Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology A level > C2: Cognitive Psychology > Flashcards

C2: Cognitive Psychology Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards
1
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 1: aim

A

To investigate how information supplied after an event influences a witness’s memory of that event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 1: hypothesis

A

Participants who are asked the smashed question will give higher speed estimates in MPH than participants who are asked the hit, bumped, contacted or collided question

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 1: research method

A

lab experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 1: experimental design

A

independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 1: participants

A

45 students from an American University, split into groups of 9

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 1: procedure

A
  • Participants asked to watch 7 video clips of car accidents sourced from Seattle Police Department which lasted between 5-30 seconds
  • After each video clip participants were given a questionnaire to complete which focussed on the clip, then answered questions about the event itself
  • Questionnaires invoked the critical question
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 1: quantitative results

A 
Smashed: 40.5 
Collided: 39.3 
Bumped: 38.1
Hit: 34.0 
Contacted: 31.8
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: aim

A

Provide additional insight into the speed estimate differences found in the first study, whether the results were due to response bias or had memory been altered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: hypothesis

A

Participants that are asked the smashed question will say yes more often to seeing broken glass than those that are asked the hit question

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: research method

A

lab experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: experimental design

A

independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: participants

A

150 students from American University divided up into 3 groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: procedure

A
  • Participants allocated 3 conditions which were smashed, hit or control
  • Shown a one minute video clip with a 4 second crash
  • Given a questionnaire to complete
  • A week later, participants returned and we asked to fill in another questionnaire but not shown the clip again
  • Critical closed question = did you see any broken glass?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: speed estimate in the smashed and hit position results

A 
Smashed = 10.46 mph
Hit = 8mph
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: how many people said yes to glass in each condition

A 
Smashed = 16
Hit = 7
Control = 6
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: how many people said no to glass in each condition

A 
Smashed = 34 
Hit = 43 
Control = 44
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Loftus and Palmer experiment 2: conclusions

A

The way a question is asked will enormously influence the answer that is given. Information obtained during the event and information obtained after the event will integrate with each other to form ‘one memory’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Grant: aim

A

To test the effect of noise as a source of context on the studying and retrieval of meaningful material in an academic context. A focus on changing the learning context was important as students can choose where to study but not where they are tested

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Grant: participants

A

8 members of a psychology lab class served as experimenters, each experimented recruited 5 acquaintances to serve as participants, 39 participants ranging in age from 17-56

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Grant: how did they recruit participants

A

Snowball sampling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Grant: research method

A

Lab experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Grant: experimental design

A

Independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Grant: independent variables

A

1) Whether the participant read a two page article under silent or noisy conditions (study context)
2) Whether the participant was tested under matching or mismatching conditions (test context)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Grant: dependant variable

A

Participants performance on a short answer recall test and a multiple choice test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Grant: materials

A
  • Cassette taps player and headphones with exact copies made from a master tape of background noise recorded during lunchtime in a university cafeteria
  • Two page article on psycho immunology
  • 16 multiple choice questions, 10 short answer questions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Grant: procedure

A
  • Instructions read aloud, described as a voluntary class project
  • Participants asked to read article through once, allowing highlighting and underlining
  • Informed comprehension would be tested with both a short answer test and a multiple choice test
  • All participants wore headphones
  • Reading time was recorded, a break of approximately 2 mins between the end of the study phase and beginning of the test was incorporated to minimise short term memory
  • Short answer test given first and was followed by the multiple choice test
  • All participants debriefed concerning the experiment
  • Whole procedure lasted 30 minutes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Grant: mean reading time in minutes for each condition

A 
SS= 15.0
SN= 13.8 
NS= 11.8
NN= 14.0
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Grant: mean short answer test scores in all 4 conditions

A 
SS= 6.7 
SN= 5.4 
NS= 4.6 
NN= 6.2
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Grant: mean multiple choice test scores for all 4 conditions

A 
SS= 14.3 
SN= 12.7 
NS= 12.7
NN= 14.3
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Grant: conclusions

A

Studying and testing in the same environment leads to enhanced performance. Students are more likely to perform better in exams if they study them with a maximum background notice because evidence supports context dependant memory and that students are better off studying without background noise as it will not be present during actual testing. The study shows that there are context dependent effects for newly learned information regardless of whether a short answer test or multiple choice test was used

