Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Pyschology > Cognitive > Flashcards

Cognitive Flashcards

1
Q

Flashbulb Memory - (9/11)

A

Talarico & Rubin (2003)

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

Flashbulb Memory - 1986 space shuttler disaster

A

Neisser & Harsch (1992)

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

Flashbulb Memory - Martin Luther King Jr

A

Brown & Kulik (1997)

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

Schema Theory - War of the Ghosts

A

Bartlett (1932)

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

Schema Theory - Office

A

Brewer & Treyens (1981)

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

Schema Theory - Robbers & Home buyers

A

Anderson & Pichert (1978)

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

Reconstructive Memory - Car Crash

A

Loftus & Palmer (1974)

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

Reconstructive Memory - Lost in the mall

A

Loftus & Pickrell (1995)

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

Reconstructive Memory - Eyewitnesses

A

Yuille & Cutshall (1986)

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

Cognitive biases - Dunning Kruger Effect

A

Dunning & Kruger (1999)

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

Neisser & Harsch (1992) Aim & Experiment & participants

A
  • evaluate the notion that flashbulb memories are highly accurate, as they can be influenced by media discussions after the event
  • laboratory experiment
  • 106 americans
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Neisser & Harsch (1992) Method

A
  • recall 1986 space shuttler disaster 24 hours after event & then 2 years after
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Neisser & Harsch (1992) Results

A
  • participants recalled the space shuttle disaster with conviction 2 years later,
  • the memory had on average distorted by 40% in accuracy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Neisser & Harsch (1992) Implications

A
  • flashbulb memories are highly influenced by external discussion of the event
  • flashbulb memories can deteriorate in accuracy like normal memories
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Brown & Kulik (1977) Aim

A
  • determine the role of personal significance of events impacting the cognitive processes which encode the event
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Brown & Kulik (1977) Experiment & Participants

A
  • field survey
  • 80 male americans (1/2 black & other 1/2 white)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Brown & Kulik (1977) Method

A
  • the participants filled out a questionnaire giving as much details of their memories surrounding JFK & Martin Luther King Jr
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Brown & Kulik (1977) Results

A
  • 75% of black participants had flashbulb memories if Luther due to the stronger personal relevance
  • only 33% of white participants had flashbulb memorise of his assassination
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Brown & Kulik (1977) Implications

A
  • proves that personal significance may make the encoding processes of memories more vivid & increase memory retention
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Bartlett (1932) Participants

A
  • 20 British people (unaware of native American concepts)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Bartlett (1932) Method

A
  • researchers would tell participants Native American legend w/ foreign concepts & names
  • the participants were then asked to retell the legend a few days, then few weeks, then few months later
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Bartlett (1932) Results

A
  • the participants increasingly forgot parts of the legend with time
  • as more time progressed the names and concepts of the story also converted to concepts more familiar to westerners
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Bartlett (1932) Implications

A
  • new information & foreign concepts are altered to fit into pre-existing schemas
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Brewer & Treyens (1981) Aim, Experiment & Participants

A
  • to determine the influence that our schemas have on information recall
  • laboratory experiment
  • 86 students
25
Q

Brewer & Treyens (1981) Method

A
  • each participant was placed into a waiting office
  • in the office were typical office objects, unorthodox office objects, and typical office objects that were omitted
  • after 35 seconds in the office they were taking out of the office and asked to recall all the objects they could remember from the room
26
Q

Brewer & Treyens (1981) Results

A
  • most participants remembered many of the typical office objects, and unusual objects
  • participants also mentioned seeing some of the intentionally omitted objects
27
Q

Brewer & Treyens (1981) Implications

A
  • participants recalled the unusual objects because they stood out from their office schema significantly
  • participants remembered the typical objects because it fitted into their schema around objects
  • participants also recalled the omitted office objects because their schema expected those objects to be there and reconstructed their memory as if those objects were there
28
Q

Anderson & Pichert (1978) Aim, Experiment, & Participants

A
  • determine the ways Schemas impact encoding & retrieval of information
  • laboratory experiment
  • 39 University studens
29
Q

Anderson & Pichert (1978) Method

A
  • participants were split into 2 groups — home buyers or robbers
  • they were then told a story about a house
  • after being distracted for 12 minutes
  • 1/2 of all participants were asked to switch perspectives (robbers to homebuyers & vice versa) whilst the rest stayed with original schema
  • then the participants were asked to recall the story of the house with as much details as possible
30
Q

Anderson & Pichert (1978) Results

A
  • people from burglar schema recalled information related to what is relevant to the burglar (& vice versa)
  • however the participants which switched schemas through the experiment were able to recall information relating to both schemas
31
Q

