Cognitive

Question 1

Loftus and Palmer - sample

Answer 1

1 - 45 students from the university of Washington , Seattle - split into 5 groups
2- 150 students split into 3 groups of 50

Question 2

Loftus and Palmer - verbs

Answer 2

Smashed
Collided
Bumped
Hit
Contacted

Question 3

Loftus and Palmer - results - ex 1

Answer 3

Smashed - 40.8 mph
Collided - 39.3 mph
Contacted - 31.8 mph

Question 4

Loftus and Palmer - conclusion - 1

Answer 4

Participants are not good at estimating speeds of moving vehicles . The intensity of the verb impacts our speed estimates

Question 5

Loftus and palmer - 2

Answer 5

Broken glass - a week later

Question 6

Loftus and Palmer - results - 2

Answer 6

Smashed - yes - 16 - no - 34
Hit - yes - 7 - no - 43
Control - yes - 6 - no - 44

Question 7

Loftus and Palmer - conclusion - 2

Answer 7

No broken glass was shown in the video ; therefore any reports are due to reconstructed memory as a result of a leading question

Question 8

Loftus and Palmer - reliability

Answer 8

Internal - yes , replicable - clear number of controls

Question 9

Loftus and Palmer - validity

Answer 9

Not ecologically valid
Not that generalisable - students

Question 10

Moray - key terms

Answer 10

Cocktail party effect
Dichroic listening
Shadowing
Affective instruction
No - affective instruction

Question 11

Moray - experiment 1 - sample

Answer 11

Undergraduate students at Oxford of both sexes

Question 12

Moray - experiment 1 - procedure

Answer 12

A short list of simple words was spoken 35 times as the rejected or blocked message. At the end of the shadowing task participants were asked to recall all they could remember from the rejected message - recognition test - 21 words - 7 from shadowed - 7 from rejected - 7 similar but not in

Question 13

Moray - experiment 1 - results

Answer 13

7 words taken from the shadowed passage - 4.9
7 words taken from the list in the rejected message - 1.9
7 similar words that appeared in neither passage - 2.6

Question 14

Moray - experiment 1 - conclusion

Answer 14

Almost none of the verbal content of the rejected message is able to penetrate the block set up

Question 15

Moray - experiment 2 - aim

Answer 15

Found out that little to information pass through the inattentive barrier - wanted to find out what could break it - would a message with a strong enough meaning to the participant break the barrier

Question 16

Moray - experiment 2 - sample

Answer 16

12 participants

Question 17

Moray - experiment 2 - procedure

Answer 17

Participant name - affective
Two passages of light fiction were heard in each ear - both passages instructions - monotone 130 words per minute by a male voice

Question 18

Moray - experiment 2 - results

Answer 18

Number of times the affective instruction was presented in the rejected passage - 39
Number of times the affective instruction was heard - 20
Number of times the non affective instruction was said - 36
Number of time the non affective instruction was heard - 4

Question 19

Moray - experiment 3 - aim

Answer 19

Would prior warning about what that would be asked change what participants might hear ?

Question 20

Moray - experiment 3 - sample

Answer 20

Two groups of 14 participants

Question 21

Moray - experiment 3 - procedure

Answer 21

Participants were asked to shadow the dichroic message - variety of messages - number towards the end - numbers in both - number only in shadowed - numbers in rejected - no numbers

Question 22

Moray - experiment 3 - results

Answer 22

No significant results found . Numbers not important enough to break through

Question 23

Simon and Chabris -background

Answer 23

Computer based dynamic displays
Video based dynamic events

Question 24

Simon and chabris - aims

Answer 24

Confirm inattentional blindness occurs in realistic complex situations

Question 25

Simon and chabris - sample

Answer 25

228 observers - almost all undergraduate students - Harvard based - reward - candy bar or single payment

Question 26

Simon and Chabris- video clip controls

Answer 26

Same actors , same day , same location
Each video lasted 75 seconds
2 teams with 3 players - white team and black team
Unexpected event occurs between 44 and 48 seconds

Question 27

Simon and Chabris- IVs

Answer 27

Opaque or transparent
Black team or white team
Easy or hard
Gorilla or umbrella women

Question 28

Simon and Chabris- results

Answer 28

47% level of unattentional blindness
54% of participants did see the unexpected event

Question 29

Grant - aims

Answer 29

To test for context dependency effects caused by the presence or absence of noise during learning and retrieval of meaningful material

Question 30

Grant - sample

Answer 30

Snowball - 8 psychology students from a psychology class acted as experimenters and each recruited 5 acquaintances as participants- 39 participants were recorded - aged 17-56 years old

Question 31

Grant - test conditions / procedure

Answer 31

Silent, silent
Noisy noisy
Noisy silent
Silent noisy
Recognition- multiple choice
Recall - short answer

Question 32

Grant - results

Answer 32

Recall - out of 10 - ss - 6.7 - ns - 5.4 - sn -4.6 - nn - 6.2
Recognition- out of 16 - ss - 14.3 - ns -12.7 - ns -12.7 - nn- 14.3

Question 33

Grant - conclusion

Answer 33

There are context - dependency effects for newly learned meaningful material - best performance in an environment with the same level of noise