Cognitive Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Memory

A

persistence of learning over time through the encoding, storage and retrieval of information
Encoding: the processing of information into long-term storage
Storage: the retention of encoded material over time
Retrieval: the process of getting the information out of memory storage

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

Multi-Storage Model

A

Environmental input -> sensory [attention]-> STM ->[recall]/->[rehearsal loop]/[rehearsal]-> <-[retrieval] LTM
Sensory buffer/memory
Temporary store holding visual, auditory, tactile and olfactory information from the environment very briefly in the form received. Echoic (sound) stays for 2-5 seconds. Iconic (vision) stays for a fraction of second. Most info unprocessed. Information must receive attention to be processed+transferred to STM.
Short-term memory
Store with limited capacity and duration. Capacity refers to the amount of information that can be held in the store. Duration refers to how long information can stay in the store for. 7 separate items, 18 secs. If info rehearsed, moves to LTM. If new info not rehearsed/more information disrupts rehearsal, info in STM store may be displaced or lost.
Long-term memory
Store with unlimited capacity and duration. Endless items, indefinitely. However, not all information is easily retrievable. When we recall something, it’s retrieved from the LTM to the STM, and so decisions can be made and problems can be solved.

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

MSM S+L

A

Strengths: Significant research supports theory of separate stores, in cognitive research and biological case studies of patients with brain damage. Presents good account of basic mechanisms in memory processes. Model has historical importance+significant research which followed influenced by model.
Limitations: Over-simplified - assumes that each store works as independent unit. Does not explain memory distortion of separate areas for different types of memory such as procedural/episodic memory or explain why some things may be learned with minimal rehearsal or rehearsal of material that is not transferred to the LTM.

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

Study: Glanzer and Cunitz

A
  • Aim: To investigate if there are two separate stores of memory (STM & LTM).
  • Procedure: US Army enlisted males were given lists of words one at a time. They were asked to freely recall the words (without order).
    Research method: Quasi-Experiment (no random allocation)
    Independent variable: Number of seconds between word presentation and recall
    Dependent variable: Number of words recalled from different positions in the list (beginning, middle, end).
    Immediate recall: half participants asked to recall the words immediately after memorising
    Recall after distraction: participants counted backwards for either 10, 30s before recalling the words
  • Results: Participants had higher probability of recalling items near the start of the list = primacy effect. Participants had higher probability of recalling items near the end of the list = recency effect. Participants had lower probability of recalling items in middle of list.
    Delaying recall affects recency effect, with the longer the recall, lower the probability of remembering words at end of list, causing recall of later words to be similar to ones in the middle, no influence on primacy effect. This implies that the primacy words were stored somewhere different to the recency words.
    Link to multi-storage model: Serial position effect demonstrated by this study. When recalling list, people tend to recall the end of the list, called recency effect, and the beginning of the list, called primary effect. The reason for the primacy effect is because the initial items presented are most effectively stored in LTM because of the greater amount of processing devoted to them. As the MSM explains that the transfer from STM to LTM depends on rehearsal and amount of attention the information has received. And the reason for the recency effect was because the items at the end of the list were still present in the STM when the recall was solicited, which is why the participants could not remember the items at the end of the list with a distraction task.
  • Strengths
    Highly controlled
  • Limitations
    Low ecological validity as people usually do not have to memorise meaningless words
    Low generalisability, all army men
    No random allocation = participant variability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Study: Peterson & Peterson

