recognizing a dog or as elaborate as categorizing different types of dogs.

A parent reading to a child about dogs, for instance, helps the child construct a schema about dogs.

On a more sophisticated level, schemas help us interpret geographical features and complex mathematical formulae. They also guide our understanding of acceptable behavior in particular roles and contexts.

Piaget argued that schemata grow more complex with age. This growing complexity lets us understand and interpret the world in more sophisticated ways.

A baby, for instance, has only its innate schema through which to interpret and interact with its environment, such as grasping and sucking. As the baby grows, its schemas grow more complex too.

It will learn to distinguish objects and people, and to manipulate its surroundings.

As the child develops further, they build the schemas needed for abstract and symbolic concepts. These include spoken and written language, plus mathematical and logical reasoning.

Schema and Culture

People develop schemas for their own culture and for other cultures they encounter. These cultural schemas are stored in memory and help support a person’s cultural identity.

Once a schema forms, it focuses people’s attention on the relevant aspects of the culture they are experiencing. People respond to non-conforming aspects by assimilating, accommodating, or rejecting them.

For example, someone growing up in England may develop a schema around Christmas involving crackers, caroling, turkey, mince pies, and Saint Nicholas.

This schema can affirm someone’s cultural identity. If they spent Christmas in Sicily instead, the native schema would likely center on eating several types of fish.

Remembering itself can be a cultural activity, not just a private mental process. Mistry and Rogoff (1994) argued that what people remember, and how well, depends on the social purpose that memory serves in their culture. The reason is cultural.

Iatmul elders in New Guinea are known for detailed memory of lines of descent, which helps settle property disputes. Bartlett noted the same pattern in Swazi herdsmen, who could recall the individual traits of their own cattle.

In each case, remembering serves a real, culturally important goal. It is not the goal in itself.

A schema used for cultural understanding is more than a stereotype about the members of a culture.

While stereotypes tend to be rigid, schemas are dynamic and open to revision. Stereotypes also simplify and ignore group differences, but a schema can be complex (Rentsch, Mot, & Abbe, 2009).

Types of Schema

There are several types of schemata.

How Schemas Change

Piaget argued that people experience a biological urge to maintain equilibrium: a state of balance between internal schemas and the external environment. Equilibrium is the ability to fully understand what’s going on around us using our existing cognitive models.

Through the processes of accommodation and assimilation, schemas evolve and become more sophisticated.

For organisms to learn and develop, they must be able to adapt their schemas to new information and construct new schemas for unfamiliar concepts.

Piaget argued that we sometimes encounter new environmental information that doesn’t match our existing schemata. When that happens, we adjust and refine these schemas through accommodation.

Generally, psychologists believe that schemas are easier to change during childhood than later in life. They may also persist despite encounters with evidence that contradicts an individual’s beliefs.

Consequently, as people grow and learn more about their world, their schemata become more specialized and refined until they are able to perform complex abstract cognitions.

Piaget argued that schema refinement has biological limits. Children of different ages can perform different cognitive operations, so age itself restricts how far their schemas can develop.

The differences between children’s and adults’ mental abilities are qualitative, not just quantitative. That is why 6-year-old rocket scientists are thin on the ground. Age sets a ceiling.

In other words, development is not just about how much information a person absorbs. It also depends on the types of cognitive operations they can perform on that information.

These operations are, in turn, determined by the child’s age and physiological development. Stages come in order. Piaget argued that children move through a series of stages as they age, each bringing the ability to perform more sophisticated cognitive operations.

How Schemas Affect Learning

Several instructional strategies can follow from schema theory.

One of the most relevant implications of schema theory to teaching is the role that prior knowledge plays in students’ processing of information.

For learners to process information effectively, something needs to activate their existing schemas related to the new content. For instance, a student would struggle to fully interpret the implications of Jacobinism without an existing schema for the French Revolution (Widmayer, 2001).

Bransford and Johnson (1972) demonstrated this directly. Participants who read a vague procedural passage with no title understood and recalled little of it.

Participants given the title “Washing Clothes” beforehand, which activated the relevant schema, understood and remembered far more, even though the words were identical. The title made all the difference.

Popular theories of learning reflect this idea that schema activation matters. For example, the third of Gagne’s nine conditions of learning is “Stimulating Recall of Prior Knowledge.”

Learners under schema theory acquire knowledge in a similar way to Piaget’s model of cognitive developments. There are three main reactions that a learner can have to new information (Widmayer, 2001):

• Accretion: In accretion, learners assimilate a new input into their existing schema without making any changes to the overall schema.

