Cognative Area

Question 1

Principles of Cognative Area

Answer 1

The effect of internal mental prosesses on a persons behaviour

Question 2

Conspepts of Cognative Area

Answer 2

memory / attention / inatentional blindness / inatentional barrier / Schemas / Context dependent memory / Cocktail party

Question 3

Core Studies of the Cognative area

Answer 3

Moray: Dicotic Listening
Loftus & Palmer: Reconstructed memory
Simons & Chabris: Innatentional blindness
Grant et al: Context dependent memory

Question 4

What is the background to Loftus & Palmer?

Answer 4

Bartlett believed that memory isn’t played back exactly as it happened: memory is reconstructed based on past experiences & beliefs about what should happen (Schemas).

Question 5

What was the aim of Loftus & Palmer’s study?

Answer 5

The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of language (leading questions) on memory.

Question 6

Describe the sample and conditions of Experiment 1.

Answer 6

Sample: 45 students.
Conditions: 5 conditions.
Number of students per condition: 9.

Question 7

Briefly describe the procedure of Experiment 1.

Answer 7

Participants watched a video clip from the Seattle police department. They then completed a questionnaire which included smoke screen questions to hide the aim and a critical question about the speed of the cars: ‘How fast were the cars going when they ____ each other’ with the verb being either Smashed, Collided, Bumped, Hit, or Contacted.

Question 8

What was the independent variable (IV) in Experiment 1?

Answer 8

The independent variable (IV) in Experiment 1 was the verb in the critical question.

Question 9

What was the dependent variable (DV) in Experiment 1?

Answer 9

The dependent variable (DV) in Experiment 1 was the estimated speed (mph).

Question 10

What were the mean estimated speeds for the verbs ‘Smashed’ and ‘Contacted’ in Experiment 1?

Answer 10

Smashed: 40.8 mph
Contacted: 31.8 mph

Question 11

What is one explanation for the results of Experiment 1 regarding ‘response bias’?

Answer 11

One explanation is response bias - participants might have been unsure of the exact speed (e.g., between 30 and 40 mph) and the verb ‘Smashed’ biased them to a higher number.

Question 12

What is another explanation for the results of Experiment 1 regarding the effect of the verb on memory?

Answer 12

Another explanation is that the verb used affected memory - ‘smashed’ made participants remember the event to be more serious.

Question 13

Describe the sample and conditions of Experiment 2.

Answer 13

Sample: 150 students.
Conditions: 3 conditions.
Number of students per condition: 50.

Question 14

Briefly describe the initial procedure of Experiment 2.

Answer 14

Participants watched a video clip from the Seattle police department. They then completed a questionnaire which included smoke screen questions to hide the aim and a critical question about the speed of the cars: ‘How fast were the cars going when they ____ each other’ with the verb being either Smashed or Hit, or a Control group who were not asked about speed.

Question 15

What happened one week after the initial procedure in Experiment 2?

Answer 15

Participants completed a new questionnaire with 10 questions, including the critical question: ‘Did you see any broken glass’.

Question 16

What was the independent variable (IV) in Experiment 2?

Answer 16

The independent variable (IV) in Experiment 2 was the verb in the critical question (hit / smashed / not asked about speed).

Question 17

What was the dependent variable (DV) in Experiment 2?

Answer 17

The dependent variable (DV) in Experiment 2 was if they remembered seeing glass (no glass).

Question 18

What were the results regarding the number of participants who reported seeing broken glass in each condition of Experiment 2?

Answer 18

Smashed: 16 participants reported seeing broken glass.
Hit: 7 participants reported seeing broken glass.
Control: 6 participants reported seeing broken glass.

Question 19

What is one discussion point from Experiment 2 regarding the effect of questions asked after an event on memory?

Answer 19

One discussion point is that questions asked after the event can cause reconstructed memory.

Question 20

What is another discussion point from Experiment 2 regarding the effect of verbs on witness estimation?

Answer 20

Another discussion point is that verbs can affect witness estimation of speed & if they saw glass.

Question 21

What research provided the background for the Simons & Chabris study on inattentional blindness?