A
  • Aim: To investigate the duration of short-term memory.
  • Procedure: Lab experiment where participants (psychology students) recalled trigrams (meaningless three-consonant syllables). Trigrams were presented one at a time and no two successive trigrams contained any same letters. After hearing trigram, participants asked to count backwards in threes or fours from a number until they saw a red light (then they recalled the trigram) to prevent rehearsal.
    IV: Time interval between hearing the trigram and recalling the trigram (after seeing a red light), e.g. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 seconds.
    DV: Number of trigrams correctly recalled after every trial (6 in total).
  • Results: Results showed that the longer each student had to count backwards, the less well they were able to recall the trigram accurately.
    After 3 secs - 80% of the trigrams correct. 6 seconds - 50%. 18 seconds - less than 10%.
  • Link to MSM:
    Short-term memory has a limited duration (of about 18 seconds) when rehearsal is prevented. It is thought that this information is lost from short-term memory from trace decay. The results of the study also show short-term memory is different from long-term memory in terms of duration. Thus supporting the multi-store model of memory. If person unable to rehearse information, will not transfer to LTM.
  • Strengths
    Lab experiment = confounding variables were controlled to establish cause and effect relationship.
    Standardised instructions = easily replicable.
  • Limitations
    Low external validity as the stimuli is very artificial as people do not try to recall trigrams in real life.
    Only considered short-term memory duration for one type of stimuli. Did not provide information about other types of stimuli such as pictures and melodies.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Working memory model

A

Input->central executive<->episodic buffer->LTM

^Visuo-spatial sketchpad
↓Phonological Loop

Working memory
A store with limited capacity and duration, also known as the short-term memory.
Central executive
Allocates information based on modality, directs attention to tasks and is a temporary store of sensory information.
Phonological loop
Limited capacity. Deals with auditory information (Phonological store) and language (Articulatory control).
Visuo-spatial sketchpad
Limited capacity where visual and spatial information is stored. Contains visual-cache which stores information about what things look like e.g. form and colour. Inner scribe which processes spatial information and movement.
Episodic buffer
Communicates with LTM. Links information across domains to form integrated units of visual, spatial and verbal information with time sequencing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

WMM strengths + lims

A

Strengths: The model is supported by considerable experimental evidence. Brain scans have shown different areas of the brain active while carrying out verbal compared to visual tasks. Case studies of patients with brain damage support the theory that there are different parts of memory for visual and verbal tasks. Model helps us understand ability to multitask in some situations but not others.

Limitations: The role of the central executive and interactions between components is unclear. The model only explains short-term memory and tells us very little about long-term memory. The model does not explain memory distortion or the role of emotion in memory formation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Study: Landry and Bartling

A

Study: Landry and Bartling
Aim: To investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of a written list of letters in serial recall.
Procedure: Independent samples design, psychology students tested individually. Participants in experimental group saw list of letters that they had to recall while saying numbers ‘1’ and ‘2’ at rate of two numbers per sec from beginning of presentation until answer sheet filled. Repeated ten times. Control group saw list of letters but did not do articulatory suppression task. Shown list for 5s, instructed to wait for 5s, then instructed to write correct order of letters as accurately as possible. Letters chosen so that they did not sound phonologically similar. Accuracy and order of letters recalled was recorded.
Results: Showed that scores from experimental group were much lower than scores from control group. Differences in means of the groups was significant however standard deviations nearly identical, showing that participant variability not a confounding variable.
Links to models of memory: Supports WMM because it shows that disruption of phonological loop through use of articulatory suppression prevented the rehearsal in phonological loop because of overload, leading to less accurate working memory. Resulted in difficulty in memorising letter strings for participants in experimental conditions whereas participants in control did not experience overload, showing that there are separate stores of the working memory. This supports the idea that phonological loop has limited capacity + cannot attend to many things at once.

  • Strengths
    Laboratory experiment = well-controlled, clear causation between the IV (single vs. multi-tasking) and the DV variable (recall of letters)
    Supports WMM’s predictions (each memory system has limited capacity)
    May help understand the risks of multitasking in the real world
  • Limitations
    Low ecological validity as memorising standalone letters = not real world
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Schema Theory

A

hypothesis that we have cognitive framework that organises our stored memories and knowledge. Includes characteristics and different types of schema, and how they influence our mental processes and behaviour.

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

Schema

A

cognitive framework that organises our stored memories and clusters of knowledge. Schemas are mental representations which organise our knowledge, objects, events, ourselves and others. Influences the way we interpret, organise, communicate, and remember information. Schemas are either accommodated (when existing schemas are replaced) or assimilated (when you add information to existing schemas)

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

Schema S+L

A

Strengths: Testable, by priming schema, we can determine whether schema helps/interferes with learning. Plenty of empirical evidence supporting. Applied to understand memory+distortion+health. We can predict what types of information will be best recalled. Trends are seen, however, we cannot predict exactly what an individual might recall.
Limitations: Concept of schema is vague and cannot be observed, brain scans do not clarify processings. Mostly unbiased, however, most early research was conducted by Western cultures.