• • For example, a learner might already believe that “all plants undergo photosynthesis.” Learning that grass and tree leaves do too fits this schema without changing it.
  • Many teachers use “metacognitive” strategies to activate a learner’s schema before reading. These include previewing the heading, looking at visuals in the text, and predicting the content from the title and pictures (Widmayer, 2001).
  • Teachers can also pre-activate a schema using analogies and comparisons. These draw attention to what learners already know and help them connect it to new information (Armbruster, 1986; Driscoll, 1997).
• Tuning: Tuning is when learners realize that their existing schema is inadequate for the new knowledge and thus modify their existing schema accordingly.

• • For example, a learner might realize that a particular preposition sounds wrong in a certain sentence structure. They then need to modify their schema for when that word is or isn’t appropriate to use.
  • Scholars have noted that knowledge transfer is difficult outside the context where it was first learned. Learners may need exposure to the same knowledge in many different contexts. Only then can they build a schema that is not tied to one situation (Price & Driscoll, 1997).
• Restructuring: Finally, restructuring is the process of creating a new schema that addresses the inconsistencies between the old schema and the newly acquired information.

• • For example, a learner might discover that corn is technically a fruit. They may need to overhaul their entire schema for “fruit” to fit this new information.

Unlike Piaget, schema theorists do not see each schema as representative of discrete developmental stages. Instead, the processes of accretion, tuning, and restructuring happen across multiple domains in a continuous time frame (Widmayer, 2001).

According to schema theory, knowledge is not necessarily stored hierarchically. Instead, the learner actively constructs it, representing it propositionally based on the meanings they attach to it.

In addition to schemas, psychologists believe that learners also have mental models. These are dynamic models for problem-solving, based on a learner’s existing schema and their perceptions of task demand and performance.

Rather than starting from nothing, people have imprecise, partial, and idiosyncratic understandings to tasks that evolve with experience (Driscoll, 1994).

Critical Evaluation

Schema theory has real strengths, but it also faces serious, long-standing criticisms.

1. Strong Ecological Validity: Unlike Ebbinghaus’s nonsense-syllable studies, schema theory examines meaningful material, and its central prediction that recall drifts toward prior knowledge has been repeatedly confirmed.
2. Methodological Looseness: Bartlett’s instructions were not standardised, and even his chosen story has been criticised, since its strange style may itself have caused extra distortion.
3. Not All Memory Is Reconstructive: Bartlett’s claims may not generalise to personally significant events, which some research shows stay accurate over repeated recall.
4. Circularity and Under-Specification: Because a schema can be invoked after the fact to explain almost any result, critics argue the theory is hard to test or falsify.
5. Individual and Cultural Differences: People bring different schemas to the same event, so the same stimulus can produce different, systematically biased reconstructions.

Strong Ecological Validity

Bartlett studied meaningful stories rather than lists of nonsense syllables, the way Ebbinghaus had. His findings speak directly to how memory works in everyday life, not just in an artificial task.

Schema theory also explains a wide range of phenomena inside one framework. The list is long.

It covers the gist-based nature of recall, the false memories described above, expectation effects on comprehension, and cultural differences in memory skill.

Its central prediction, that recall drifts systematically toward prior knowledge, has been tested more than once. Hunter (1964) replicated the War of the Ghosts changes using Bartlett’s own serial-reproduction method and found the same pattern. The finding held up.

The Brewer and Treyens office study above shows the same schema-driven encoding and retrieval under controlled, modern conditions. Later comprehension research found the same distorting effect in a completely different setting: reading.

Methodological Looseness

Not every criticism is fatal.

Bartlett’s original studies were methodologically weak by modern standards, as already noted above. He did not standardise his instructions, and some participants may simply have guessed to fill gaps rather than misremembering. Some participants were not even told they needed to reproduce the story accurately.

His analysis was mostly qualitative. He worked with a small, unrepresentative sample of Cambridge acquaintances, and he chose which reproductions to report rather than analysing all of them systematically.

The story itself has also been criticised. The War of the Ghosts is unusually disjointed for Western readers.

That strange style may itself make the story harder to follow, which could exaggerate how much distortion appears. It is unclear how far the results generalise to ordinary, well-structured material that people find easy to follow in the first place.

Not All Memory Is Reconstructive

Bartlett’s own material was unfamiliar and impersonal: a folk tale from another culture. Wynn and Logie (1998) tested whether his conclusions hold for something people actually care about.

They asked first-year university students to recall their first week. Students used repeated reproduction, recalling the same event in November, January, March and May.

Accuracy stayed stable across every session. This held regardless of how many times a student had already recalled the event, contrary to what Bartlett’s theory predicts.

The result suggests reconstruction depends on the material. Personally significant, distinctive memories can resist the schema-driven drift that unfamiliar, meaningless stories show.