31
Q

Moray: aim

A

Test Cherry’s dichotic listening findings in relation to:

1) The amount of information recognised in rejected message
2) Effect os hearing one’s own name in the unattended message
3) Effect of instructions to identify a specific target in the rejected message

32
Q

Moray study 1: participants

A

Not recorded

33
Q

Moray study 2: participants

A

12

34
Q

Moray study 3: participants

A

28 (2 groups of 14)

35
Q

Moray: research method

A

Lab experiment

36
Q

Moray study 1: experimental design

A

Repeated measures

37
Q

Moray study 1: independent variables

A

1) Dichotic listening

2) Recognition test

38
Q

Moray study 1: dependent variable

A

The number of words recognised correctly in the rejected message

39
Q

Moray study 2: independent variables

A

Whether or not the instructions were prefixed by the participants own name

40
Q

Moray study 3: independent variable

A

1) Whether digits (numbers) were inserted into both messages or only one message
2) Whether participants had to answer questions about the shadowed message at the end of each passage or whether participants had to remember all the numbers they could

41
Q

Moray study 2: dependent variable

A

Number of affective (personal) instructions

42
Q

Moray study 2: experimental design

A

Repeated measures

43
Q

Moray study 3: dependent variable

A

Number of digits correctly reported

44
Q

Moray study 3: experimental design

A

Independent measures §

45
Q

Moray: materials

A
  • Brenell v Mark IV stereophonic tape recorder modified with twin amplifiers to give two independent outputs through attenuators
  • Simple words list
  • Pose passages of short light fiction
46
Q

Moray: controls

A
  • Dichotic listening tasks
  • Messages recorded onto tape by the same male voice at rates of 130 or 150 words per minute
  • Rejected message was played at a volume that seemed to be the same as the showed message
  • Both messages played through headphones
  • Before each experiment, the participant had four practice prose passages to shadow
47
Q

Moray study 1: procedure

A
  • Short list of words repeatedly presented to one ear of the participant while they shadowed a prose message to the other
  • At the end of the prose passage, it was faded to become inaudible. Word list repeated 35 times
  • Participants were told to pay attention to the prose, so called attended message
  • After the task finished, participants were asked to report all they could of the content of the rejected message
  • Given a recognition list to test similar material present in neither the list nor the passage as a control
48
Q

Moray study 1: quantitative results (mean no. of words recognised in each test)

A

Words presented in shadowed message: 4.9/7
Words presented in the rejected message: 1.9/7
Words presented for the first time in the recognition test

49
Q

Moray study 1: qualitative results

A
  • Shadowed message had the highest rate of recognition and therefore attention paid to it
  • Rejected message was largely ignored and the information had not had attention paid to it in order to process and remember the words from the list
  • No trace of material from the rejected message being recognised, however there is a different between the new material and that from the shadowed message is significant at the 1% level
50
Q

Moray study 2: procedure

A
  • Participants shadowed 10 short passages of light fiction and were told that their responses would be recorded and that the object of the experiment was for them to score as few mistake as possible
  • Some instructions were interpolated
  • Half of the cases instructions were prefixed by the participants own name
  • ‘No instructions’ passages were interpolated in the table at random, passaged were read in a steady monotone at about 130 words per minute (Avometer checked)
  • Participants responses taped
51
Q

Moray study 2: quantitative results (no. of times each was presented (P) or heard (H) in affective (A) and non affective conditions (N) )

A

PA: 39
PN: 36
HA: 20
HN: 4

52
Q

Moray study 2: qualitative results

A
  • Most participants ignored instructions presented in passaged they were shadowing and said they thought they were an attempt to distract them
  • Affective instructions were heard more times compared to non affective, this suggests affective value of a message is important when breaking the attentional barrier in dichotic listening
53
Q

Moray study 3: procedure

A
  • Two groups of 14 required to shadow one of two stimulus dichotic messages, some interpolated some not
  • The position of the numbers and relative to each other in the two messages were varied, so controls with no numbers were also used, randomly inserted
  • One group told it would be asked questions about the content of the shadowed message at the end of each message: the other was specifically instructed to remember all the numbers it could
54
Q

