Cognitive Approach Flashcards
ASSUMPTION 1:
COMPUTER ANALOGY
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGISTS explain behaviour in terms of COGNITIVE PROCESSES: THOUGHTS, FEELINGS and ATTITUDES, this approach focuses upon the INTERNAL PROCESSES of the mind. Additionally, they have tried to UNDERSTAND BEHAVIOUR by comparing the HUMAN MIND to a COMPUTER. This is known as the COMPUTER ANALOGY: information is TAKEN IN by our senses, then once INPUTTED this information is stored + processed using COGNITIVE PROCESSING. Once processed we respond to the information or it can be RECALLED when needed (output). The mind being similar to a COMPUTER is supported by the MULTI-STORE MODEL of MEMORY; ATKINSON and SHIFFRIN proposed that information is inputted into the senses (eyes, ears) and processed to the SHORT-TERM MEMORY (STM) STORE and to the LONG TERM MEMORY (LTM) STORE. It is then OUTPUTTED when required. This links to the COMPUTRER ANALOGY as it shows CLEAR INPUT, PROCESSES and OUTPUTS.
ASSUMPTION 2:
INTERNAL MENTAL PROCESSES
The FOUR MENTAL PROCESSES include: ATTENTION, PERCEPTION, LANUAGE + ,MEMORY.
Cognitivists suggest that HUMANS ARE INFORMATION PROCESSORS. All of our COGNITIVE PROCESSORS work TOGTHER in a split second in order to HELP US UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AROUND US. We can see how such processes work when we consider the experience of RECOGNISING A DOG. When we see a dog, we pay ATTENTION to it, PERCEIVE its features, search through our MEMORY STORE to match it to something we have already experienced, we use KNOWLEDGE and LANGUAGE to name it. All this takes place rapidly. PSYCHOLOGISTS research the effects of MENTAL PROCESSES through INTROSPECTION, this is where COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGISTS infer what is HAPPENING to the mind. They may study behaviour using a particular method and from the findings make ASSUMPTIONS of individual’s thought processes. GRIFFITH used INTROSPECTION to investigate the THOUGHT PROCESS of people who GAMBLE and people who don’t. He found that gamblers were MORE LIKELY to THINK IRRATIONALLY, making comments such as ‘I LOST BECAUSE I WASN’T CONCENTRATING!’ or ‘THE MACHINE LIKES ME!’ Verbal comments like those were used to make ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THEIR THINKING PROCESS.
ASSUMPTION 3:
SCHEMAS
A ‘SCHEMA’ is a MENTAL STRUCTURE used to ORGANISE KNOWLDGE + EXPRIENCES of the world, that is accessed to MAKE SENSE of SITUATIONS. They are STORED in our ‘LONG-TERM MEMORY’. Schemas for a DOG would be a TAIL, FUR and FOUR LEGS. When we see something that LOOKS LIKE A DOG, we access our SCHEMA and COMPARE it to our PAST EXPERIENCES. Generally, SCHEMAS are INFLUENCED by PAST EXPERIENCES. ALTHOUGH, sometimes they can be AMENDED by FURTHER INTERACTIONS with people and the WORLD around us. HOWEVER, this may NOT represent REALITY as they are OFTEN built upon SOCIAL EXCHANGES ( the MEDIA) rather than PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. An eg of a SCHEMA that may be AFFECTED BY STEREOTYPES is the view of the IDEAL WOMAN. There are TWO types of SCHEMAS: SCRIPT + ROLE. SCRIPT SCHEMAS are EVENTS which tell us what to EXPECT FROM AN EVENT such as going to a restaurant and expecting food. ROLE SCHEMAS tell us about DIFFERENT ROLES and their RESPONSIBILITIES like a NURSE or TEACHER. Dependent on your ROLE eg. a STUDENT, your ROLE SCHEMA makes you act DIFFERENTLY, whether you are in school or hanging out with friends.
MAIN COMPONENTS of REBT
1. The ABC model
ELLIS developed the ABC model as a way to IDENTIFY + DEAL with IRRATIONAL THOUGHTS.
A stands for the ACTIVATING EVENT- an experience which CAUSES DISTRESS + FRUSTRATION, which may lead to an IRRATIONAL BELIEF (B) and such BELIEF leads to SELF-DEFEATING CONSEQUENCES.
For eg,
ACTIVATING EVENT: you DON’T get the job at an interview
BELIEF: the job DIDN’T think you was good enough
CONSEQUENCES: you AVOID going to any job interviews in fear of REJECTION.
MAIN COMPONENTS of REBT:
2. ABCDE - DISPUTING and EFFECTS
The ABC model was EXTENDED to include DISPUTING BELIEFS + the EFFECTS of DISPUTING, the action of such CHALLENGES IRRATIONAL THOUGHTS. There are THREE types of DISPUTING.