This does not disprove schema theory. It shows the theory’s scope: reconstruction is strongest for unfamiliar or emotionally neutral material, and weaker for events that matter to us personally.

Circularity and Under-Specification

Because a schema can be invoked after the fact to explain almost any pattern of remembering, the theory risks being unfalsifiable.

Thorndyke and Yekovich (1979) made this exact point. They noted how hard it is to find data that contradicts schema theory, so it tends to describe existing findings rather than predict new ones.

The same authors argued the theory is ill-constrained. It offers few precise assumptions about how schema-based processing actually works, which lets it fit almost any result.

Alba and Hasher (1983) raised a related, opposite concern. Reviewing the evidence in a paper called Is memory schematic?, they concluded that people retain far more specific, detailed information than a strong schema account predicts.

Memory, in other words, is less thoroughly reshaped by schemas than Bartlett’s theory implies. Between them, the two critiques leave schema theory looking flexible enough to explain anything, yet unable to say in advance how detailed any one memory will be.

Individual and Cultural Differences

People bring different schemas to the same event, so one stimulus can produce very different memories in different people.

The racial-schema study described under Applications below shows this clearly: two people who hold different assumptions distort the same scene in different, predictable directions.

Cross-cultural research shows the same pattern at a larger scale. Western participants tend to do better on laboratory tasks like recalling lists of unrelated words.

It reflects how meaningless such tasks are for people whose everyday remembering is tied to meaningful cultural activity. Iatmul elders in New Guinea, for instance, are known for remembering lines of descent, and Bartlett noted Swazi herdsmen who could recall the individual traits of their cattle.

The pattern cuts both ways.

This variation is a strength for schema theory: it predicts systematic differences between people rather than treating memory as one fixed capacity. It is also a difficulty for prediction, since the schema someone is using often has to be inferred from the very distortion it is meant to explain.

Comparison with Ausubel’s Learning Theory

One competing theory to schema theory is Ausubel’s Meaningful Reception Learning Theory (1966). It states that learners learn best when new material can be anchored to their existing cognitive structures. Ausubel called these anchoring ideas “advance organisers.”

In contrast to Ausubel’s theory, the learner in schema theory actively builds schemas and revises them in light of new information.

As a result, each schema is unique, shaped by that person’s own experiences and cognitive processes.

Ausubel proposed a hierarchical organization of knowledge where the learner more or less attaches new knowledge to an existing hierarchy. In this representation, structure, as well as meaning, drives memory.

For students choosing between the two theories, the difference is where new knowledge attaches: an existing hierarchy for Ausubel, or an actively revised schema for Bartlett and Piaget.

Contemporary Research

Modern neuroscience has traced schema effects to a specific brain circuit: the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) working together with the hippocampus during memory consolidation.

Tse et al. (2007) trained rats to find food flavors hidden in fixed locations, building up a spatial schema. New memories that fit this schema then consolidated remarkably fast, within 24 to 48 hours rather than the usual weeks. This rapid, schema-dependent consolidation depended on the mPFC.

Ghosh and Gilboa (2014) reviewed the neuroscience literature on memory schemas. They proposed a formal definition of a memory schema as a network of linked associations, distinct from related ideas such as scripts and semantic memory. They also set out criteria for when a brain representation counts as schematic.

Together, these findings give Bartlett’s century-old insight a biological mechanism.

An existing schema can speed up how quickly the brain learns anything that fits it. That is exactly the efficiency, and the bias, that behavioral schema theory predicts.

Applications

Schemas are a major determinant of how people think, feel, behave, and interact socially. People generally accept their schemas as truths about the world outside of awareness, despite how they influence the processing of experiences.

Schema Therapy

Schema therapy, developed by Jeffrey E. Young (1990), is an integrative therapy approach and theoretical framework used to treat patients, most often with personality disorders.

Schema therapy evolved from cognitive behavioral therapy.

Those with personality disorders often fail to respond to traditional cognitive behavioral theory (Beck et al., 1990). Rather than targeting acute psychiatric symptoms, schema therapy targets the underlying characteristics of personality disorders.

The model has three constructs (Martin & Young, 2009):

• Schemas: core psychological themes.
• Coping styles: characteristic behavioral responses to schemas.
• Modes: the schemas and coping styles operating at a given moment.

According to the schema therapy framework, the earliest and most central schemas tend to originate in one’s childhood. These schemas begin as representations of the child’s environment, grounded in reality. They develop from the interaction between a child’s innate temperament and specific, unmet childhood needs (Martin & Young, 2009).

Schema therapy aims to change these patterns. It helps people to:

• identify and heal their own schemas,
• identify and address coping styles that get in the way of emotional needs,
• change patterns of feeling and behaviors that result from schemas,
• learn how to get core emotional needs met in a healthy and adaptive way,
• and learn how to cope healthily with frustration and distress when certain needs cannot be met.