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

Reconstructive memory

A

suggests that in the absence of all information, we fill in the gaps to make more sense of what happened. Memory s not saved as completed as retrieval of memory influenced by perception, belief, past experience, cultural factors and content in which we are recalling.

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

Study: Brewer and Treyens

A

Aim: To investigate whether schemas would affect encoding and retrieval of episodic memory.
Procedure: Participants = university psychology students led into room made to look like office to ‘wait for professor’ (not realise that study begun). In office were objects typically found in an office such as papers and electronics. Items not typically found in office such as skull and toy top. Omitted items typically found in office such as books. After 35 seconds, participants led to 2nd room.
Condition 1: written recall - describe room to someone who has never seen it before with as many details as possible. Afterwards, participants were also given list of objects to rank on certainty of it being in room.
Condition 2: draw objects in the room.
Condition 3: were read list of objects, had to say whether they were in the room or not.
Results: Writing and drawing conditions, participants likely to recall objects congruent with schema of office (items typically found in office) and not recall items schema-incongruent items (items not typically found in office). When given or read list of objects - more likely to recall objects incongruent with schema, however, also more likely to falsely recall items congruent with office schema. In drawing+writing condition, likely to change nature of object more schema-congruent (participants recalled that the trapezoid shaped table was rectangular).

Link to schema theory: Supports schema theory - encoding + retrieval process of memory affected by existing schemas. Participants’ memory of the items distorted due to their existing schemas of office. Recalled incorrectly so that the information could ‘fit’ into their own schema of an office, showing that schemas do affect our mental process of memory.

Link to reconstructive memory: Supports reconstructive memory theory - shows that the encoding and retrieval process of memory is affected by existing schemas and that schemas can cause the false reconstructive of memory. The participants’ memory of the items were distorted due to their existing schemas of an office. They recalled incorrectly so that the information could ‘fit’ into their own schema of an office, showing that our memory is susceptible to reconstruction due to schemas.

Strengths
The participants were debriefed afterwards due to the use of deception and were not harmed
Limitations
This study was a lab experiment with low ecological validity.
There is sample bias. University psychology students as participants = low generalisability
Participant variability, they may have been focused on different parts of the room

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Study: Martin + Halvorsen
Link 2 Schema + Reconstructive

L+S

A

Link to schema: This supports the schema congruent process which suggests that children are actively seeking out information and developing their gender schema. Childhood is a critical phase of development as biases and prejudices are hard to change at an older age. This study supports the idea that through observation and experience we adapt our behaviour to the norms of our culture like how the children’s established gender norms affect the behaviour of memory.
Link to reconstructive: This supports the reconstructive memory theory as the study shows that retrieval processes of memory are affected by existing schemes and that schemas can cause the false reconstruction of memory. This study supports the idea that through observation and experience we adapt our retrieval of memory to the schemas of our culture like how the children’s established gender schemas cause reconstructive memory.

Strengths
The study is highly standardised and can be replicated to determine its level of reliability.
The study controlled for response bias. Those that claimed to remember images that were not seen tended to have very low levels of confidence.
The researchers avoided a “forced choice” response of “boy” or “girl” and gave the children five choices to choose from: man, woman, boy, girl, “I don’t know.”
Limitations
Low ecological validity, the study is highly controlled = may not reflect how children process information about gender in the real world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Thinking

A

process of using knowledge and information to make plans, interpret the world and make predictions about the world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Decision making

A

cognitive process that involves choosing action, belief or strategy, making a choice between some alternatives. Closely linked to thinking because before we can choose, we have to analyse - thinking = prerequisite of decision making

17
Q

Dual Processing Model

A

suggests that there are two systems of processing information that influence judgement and decision-making.

