Cognitive

Question 1

assumptions of the cognitive approach

Answer 1

1. how information received is encoded and processed determines our behaviour
2. humans are like computers as we input, encode, store, retrieve and output information like computers do

Question 2

Aim of E1 of Loftus and palmer

Answer 2

to see if the use of leading questions will change a witnesses estimate of speed (in mph) after watching a car crash

Question 3

method, design and sample of E1 of L+P

Answer 3

lab experiment, independent measure, 45 students from the university of Washingtion

Question 4

what is the iv of E1 of L+P

Answer 4

the verb used in the leading question- smashed, hit, collided, contacted and bumped

Question 5

procedure of E1 of L+P

Answer 5

pps were shown 7 films of crashes from seattle PD. in 4 films the speed was known ( 20, 30, 40 and 40 mph)
qualitative account was written by pps and then filled out a questionnaire with closed questions. all the questions were fillers except for the one critical question ( “how fast were the cars going when they ____ into each other”)

Question 6

results of E1 of L+P

Answer 6

smashed: 40.5
collided: 39.3
bumped: 38.1
hit: 34
contacted: 31.8

Question 7

conclusions of E1 of L+P

Answer 7

there were 2 reasons for the varied estimates of speed:
response bias - when a pps guesses an answer if they are un sure ( if this is the reason it is not an issue)
memory distortion: - the verb used alters the memory of the pps ( if this is the reason it is an issue)

Question 8

aim of E2 of L+P

Answer 8

to see if leading questions will actually distort a witness’s memory

Question 9

method, design and sample of E2 of L+P

Answer 9

lab experiment, independent measures, 150 students from UoW ( 3 groups of 50)

Question 10

iv of E2 of L+P

Answer 10

smashed, hit and a control group

Question 11

procedure of E2 of L+P

Answer 11

all pps watched one video, pps wrote a quantitive account then answered a questionnaire with one leading question ( “ how fast were the cars going when they ____ into eachother “)
a week later pps were brought back and answered another 10 questions, the critical question was “ did you see any broken glass”

Question 12

results of E2 of L+P

Answer 12

smashed: 16Y & 34N
hit: 7Y & 43N
control: 6Y & 44N

Question 13

conclusion of L+P

Answer 13

leading questions produce memory distortion ( pps original memory is changed)
the reconstructive memory hypothesis (info from before and after the event merge to create a new memory)

Question 14

strengths of L+P

Answer 14

+high internal reliability, lab setting and standardised procedure, establish cause and effect
+useful, can put training in place to ensure law enforcement do not use leading questions

Question 15

weaknesses of L+P

Answer 15

-low ecological validity, not in real setting where a car crash would happen. the videos are fake so would overall trigger less emotion than in a real car crash
- reductionist, focuses on internal cognitive processes ignoring the influence of external factors, that some pps may have more knowledge regarding driving which may impact the speed estimate given

Question 16

aim of Grant

Answer 16

to demonstrate the positive effects of context upon memory

Question 17

method, design and sample of Grant

Answer 17

lab experiment
independent measure
39 pps, 8 psych students gained via opportunity sampling, each students selected 5 = 40 and one was excluded

Question 18

procedure of Grant

Answer 18

1.informed participation was voluntary.
2.they read a psychoimmunology article only once.
3. all pps wore headphones, silent condition heard nothing, noisy condition heard a recording of a canteen.
4. pps had a 2 min break after reading
5. answered 10 short answer q’s and 16 mcq’s
6. pps were debriefed

Question 19

results of grant

Answer 19

short answer:
ss 6.7
sn 4.6
nn 6.2
ns 4.6

Question 20

conclusion of grant

Answer 20

studying and testing in the same context leads to enhanced performance

Question 21

strengths of grant

Answer 21

+lab experiment, controlled environment, establish cause + effect
+useful, practical implications, providing research of how to enhance performance

Question 22

weaknesses of grant

Answer 22

-certain conditions lack ecological validity, pps in the silent conditions had to wear headphones with no sound, this doesn’t represent real life
-low reliability, as different cassette players are used for each pps, the quality of sound may be different so the effect of a noisy environment wont be felt

Question 23

strengths of the cognitive approach

Answer 23

+useful, provides research to how we store and acquire information, which is needed to understand the complexity of human behaviour e.g. grant and context dependent memory
+high internal reliability, standardised procedure , controlled environment to establish C+E e.g. grant all pps wore headphones

Question 24

weaknesses of the cognitive approach

Answer 24

• reductionist, focuses on internal cognitive processes ignoring any external or social factor which may impact behaviour. e.g. L+P some pps may have more driving experiences which impacts the estimate of the speed
• lacks ecological validity, approach favours experiments which are highly controlled and take away from real life simulation e.g. L+P pps may notice car crashes are fake and therefore not continue seriously.

Question 25

what is a dichotic task

Answer 25

when one message plays in the left ear and a different message plays in the right ear.