Eyewitness Testimony

Elizabeth Loftus applied Bartlett’s reconstructive view to eyewitness testimony. She argued that courtroom testimony is often unreliable because of the misleading questions witnesses are asked.

In Loftus and Palmer (1974), changing a single verb in a question raised participants’ speed estimates for a car crash. Those asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed,” rather than “hit,” each other later reported more broken glass. There was no broken glass in the film.

The word “smashed” activated a schema for a severe accident. Memory was then reconstructed to fit it.

Tuckey and Brewer (2003) found a similar pattern with a simulated bank robbery. Eyewitnesses recalled information matching their robbery schema, such as a disguise or a getaway car, better than schema-irrelevant detail.

When information was ambiguous, such as a robber’s gender hidden by a balaclava, witnesses filled the gap with what the schema predicted.

Stereotyping and Prejudice

Schemas can also entrench stereotypes. Schema-driven memory supplies default expectations about group members, and those defaults can reproduce prejudice.

Allport and Postman (1947) showed participants a picture of two men arguing on a subway train, one black and one white, with a razor in the white man’s hand. Using serial reproduction, the most frequent distortion was that the razor “moved” to the black man’s hand in later retellings.

This finding is consistent with Bartlett’s own theory of memory. Participants holding a different racial schema would be expected to distort the scene less, which shows the effect is schema-driven rather than universal.

This matters beyond the laboratory. A juror or witness who holds a similar racial schema could misremember a real event in the same biased way.

References

Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic?. Psychological Bulletin, 93 (2), 203.

Allport, G. W., & Postman, L. (1947). The psychology of rumor. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Armbruster, B. B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21 (4), 253-267

Ausubel, D. P. (1966). Meaningful reception learning and the acquisition of concepts. In Analyses of concept learning (pp. 157-175). Academic Press.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., & Associates. (1990). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. New York: Guilford Press.

Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726.

Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13 (2), 207-230.

Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(3), 228.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon.

Gagne, R. M., & Glaser, R. (1987). Foundations in learning research. Instructional technology: foundations, 49-83.

Ghosh, V. E., & Gilboa, A. (2014). What is a memory schema? A historical perspective on current neuroscience literature. Neuropsychologia, 53, 104-114.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective.

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination. Reason.

Kant, I. (1929). Critique of Pure Reason (1781-1787), Trans. Kemp Smith.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16 (1), 1-20.

Lemme, B. H. (2006) Development in Adulthood. Boston, MA. Pearson Education, Inc

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585–589.

Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge University Press.

Martin, R., & Young, J. (2009). Schema therapy. Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies, 317.

McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75 (4), 531-566.

Mistry, J., & Rogoff, B. (1994). Remembering in cultural context. In W. J. Lonner & R. S. Malpass (Eds.), Psychology and culture. Allyn & Bacon.

Ortony, A., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Definite descriptions and semantic memory. Cognitive Science, 1 (1), 74-83.

Pankin, J. (2013). Schema theory and concept formation. Presentation at MIT, Fall.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press. (Original work published 1936)

Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In Piaget and his school (pp. 11-23). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Price, E. A., & Driscoll, M. P. (1997). An inquiry into the spontaneous transfer of problem-solving skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22 (4), 472-494.

Rentsch, J. R., Mot, I., & Abbe, A. (2009). Identifying the core content and structure of a schema for cultural understanding. ARMY RESEARCH INST FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES ARLINGTON VA.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In Representation and understanding (pp. 211-236). Academic Press.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system .

Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (2013). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Psychology Press.

Schank, R. C. (1982). Reading and understanding: Teaching from the perspective of artificial intelligence. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Schwartz, N. H., Ellsworth, L. S., Graham, L., & Knight, B. (1998). Accessing prior knowledge to remember text: A comparison of advance organizers and maps. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23 (1), 65-89.

Thorndyke, P. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1979). A critique of schemata as a theory of human story memory (No. P-6307). Santa Monica, CA. Rand.

Tse, D., Langston, R. F., Kakeyama, M., Bethus, I., Spooner, P. A., Wood, E. R., Witter, M. P., & Morris, R. G. M. (2007). Schemas and memory consolidation. Science, 316(5821), 76-82.

Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(2), 101–118.

Widmayer, S. A. (2004). Schema theory: An introduction. Retrieved December 26, 2004.

Wynn, V. E., & Logie, R. H. (1998). The veracity of long-term memories: Did Bartlett get it right? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 1–20.

Young, J. E. (1990). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders. Professional Resources Press. Sarasota, FL