Anderson & Pichert (1978) Implications

A
  • schemas are what make details relevant to us and hence make us more likely to be able to recall them
32
Q

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Aim, Experiment, & Participants

A
  • Determine whether leading questions/framing can alter memory of events
  • laboratory experiment
  • 150 students
33
Q

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Method

A
  • participants were divided into 3 groups & shown a video of a car crash
  • each group answered questions about the crash
    (1) group asked: “how fast were cars when smashed”
    (2) group asked: “hit”
    (3) group: control (not asked abt speed)
  • after a week had passed the participants returned and asked if the car crash depicted broken glass
34
Q

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Results

A
  • around 50% if the 1st group said ‘yes’ to seeing broken glass
  • only around 20% in both group 2 and 3 said yes to seeing broken glass
  • 1st group also had higher speed estimates than the 2nd group
35
Q

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Implications

A
  • language used to ask question can influence the memory formed surrounding the event
36
Q

Loftus & Pickrell (1995) Aim, Experiment, & Participants

A
  • to determine whether suggestion could implant a false memory
  • laboratory experiment
  • 24 people
37
Q

Loftus & Pickrell (1995) Method

A
  • family members of participants were contacted for information about the participants background and for 3 real young childhood memories
  • the participants were then sent a questionnaire about 4 childhood events — which included a false memory about getting lost in a mall
  • if they didn’t remember the even they were instructed to state that
  • 2 weeks later the researchers would ask the participants to recall all 4 memories with as much detail as possible
38
Q

Loftus & Pickrell (1995) Results

A
  • 25% of participants successfully had the false memory implanted however with low confidence
39
Q

Loftus & Pickrell (1995) Implications

A
  • suggestion may result in the formation of new memories
40
Q

Yuille & Cutshall (1986) Aim

A
  • determine whether framing devices would impact recollection on emotionally charged events
41
Q

Yuille & Cutshall (1986) Experiment & Participants

A
  • field experiment
  • 13 real eyewitnesses to a burglary
42
Q

Yuille & Cutshall (1986) Method

A
  • 4 months after witnessing the crime, the researchers asked them to answer questions about the event
  • 1/2 participants were asked about if ‘they saw an’ object during the crime, & other 1/2 were asked if they saw ‘the’ object
43
Q

Yuille & Cutshall (1986) Results

A
  • the recounting of the crime was very reliable and matched the office police report testimonies
  • the leading questions were also found to have no influence on the answer the participants gave
44
Q

Yuille & Cutshall (1986) Implications

A
  • when emotional & personal significance are tied to an event the details are able to be recalled more accurately than ordinary
45
Q

Dunning & Kruger (1999) Aim, Experiment, & Participants

A
  • to determine relationship between perceived ability & actual ability
  • laboratory experiment
  • 141 students
46
Q

Dunning & Kruger (1999) Method

A
  • students were given an exam and afterwards were asked to estimate the score they believe they received
47
Q

Dunning & Kruger (1999) Results

A
  • those with the lowest actual scores heavily overestimated their test scores
  • those with the highest actual test scores underestimated their results
48
Q

Dunning & Kruger (1999) Implications

A
  • when people are unskilled their cognitive biases make them unable to evaluate their objective skill level
  • when people understand a topic they understand the complexity and so underestimate their abilities
49
Q

Cognitive processes and technology

Studies:

A

Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014)

Rosen (2011)

Hembroke & Gay (2003)

50
Q

Thinking & Decision making cognitive process; system 1 & system 2

Studies:

A

N/A

51
Q

Muller & Oppenheimer (2014) Aim, experiment, participants

A
  • to investigate the effect of using technology in learning on peoples ability to recall information
  • laboratory experiment
  • 109 UCLA undergraduates
52
Q

Muller & Oppenheimer (2014) Method

A
  • all the students watched the same educational film
  • half took hand written notes
  • other half took notes on laptop
  • asked factual vs. conceptual questions about film
53
Q

Muller & Oppenheimer (2014) Results

A
  • handwritten notes recalled and answered conceptual questions better
54
Q

Muller & Oppenheimer (2014) Implications

A
  • taking notes on laptop is fast but condusive to transcription
  • rather than handwritten which causes people to process the information better helping their conceptual understanding
  • technology being conductive to transcription rather than processing information
  • technology doesn’t allow for the deeper processing of information hence hindering conceptual understand
55
Q

Rosen (2011) Aim, Experiment, Participant

A
  • to investigate impact of text message interruptions in learning in a classroom on recall ability
  • field experiment
  • 185 collage students
56
Q

Rosen (2011) Method

A

-

57
Q

Rosen (2011) Results

A
58
Q

Rosen (2011) Implications

A

Pyschology (11 decks)

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