Question 26

what is shadowing

Answer 26

participants verbally repeat one message as they hear it

Question 27

what is the attended ear

Answer 27

the message you pay attention to

Question 28

what is the rejected/unattended ear

Answer 28

the message you dont want to pay attention to

Question 29

what does affective mean

Answer 29

words with emotional meaning

Question 30

what does non-affective mean

Answer 30

words with no emotional meaning

Question 31

aim of moray, study 1

Answer 31

to test cherrys dichotic listening findings in relation to the amount of info recognised in the rejected message

Question 32

method and sample of moray, study 1

Answer 32

lab experiment with repeated measures. all undergrad/research workers

Question 33

procedure of moray, study 1

Answer 33

1. use of dichotic listening task using the brenell mark 4 sterophonic tape recorder, modified with 2 amplifiers to give to independent messages. 2. voice was the same male speaking at 130/150 words/min at the same volume 3. before starting the pps had 4 practices at shadowing the passage. 4. a list of 35 words were repeated in the unattended ear, whilst shadowing a passage in the attended ear. 5. recall of the 35 words was tested by 3 recognition tests, a. words in the attended ear, b. words in the unattended ear, c. words in neither.

Question 34

results of moray, study 1

Answer 34

words in shadowed message: 4.9 words in rejected message: 1.9 words in neither: 2.6. words in rejected message were not recognised well, significantly lower than the shadowed ear and lower than words from neither ear

Question 35

conclusion of moray, study 1

Answer 35

we are bad at recognising info from the unattended ear and the sound is almost completely blocked out.

Question 36

aim of moray, study 2

Answer 36

to test cherrys dichotic task in relation to the effect of having ones name in the unattended ear

Question 37

method and sample of moray, study 2

Answer 37

lab experiment and repeated measures 12 participants, undergrad/research workers

Question 38

procedure of moray, study 2

Answer 38

pps shadowed 10 passages in the attended ear. 6/10 of passages in the unattended ear had instructions in the middle. 2/6 had pre passage warnings that there will be an instruction given. 3/6 used the pps name, (affective instructions)

Question 39

results of moray, study 2

Answer 39

affective instruction heard: 20 non affective instruction heard: 4 this shows affective words are able to pass through the attentional barrier but not all the time only ~ 50% when there was a pre passage warning, affective words are more likely to pass through the attentional barrier.

Question 40

conclusion of moray, study 2

Answer 40

some important info can break through the attentional barrier and we can not be primed to hear information in our unattended ear.

Question 41

aim of moray, study 3

Answer 41

to test cherrys dichotic listening task in relation to the effect of instructions to identify a specific target in the rejected message

Question 42

method and sample of moray, study 3

Answer 42

lab experiment and independent measures, 2 groups of 14 participants

Question 43

procedure of moray, study 3

Answer 43

the unattended passage had numbers in the message or had no numbers. one group was told to remember all the contents of the message, the other was told to remember all numbers and digits.

Question 44

results of moray, study 3

Answer 44

no significant difference between mean number of numbers reported when asked to remember all the message compared to remembering the numbers. this shows pps can not be primed to listen to specific content in the unattended ear. numbers are not important to pass through the attentional barrier

Question 45

overall conclusions of moray

Answer 45

1. an identification paradox exists - the content of the rejected message is ignored but does not prevent a response to ones own name. 2. all verbal content in the rejected message is lost. 3.subjectively important messages can penetrate the block 4. it is difficult to make neutral messages important enough to penetrate the block

Question 46

what is inattentional blindness

Answer 46

when you are focusing on a primary task, you become unaware of the surroundings

Question 47

aim of simons and chabris

Answer 47

to investigate the influence of several factors on inattentional blindness, including: 1. transparent/opaque 2. easy/hard tasks 3. unusualness of event - umbrella/gorilla 4. if the primary task shares common features with the event, are we more likely to spot it?

Question 48

method and sample of simons and chabris

Answer 48

lab experiment with independent measures. 228 undergrads volunteer sampling iowa, USA

Question 49

procedure of simons and chabris

Answer 49

tape created lasting 75 seconds. each tape with 2 teams of 3 players. one team wore black shirts, the other wore white shirts. the players were passing a basketball between them. tape was played on a screen of sizes 13" - 36" pps were instructed count number of passes of a specific team. after watching the tape they were asked 4 questions: 1. did you notice anything unusual when counting number of passes? 2. did you notice anything other than the 6 players? 3. did you see anyone else other than the 6 players appear on screen? 4. did you see a gorilla/woman carrying an umbrella walk across the screen? they were asked if they had taken part in a study like this, and then debriefed and shown the tapes again so they could leave fully informed.

Question 50

manipulations of the procedure of simons and chabris

Answer 50

1. unusualness of the unexpected event - either or woman with an umbrella or someone dressed as a gorilla would enter the screen 2. clarity of view - whether the event and the teams were filmed separately then superimposed, appearing transparent, or filmed together, so appeared opaque 3. common features of task and event - if pps were counting the black team passes whose colour was the same as the gorilla 4. easy or hard task - easy, all passes of a team or hard, number of each different pass

Question 51

results of simons and chabris

Answer 51

results of 192/228 were analysed. 54% noticed event and 46% did not. opaque vs transparent - 67% vs 42% easy vs hard - 64% vs 45% umbrella vs gorilla - 65% vs 44%

Question 52

conclusions of simons and chabris

Answer 52

around 50% of people will show in attentional blindness. this is affected by: difficulty of task, similarity of event compared to task.