Answer 21

The background to Simons & Chabris’ research was Neisser (1970) research, which involved a video of 2 teams passing a basketball, during which a woman with an umbrella crosses the scene. In Neisser’s study, 22 - 28 participants failed to see her, demonstrating sustained inattentional blindness. Neisser’s video was made transparent by imposing 3 videos together.

Neisser’s research is foundational in understanding inattentional blindness.

Question 22

What were the aims of Simons & Chabris’ study?

Answer 22

Simons & Chabris aimed to determine if an opaque video would have the same effect as Neisser’s transparent video. They also wanted to investigate if inattentional blindness is affected by other factors such as the nature of the event, what participants are focused on, and the difficulty of the task.

This research expands on the concept of inattentional blindness.

Question 23

What was the sample size and composition in the Simons & Chabris study?

Answer 23

The sample consisted of 192 undergraduates at Harvard University, with 12 participants in each of the 16 conditions.

This diversity in conditions helps ensure robust data.

Question 24

Briefly describe the procedure of the Simons & Chabris study.

Answer 24

Participants watched a short video lasting 75 seconds and were asked what they had seen. The study used 16 conditions based on 4 independent variables (IVs): opacity (opaque or transparent), the unexpected event (woman with an umbrella or gorilla), the shirt colour of the team being followed (black or white), and the task difficulty (easy - any passes, or hard - separate counts for aerial and bounce passes). The dependent variable (DV) was whether they saw the unexpected event.

This methodology allowed for a thorough analysis of inattentional blindness.

Question 25

What was the overall percentage of participants who noticed the unexpected event in Simons & Chabris’ findings?

Answer 25

The unexpected event was noticed 54% of the time. ## Footnote This indicates a significant level of inattentional blindness among participants.

Question 26

How did the opacity of the video affect the detection of the unexpected event according to Simons & Chabris’ findings?

Answer 26

The unexpected event was noticed 66.5% of the time in the opaque video condition compared to 41.6% in the transparent video condition. ## Footnote Opaque videos may help to enhance focus on the unexpected event.

Question 27

How did the difficulty of the task affect the detection of the unexpected event according to Simons & Chabris’ findings?

Answer 27

The unexpected event was noticed 63.5% of the time in the easy task condition compared to 44.6% in the hard task condition. ## Footnote Task difficulty plays a crucial role in attention allocation.

Question 28

How did the similarity of the unexpected event to the attended event (shirt colour) affect detection in Simons & Chabris’ findings?

Answer 28

When the unexpected event (the gorilla) was black (similar to the black shirts being followed), it was noticed by 67% of participants focusing on the black shirts. In contrast, the unexpected event was noticed by only 8% of participants focusing on the white shirts. ## Footnote This highlights the impact of visual similarity on attention.

Question 29

How did the unusualness of the unexpected event affect detection in Simons & Chabris’ findings?

Answer 29

The woman with an umbrella, considered a more unusual unexpected event, was noticed by 65.5% of participants, while the gorilla, considered less unusual, was noticed by 42.6%. ## Footnote Unusual events may capture attention more effectively than more typical occurrences.

Question 30

What were the main conclusions of Simons & Chabris’ study?

Answer 30

Simons & Chabris concluded that paying attention to multiple things leads to split attention, which is not as effective. They also concluded that too much cognitive load can hinder the ability to notice unexpected events. ## Footnote These conclusions have implications for understanding attention in everyday situations.

Question 31

What is context-dependent memory?

Answer 31

The idea that when information is first learned, the context of the environment is encoded along with it.

Question 32

Who conducted a study that is foundational to Grant et al.'s research?

Answer 32

Godden & Baddeley.

Question 33

What did Godden & Baddeley find about divers and memory recall?

Answer 33

Divers recalled more words when tested in the same environment where they learned them.

Question 34

What was the aim of Grant et al.'s study?

Answer 34

To determine if context-dependent memory affects the recognition of a meaningful set of prose in academic courses.

Question 35

What was the sample size in Grant et al.'s study?

Answer 35

39 participants.

Question 36

What was the age range of participants in Grant et al.'s study?