System 1 - thinking fast, focuses on seen, ignores absent information, bases decisions on past experience and knowledge (already established schemas), effortless way of thinking, employs heuristics, ‘shortcut’ used to make decisions. ‘Automatic’ thinking, expected to create a greater feeling of certitude that the initial response is correct.
System 2 - Slow thinking, requires concentration and effort, is conscious, works with abstract concepts and through logic, uses conscious reasoning, more reliable.
We use system 1 thinking because we are cognitive misers and want to use as little energy as possible to think and make decisions. When there is problem we need to solve, we tend to use least demanding course of action

18
Q

Dual Processing S+L

A

Strengths: Distinction betw. System 1 + System 2 = well supported by research. ​Can explain why intelligent people can make poor decisions when they rely on System 1 to come up with a fast answer. Consistent with evolution: System 1 believed to evolved in the past to make quick, life saving decisions/System 2 = more modern adaptation to help us think deliberately and carefully. ​
Limitations: Difficult to measure thinking+ decision making in natural scenarios as there are multiple factors that affect decision making in real life, difficult to measure what type of thinking. Most research done w Western university student samples under artificial conditions. Low ecological validity+cross-cultural support

19
Q

Cognitive misers

A

we want to use as little energy as possible to think and make decisions

20
Q

Heuristics

A

mental ‘shortcut’, an efficient way to process information received from world and is fast and requires minimal effort. Results in patterns of thinking and decision making which are consistent but inaccurate, cognitive biases

21
Q

Anchoring bias

A

cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on first piece of information we are given about topic. First piece of information influences subsequent judgements

22
Q

Anchoring bias S+L

A

Limitations: Difficult to measure actual biases in natural scenarios as there are multiple factors that affect decision making in real life. Most research done with Western university student samples under artificial conditions. Low ecological validity+cross-cultural support

23
Q

Study: Englich and Mussweiler

A

Aim: To investigate whether anchoring with higher and lower sentences will influence a judge’s decision on the sentencing.
Procedure: Participants = young trial judges. Independent samples design. Participants given constructed case. Prosecutor in two conditions demanded either 2 months or 34 months as lower and higher anchor. Case materials advised by experienced trial judges. Case materials tested on group of senior law students as pilot study. Average prison term recommended was 17.21 months. Used as basis to determine anchors. Were asked to read through materials and form opinion about case in 15 minutes. They were then given questionnaire regarding prosecutor’s demand regarding recommended sentence
Results: Low anchor recommended significantly lower average sentence compared to average sentence of higher anchor.
Link to dual processing: Pilot study of experienced judges demonstrated system 2 thinking as they took time to consciously think to develop reasonable sentence time. Two conditions demonstrated system 1 thinking, led them to rely on information given and anchoring bias to make decisions.
Link to anchoring bias: Supports anchoring bias in sense of relying too heavily on first sentence (first piece of information/anchor) when making sentencing decisions of case. Suggested sentencing of prosecutor influences sentencing recommended by participant, showing anchoring bias influencing thinking and decision making

  • Strengths
    True experiment = cause and effect relationship between anchor and sentence
    Use of pilot study helped establish reasonable anchors
    High ecological validity, the case was realistic
  • Limitations
    Small sample size, low generalisability, generalisable to younger and less experience judges
    Independent samples design increases participant variability
24
Q

Study: Tversky + Kahneman

A

Aim: To investigate the effect of anchoring bias on decision making.
Procedure: Lab experiment. High school students asked to estimate product of 1 through 8 in ascending (low anchor) or descending (high anchor) order within 5 seconds. The product is same, but they had to make intuitive numerical calculation.
Results: Found that when “anchor” was smaller, so was final estimate. Median for ascending group was significantly smaller than median for descending group. Payoffs for accuracy (which means that they got a reward for accuracy) didn’t reduce this bias.
Link to system 1: Demonstrates that when participants have little time to make a decision, they tend to use system 1 thinking. They made a quick intuitive estimation based on first few numbers they saw. This system 1 thinking made them susceptible to anchoring bias.
Link to anchoring bias: First number seen by participants seems to have biased final estimate. Since they had no time to calculate in 5 seconds, they had to make estimation based on first few multiplications. When those numbers were smaller, estimate was smaller.