1. LOGICAL DISPUTING challenges the LOGIC behind the SELF-DEFEATING BELIEF ‘ does it make sense to think this way?’
2. EMPIRICAL DISPUTING questions whether the belief is CONSISTENT WITH REALITY ‘is there evidence to support?’
3. PRAGMATIC DISPUTING challenges the USEFULNESS of the belief, ‘will holding this belief help me?’
It is NOT the ACTIVATING EVENT that causes the CONSEQUENCES. It is the IRRATIONAL BELIEF about the event that CAUSES the CONSEQUENCES, REBT focuses on CHALLENGING SELF-DEFEATING beliefs into MORE RATIONAL ones. The individuals can move from CATASTROPHISING to MORE RATIONAL INTERPRETATIONS of events. Thus, helping clients to become more SELF-ACCEPTING.
MAIN COMPONENTS of REBT:
3. MUSTABATORY thinking
MUSTABATORY THINKING is the SOURCE of IRRATIONAL BELIEFS, thinking that certain ideas MUST be TRUE in order for an individual to be HAPPY. ELLIS identified THREE MOST IMPORTANT IRRATIONAL BELIEFS.
- I MUST be ACCEPTED by people I FIND IMPORTANT
- I MUST do very well or I AM WORTHLESS
- The world MUST give me HAPPINESS
The consequences of such thinking results to, at the LEAST, DISAPPOINTMENT ; at the worst, DEPRESSION. For eg, an individual who FAILS ANS EXAM becomes depressed not because they failed BUT due to the IRRATIONAL BELIEF ATTACHED to such FAILURE ( FAILING MEANS I AM STUPD). These ‘MUST’ beliefs must be CHALLENGED in order to be MENTALLY HEALTHY.
MAIN COMPONENTS of REBT:
4. UNCONDITIONAL POSITIVE REGARD
ELLIS recognised an important component in SUCCESSFUL THERAPY, which was CONVINCING CLIENTS OF THEIR VALUE AS A HUMAN BEING. The role of a therapist MUST VALUE the patient at all times. This means showing UNCONDITIONAL POSITIVE REGARD (RESPECT+ APPRECIATION) - no matter what clients say or how UNREALISTIC their thoughts are, NO JUDGEMENT SHOULD BE MADE. This helps FACILITATE A CHANGE IN BELIEFS.
SCHEMAS can explain DEPRESSION.
A SCHEMA is a MENTAL STRUCTURE used to ORGANISE INFORMATION + EXPERIENCES of the world which is accessed to make sense of people. An OVERALL ASSUMPTION of the COGNITIVE APPROACH is that HOW we THINK INFLUENCES our EMOTIONS and BEHAVIOUR. BECK proposed that DEPRESSED individuals have developed NEGATIVE SCHEMAS about themselves,’ I am a bad person’, ‘the world is a dangerous place to be in’ and ‘the future is only going to worsen’. He further suggests that those with DEPRESSION develop COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS- a type of COGNITIVE BIAS or UNHELPFUL THINKING PATTERNS. They tend to ATTRIBUTE their POSITIVE TRAITS and ACCOMPLISHMENTS to EXTERNAL FACTORS such as LUCK or as being something MINOR. They also MISINTERPRET the GOODWILL, CARE and CONCERNS of OTHERS as being PITY. An EVERYDAY EVENT such as ‘burning your dinner in the oven’ COULD CREATE a DISTORTED THOUGHT such as ‘I am so stupid’; CONTRASTINGLY , it could form a RATIONAL THOUGHT alike to ‘it’s okay, I’ll order takeout’.
COGNITIVE PROCESSING can explain GAMBLING ADDICTIONS
COGNITIVISTS suggest humans are INFORMATION PROCESSORS, meaning our processes work together instantaneously to help understand the world around us. Adding on, COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGISTS have to INFER what is going on in our heads using INTROSPECTION, a technique developed by WILHELM WUNDT. Researchers suggest that GAMBLERS show a RANGE of BIASES that contribute to the DEVELOPMENT and MAINTENANCE of PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLERS. COGNITIVE BIASES are ERRORS in thinking that AFFECTS DECISIONS and JUDGEMENTS that people make. An eg of this is found in the ‘NEAR MISS BIAS’, which occurs when a GAMBLER EXPERIENCES an outcome that was NEARLY A WIN. GRIFFITHS sees this as the GAMBLER NOT FEELING THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY LOSING but CONSISTENLY NEARLY WINNING. He used INTROSPECTION to investigate gambler’s THOUGHT PROCESSES in comparison to NON-GAMBLERS. Finding that gamblers were MORE LIKELY to THINK IRRATIONALLY, making COMMENTS such as ‘I lost because I wasn’t focused’. Another eg, proposed by BLANCO ET AL, is the ‘RECALL BIAS’, which describes the TENDENCY for GAMBLERS to REMEMBER WINS and FORGET, UNDERESTIMATE OR RATIONALISE LOSSES. This COGNITIVE BIAS means that a series of LOSSES will not necessarily ACT as an INCENTIVE to STOP GAMBLING, as the PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLER believes they will INEVITABLY WIN.
METHODOLOGY of LOFTUS and PALMER
2 EXPERIMENTS were conducted in a LABORATORY, using an INDEPENDENT GROUPS DESIGN.
In EXPERIMENT 1: 45 STUDENT PPS
In EXPERIMENT 2: 150 STUDENT PPS
PROCEDURE of LOFTRUS and PALMER (1974)
EXPERIMENT 1:
PPs were shown 7 CLIPS of TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.
LENGTH ranged from 5-30 SECONDS (the CLIPS were ORIGNALLY used as part of a DRIVER SAFETY FILM). AFTER watching PPs received a QUESTIONNAIRE. They were ASKED to SUMMARISE what they had SEEN as well as ONE CRITICAL QUESTION ‘ about how fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?’ The WORD in the BLANK varied from each GROUP, (SMASHED, COLLIDED,BUMPED, HIT, CONTACTED) in total there were 5 GROUPS, 9 PPs in EACH. The ESTIMATE SPEED was MEASURED in MPH.
PROCEDURE of LOFTUS and PALMER
EXPERIMENT 2:
INVESTIGATED whether LEADING QUESTIONS simply BIAS a person’s RESPONSE or ALTERS the MEMORY that is STORED.
PART 1:
PPs were shown a FOUR SECOND clip of an ACCIDENT and then ASKED a SET of QUESTIONS including the CRITICAL QUESTION about SPEED. The PPS were divided into THREE GROUPS of 50 PPs:
GROUP 1 was asked ‘how fast were the cars going when they SMASHED into each other?’
GROUP 2 was asked ‘how fast were the cars going when they HIT each other?’
GROUP 3 was the CONTROL GROUP and were NOT EXPOSED to any QUESTION.
PART 2:
A WEEK LATER, PPs RETURNED to LAB and were ASKED FURTHER QUESTIONS about the ACCIDENT. The CRITICAL QUESTION ‘did you see any broken glass?’ was ASKED TO ALL PPs (there WASN’T any but those who thought the cars were going FASTER may ASSUME there WAS)
FINDINGS of LOFTUS and PALMER (1974)
EXPERIMENT 1:
VERB - MEAN SPEED TIME-
SMASHED: 40.8
COLLIDED: 39.3
BUMPED: 38.1
HIT: 34.0
CONTACTED: 31.8
EXPERIMENT 2:
response to QUESTION: ‘DID YOU SEE ANY BROKEN GLASS?’
RESPONSE SMASHED HIT CONTROL
YES 16 7 6
NO 34 43 44
CONCLUSIONS of LOFTUS and PALMER (1974):
The FINDINGS indicate that CHANGES IN A SINGLE WORD can SYSTEMATICALLY AFFECT a WITNESS’ ANSWER to that QUESTION.
LOFTUS and PALMER had TWO EXPLANATIONS:
1. RESPONSE-BIAS FACTORS: The DIFFERENT SPEED ESTIMATES happen because THE CRITICAL WORD (‘SMASHED’ or ‘HIT’) INFLUENCES a PERSON’S RESPONSE.
- MEMORY REPRESENTATION IS ALTERED: the CRITICAL WORD changes a PERSON’S MEMORY, thus THEIR PERCEPTION of the ACCIDENT is AFFECTED. The CRITICAL WORD ‘SMASHED’ would imply the USE OF MORE FORCE in comparison to the CRITICAL WORD ‘HIT’.
CONTEMPORARY DEBATE: EYEWITNESSES ARE RELIABLE
- EYEWITNESS RESEARCH is MISLEADING, tends to FOCUS on details that are HARD FOR US TO ESTIMATE (SPEED) or that are NOT FOCAL to the INCIDENT, which MAY BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to CORRPUTION. ADDITIONALLY, NOT ALL research suggests that POST-EVENT INFORMATION IS MESLEADING. LOFTUS showed pps slides of a man stealing a RED PURSE from a WOMAN’S BAG. PPs were later EXPOSED to info containing errors, one SUGGESTING THE BAG WAS BROWN. ALTHOUGH pps were OFTEN WRONG about PERIPHERAL ITEMS, 98% CORRECTLY REMEMBERED the PURSE was RED. Suggesting EYEWITNESSES RECOLLECTION of KEY ITEMS are MORE RESISTANT TO DISTORTION from POST-EVENT INFORMATION than PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED.
- SOME PSYCHOLOGISTS believe that WHEN WE EXPERIENCE events that are EMOTIONALLY SHOCKING we CREATE ACCURATE and LONG-LASTING MEMORY: FLASHBULB MEMORY. There is EVIDENCE that ADRENALINE ENHANCE the STORAGE of MEMORY, suggesting that EMOTION surrounding a CRIME MAY LEAD TO MORE RELIABLE MEMORIES.