Answer 36

17 - 56.

Question 37

How many females and males were in the sample of Grant et al.'s study?

Answer 37

17 females and 23 males.

Question 38

What did participants read during the learning phase of Grant et al.'s study?

Answer 38

A short article on psychoimmunology.

Question 39

What were the two conditions during the learning phase of Grant et al.'s study?

Answer 39

Noisy and silent.

Question 40

What type of questions did participants answer during the testing phase of Grant et al.'s study?

Answer 40

10 short answer recall questions and 16 multiple-choice recognition questions.

Question 41

What were the four conditions in the testing phase of Grant et al.'s study?

Answer 41

* Silent learning - Silent testing * Silent learning - Noise testing * Noise learning - Noise testing * Noise learning - Silent testing

Question 42

What was the average recall score for Silent learning - Silent testing?

Answer 42

6.7%.

Question 43

What was the average recall score for Noise learning - Silent testing?

Answer 43

4.6%.

Question 44

What was the average recognition score for Silent learning - Silent testing?

Answer 44

14.3%.

Question 45

What conclusion did Grant et al. draw from their study?

Answer 45

Best performance occurred in matching conditions, proving context-dependent memory.

Question 46

What was the background to Moray's study?

Answer 46

Moray wanted to test Cherry's cocktail party effect, which suggests that hearing your name will break the inattentional barrier.

Question 47

What was the aim of Moray's study?

Answer 47

The aim of Moray's study was to provide an empirical test for Cherry's findings.

Question 48

Who were the participants in Moray's Experiment 1?

Answer 48

The number of undergraduate participants at Oxford University in Moray's Experiment 1 is unknown.

Question 49

Describe the procedure of Moray's Experiment 1.

Answer 49

Participants shadowed a piece of prose played in one ear (attended message). A short list of words was played 35 times in the other ear (rejected message). After 30 seconds, a recognition test with 21 words was administered: 7 from the shadowed passage, 7 from the rejected passage, and 7 new (control) words.

Question 50

What were the main findings of Moray's Experiment 1 regarding the number of words recognised?

Answer 50

The mean number of words recognised was: * shadowed passage - 4.9 * rejected passage - 1.9 * control words - 2.6

Question 51

What was the main conclusion of Moray's Experiment 1?

Answer 51

When directing attention away from the rejected message, almost none of its verbal content is able to penetrate the block.

Question 52

Who were the participants in Moray's Experiment 2?

Answer 52

There were 12 undergraduates at Oxford University who participated in Moray's Experiment 2.

Question 53

Describe the procedure of Moray's Experiment 2.

Answer 53

Two passages of light fiction were given to each ear. Participants shadowed the passage in their right ear unless instructed otherwise. Ten instructions were given, some of which included the participant's name (affective) and some that did not (non-affective).

Question 54

What were the findings of Moray's Experiment 2 regarding affective and non-affective instructions?

Answer 54

Of the affective instructions presented (39), 20 were heard. Of the non-affective instructions presented (36), only 4 were heard.

Question 55

What was the conclusion of Moray's Experiment 2?

Answer 55

Only affective messages (like one's own name) can get through the inattentional barrier.

Question 56

How many participants were in Moray's Experiment 3? How were they divided?

Answer 56

There were 28 undergraduates at Oxford University in Moray's Experiment 3, divided into two groups of 14.

Question 57

Describe the procedure for Group 1 in Moray's Experiment 3.

Answer 57

Group 1 was told they would be asked questions about the shadowed message.

Question 58

Describe the procedure for Group 2 in Moray's Experiment 3.

Answer 58

Group 2 was told to remember as many numbers as possible.

Question 59

What was included in the shadowed and rejected messages in Moray's Experiment 3?

Answer 59

Participants shadowed messages that sometimes had numbers at the end. Numbers were also present in the rejected message and in a control condition (neither shadowed nor rejected).

Question 60

What were the findings of Moray's Experiment 3?

Answer 60

There was no significant difference between the two conditions (Group 1 and Group 2). The fact that numbers were in the message did not help them break through the attentional block.