Strengths
High internal validity, lab experiment = controlled extraneous variables, cause and effect relationship established
Replicable
Limitations
Low ecological validity because there are no consequences in this experiment that participants would experience in the real world which would lead to stress in decision making
Sampling bias, low generalisability to other ages, only high school students asked
Independent samples design increases participant variability (different maths levels)

25
Q

Emotion

A

complex reaction pattern, combinations of physiological arousal, psychological appraisal and cognitive processes, subjective, and expressive behaviour

26
Q

Flashbulb memory

A

highly detailed, exceptionally vivid ‘snapshot’ of moment when surprising and emotionally arousing event happened that is remembered with high degree of certainty

27
Q

Special-mechanism hypothesis

A

existence of special biological memory mechanism, when triggered by event exceeding critical level of surprise, creates permanent record of details and circumstances surrounding experience. Implies that flashbulb memories have different characteristics than “ordinary memories”
2 variables that must attain sufficient levels for this type of memory:
formation of the mechanism - surprise and personal consequences -> emotional arousal
maintenance mechanism - overt rehearsal (e.g. conversations with others), covert rehearsal (e.g. replaying event in head) -> consolidation of memory traces)

28
Q

Flashbulb memory

A

Strengths: Biological evidence that supports the role of emotion in memory formation. The theory challenged our understanding of memory and led to findings that different types of memory are processed in different parts of the brain.
Limitations: Some argue that it is one’s level of confidence, not accuracy, which defines flashbulb memories. Constructs of FBM are difficult to measure — retrospective. Real-life research = difficult to measure accuracy. Not possible to measure emotional state at time of event

29
Q

Study: McGaugh & Cahill

A

Aim: To study the role of emotion in creation of memories.
Procedure: Participants were divided into two groups. Each group saw slides including one with person lying under car which were accompanied by story. In first condition, participant heard ‘boring’ story about seeing disaster preparation drill of accident victim. In second condition, participant heard ‘emotional’ story where boy was involved in car accident where his feet were severed. After viewing the slides, participants were asked how emotional they found story on scale of 1 - 10. Two weeks later, participants were asked for specific details of story. Test was recognition task that had questions about slides with three options for them to choose from.
Results: Researchers found that participants who had heard more emotionally arousing story demonstrated better recall of specific details of story. They could also recall more details from slides, showing evidence of flashbulb memory.

Strengths
cause-and-effect relationship
easily replicated because of its standardised procedure, increases reliability of results
significant difference between the total recall of the participants in the different test conditions, so the study demonstrates internal validity
Limitations
Artificial in nature and highly controlled, low ecological validity
Unlikely to be quizzed about slides
recognition task had three options = not a valid test of memory

30
Q

Link to FBM: Kulkofsky et al.

A

Link to FBM: This supports the FBM because the participants were able to develop vivid memories if they also responded that they had high personal relevance (or stemming from national relevance) and surprise to the event. This also supports FBM because an individual’s own experiences are less important in a collectivistic culture, therefore, less rehearsal of the event would occur compared with participants from individualistic cultures. Therefore, collectivistic cultures would have a lower chance of developing a FBM because a key part of developing flashbulb memories is the maintenance mechanism involving rehearsal. This also shows that flashbulb memory development is affected by culture.

31
Q

Kulkofsky S+L

A

Strengths
Support for FBM
Cross-cultural study, reduces participant variability
Backtranslated questionnaires with representatives from the cultures to give in native language of participants, reduce interviewer effects
Translation of questionnaires was not confounding variable, increases credibility
Responding in native language (language memories created), more likely to recall

Limitations
Ecological fallacy, just because particiupants come from the culture being studied does not mean that they share traits from culture’s predominant dimensions
Etic approach, cultural factors affect self reporting of information
Reliance on retrospective data didn’t test accuracy of memories

32
Q

Flashbulb S+L

A

Strengths: Biological evidence that supports the role of emotion in memory formation. The theory challenged our understanding of memory and led to findings that different types of memory are processed in different parts of the brain.
Limitations: Some argue that it is one’s level of confidence, not accuracy, which defines flashbulb memories. Constructs of FBM are difficult to measure — retrospective. Real-life research = difficult to measure accuracy. Not possible to measure emotional state at time of event