Moray study 3: qualitative results

A
  • Mean number of digits reported under the two conditions of set were analysed and submitted to a t test
  • In none of the cases, whether the score is the mean number of digits spoken during shadowing, nor in the number reported, nor the sum of these two, is the difference significant even at the 5% level of confidence. From
  • Numbers did not become more important enough to break through the attentional barrier
55
Q

Moray: conclusions

A
  • A short list of simple words presented as a rejected message show s no trace of being remembered, even when presented many times
  • Very difficult to make ‘neutral’ information important enough to break through the attentional block set up in dichotic shadowing tasks
56
Q

Simon and Chabris: participants

A

228 participants recruited via volunteer sampling, undergraduate students

57
Q

Simon and Chabris: research method

A

Lab experiment

58
Q

Simon and Chabris: independent variables

A

1) Transparent or opaque video condition
2) Gorilla or umbrella woman as the unexpected event
3) Hard or easy task condition
4) Black or white team condition

59
Q

Simon and Chabris: dependent variable

A

Number of participants in each of the conditions that noticed the unexpected event

60
Q

Simon and Chabris: experimental design

A

Independent measures

61
Q

Simon and Chabris: materials

A
  • Four video tapes 75 seconds in duration
  • Standard orange basketball
  • Gorilla costume
  • Umbrella
62
Q

Simon and Chabris: umbrella condition

A
  • Tall woman holding an umbrella

- Woman walking left to right

63
Q

Simon and Chabris: gorilla condition

A
  • Shorter woman wearing a gorilla costume
  • Woman walking left to right
  • Lasted 5 seconds and the players continued their actions during and after the event
64
Q

Simon and Chabris: transparent condition

A
  • White team, black team and unexpected event filmed seperately
  • 3 videos rendered partially transparent and then superimposed by using digital video-editing software
65
Q

Simon and Chabris: opaque condition

A
  • Al 7 actors filmed simultaneously and could thus occlude one another and the basketballs
  • Required rehearsals to eliminate collisions and other accidents
  • All videos filmed with an SVHS video camera and were digitalised and edited by using a nonlinear digital editing system
66
Q

Simon and Chabris: procedure

A
  • All observers tested individuals and gave informed consent 0
  • Before viewing the videotape, observers were told that they would be watching two teams of three players passing the basketballs and that they should pay attention to either the team in white or black
  • Silent mental count of passes made by the attended team and mental count of bounce and ariel passes
  • After viewing and performing, observes asked to take note of counts on paper and provide answers to surprise series of additional questions
  • If yes, had to give detail
  • Observer was debriefed by playing the videotape on repeat
67
Q

Simon and Chabris: additional series of questions provided

A

1) While you were doing the counting, did you notice anything unusual on the video?
2) Did you notice anything other than the six players?
3) Did you see anyone else (besides the six players) appear on the video?
4) Did you see a gorilla (woman carrying an umbrella) walk across the screen

68
Q

Simon and Chabris: quantitative results in the transparent umbrella condition

A

Easy white - 58
Easy black - 92
Hard white - 33
Hard black - 42

69
Q

Simon and Chabris: quantitative results in the transparent gorilla condition

A

Easy white - 8
Easy black - 67
Hard white - 8
Hard black - 25

70
Q

Simon and Chabris: quantitative results in the opaque umbrella condition

A

Easy white - 100
Easy black - 58
Hard white - 83
Hard black - 58

71
Q

Simon and Chabris: quantitative results in the opaque gorilla condition

A

Easy white - 42
Easy black - 83
Hard white - 50
Hard black - 58

72
Q

Simon and Chabris: qualitative results

A
  • Out of all 192 participants across all conditions, 54% noticed the unexpected event and 46% failed to notice the unexpected event
  • More participants noticed the unexpected event in the opaque condition (67%) compared to the transparent condition (42%)
  • Umbrella woman was noticed more than the gorilla
73
Q

Simon and Chabris: conclusions

A
  • Inattentional blindness occurs more frequently in cases of superimposition as opposed to live action, but is still a feature of both
  • Observers more likely to notice the unexpected events if these events are visually similar to the vents they are paying attention to
  • Objects can pass through the spatial area of attentional focus and still not be ‘seen’ if they are not specifically being attended to

Psychology A level (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions