Cognitive approach (new)

Question 1

Reconstructive memory

Answer 1

The idea was introduced by Bartlett in the 1930s and it claims that our episodic memories are not like photos or recordings of events. The memories are reconstructed based on details from the actual event but also schemas and even post-event information (meaning for example media, discussions with and suggestions by others or leading sentences). We reconstruct our memories by piecing together actual details from the event with relevant schemas that are activated for that type of event. During this process we often make assumptions about what should have happened, and we fill in the gaps based on our past experiences, stereotypes, personal beliefs, etc. In this process, we may distort memories. We don’t process information passively, we process information in an active attempt to understand it. Also, memories seem to be slightly reconstructed every time we access them. When we retrieve a memory to short-term memory, the memory becomes fragile (malleable) and can be influenced by schemas, suggestions, post-event information. The actual memory is then mixed with the schemas, suggestions or post-event information and a slightly changed version of the memory is stored. This process is called reconsolidation.

The most recent research on memory indicates that memories may be reconstructed every time they are retrieved and then reconsolidated. There is also biological evidence that this is the case. One way of applying this knowledge is to have phobia or PTSD patients retrieve memories and then reconstruct memories. Whether memory is reconstructed is testable using lab experiments that can manipulate factors which are assumed to reconstruct memory (such as leading questions in Loftus and Palmer’s study) and they show cause and effect. We know from this research that leading questions can cause reconstruction.. HOwever these types of studies are often artificial in nature. When watching a video of a car crash, one does not experience the emotions that one would experience when actually seeing a real car accident. Thus, emotion or stress, which are conditions normal for most eye-witnesses, is absent in her research. Neisser and Harsh illustrate a different way of testing the reconstructive nature of memory, in a longitudinal study, where they check the accuracy of memories at a later date. Also, research on the reconstructive nature of memory can be applied to understand false eyewitness testimonies and how their memories can be reconstructed, for example, and it has been used in order to improve the process of gathering data from eyewitnesses since memories of eyewitnesses can be questioned. There are also naturalistic studies on, for example, Holocaust survivors where the researchers compare memories of the survivors with historical data, and these studies also show that memories may be reconstructed.

Studies
Neisser and Harsch, Loftus and Palmer

Question 2

Neisser and Harsch

Answer 2

Neisser & Harsch (1992) decided to do a study to investigate if the claim that flashbulb memories are not reconstructive is true. On the day of the accident, he asked his students to write a short description of how they heard the news about the accident. They were asked a series of questions including: What time was it? How did you hear it? Where were you? And who was with you? They were also asked how much television coverage of the event they had watched. 2 ½ years later they were given the same questionnaire. This time, in addition to the questions asked on the first questionnaire, they were also asked to rate how sure they were of their answers. The findings showed that although the participants were very confident of their memories, the mean score for correct answers to the questions was 3 / 7. The students had misremembered the events in many of the cases, which they assumed were “flashbulb memories.” (Remember that they were not all distorted) The study shows that our flashbulb memories are not as reliable as we would like to believe. Instead, the students most likely reconstructed the events based on a combination of probability (the usual behavior at that time of day) or based on other information that they have heard over the years about the event.

The study was a case study. The strength of this method is that it was both longitudinal and prospective. There was also method triangulation - both questionnaires and interviews were used. Unlike Brown and Kulik, they tested the accuracy of the flashbulb memories. The limitation is that it cannot be replicated but there are many studies using many different stressful events that seem to indicate the same thing. In this study, there was participant attrition - that is, participants who dropped out of the study over time, which is a problem because this may influence the results. The study has high ecological validity. The researcher did not manipulate any variables and the study was not done under highly controlled conditions. The study was naturalistic. Although this is good for ecological validity, it is difficult to eliminate the role of confounding variables. There was no control over the participants’ behaviour between the first questionnaire and the second. We have no idea how often this memory was discussed or how often the participants were exposed to media about the event. It is possible that the confidence levels were higher than they should have been as a result of demand characteristics - that is, since the participants were asked to verify their level of confidence, they could have increased their ratings to please the researcher or avoid social disapproval for claiming not remember an important day in their country’s history. There are several studies of different events - like September 11th - which seem to have the same results. This demonstrates the transferability of the findings of this study to other situations.

Question 3

Loftus and Palmer

Answer 3

Loftus & Palmer (1974) aimed to investigate whether the use of leading questions would affect estimation of speed. (The independent variable was the intensity of the verb used in the critical question and the dependent variable was the estimation of speed). Films of traffic accidents were shown and then they were asked to give an account of the accident and then they answered a questionnaire with one critical question asking them to estimate the speed of the cars: “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” The critical word “hit’” was replaced by ‘contacted’, ‘collided’, ‘bumped’ or ‘smashed’ in the other conditions. The results showed that using the word ‘smashed’ would result in higher estimation of speed than using the word ‘hit’. It may be that the way the question is formed results in a change in the participant’s mental representation of the accident, i.e. the verb “smashed” activates a cognitive schema of a severe accident that may change the participant’s memory of the accident.

Lab experiments may be problematic in the sense that they do not necessarily reflect how people remember in real life. There may be a problem of low ecological validity. A support for this point could be that the films shown in the experiment were made for teaching purposes and therefore the participants did not experience the same kind of emotion that they would have experienced if it had been a real accident.
confounding variables can be controlled so that it is really the effect of the independent variable that is measured. This was the case in this experiment and Loftus and Palmer could rightfully claim that they had established a cause-effect relationship between the independent variable (the intensity of the critical word) and the dependent variable (estimation of speed). The fact that the experiment used students as participants has also been criticized because students are not representative of a general population. In addition, they were most likely young and inexperienced drivers, so this may have influenced their ability to estimate the speed of the cars. That being said, most people would have a problem with estimating the speed of a car. High control of extraneous variables and standardization lead to high internal validity. The study has been replicated many times and therefore it is also reliable in its results Participant variability could have influenced the results because it was an independent groups design

Question 4

Influence of emotion

Answer 4

Flashbulb Memory Theory argues that when a memory is created of an event that is both emotional and of personal importance, it is more likely to be vivid, accurate, and not distorted by post-event information. Brown and Kulik’s model of flashbulb memory argues that our prior knowledge (schema) helps us to decide whether something is important or not. Then, two factors play a role in the creation of the flashbulb memory - an emotional reaction (surprise) and overt rehearsal. Brown and Kulik also suggested that there are biological mechanisms that are responsible for the creation of these highly personal memories.

Although there is cognitive and biological support for the theory of Flashbulb memories, it appears that emotional memories may also be distorted. It is possible that the students in Neisser and Harsh’s study did not experience high levels of emotion - or that it was not personal enough to result in overt rehearsal. One of the problems with the theory is that is not possible to reliably measure one’s level of emotion at a given time - or measure their level of overt rehearsal. Also, flashbulb memory may be culturally biased. Research has shown that the focus on the individual during a national tragedy may be more common in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic ones. Still, there is research that shows that the adrenaline and the amygdala play a role in the creation of emotional memories, regardless of their level of accuracy.

Studies
Kulkofsky, Brown and Kulik

Question 5

Brown and Kulik

Answer 5

The original study by Brown and Kulik asked 40 black and 40 white American male participants to fill out a questionnaire asking them what they remembered about the deaths of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr, as well as of someone they personally knew. Some of the questions were: Where were you when you heard about the event? and What were you doing when you heard about the event?
The researchers found that 90% of the participants recalled a significant amount of detail about the day when Kennedy was assassinated. But there was a difference in their memories based on the personal relevance of the event. 75% of black participants had flashbulb memories of the murder of Martin Luther King, compared to 33% of white participants.

There is no way to determine whether the memories stated by the participants are accurate.
Because of the national importance of these events, the probability that demand characteristics affected the results is very high. Do you remember the assassination of our president? Of course, you do.
There was no way to test the individual’s level of surprise upon hearing the event. Although it can be assumed that the participants would have been surprised to hear about the assassination of a public official, this emotional response cannot be measured.
In spite of the fact that Brown & Kulik argued that flashbulb memories are the result of a biological mechanism, there is no evidence of any such mechanism in this study. However, as we will see below, there is some evidence that emotional memories may be formulated in a different way than non-emotional memories.

Question 6

Ethical considerations in the study of reliability of cognitive processes

Answer 6

Several studies investigating memory distortion and false memories make use of deception. There are two types of deception used in psychological research – deception by omission and deception by commission. Loftus and Palmer carried out a study on the misinformation effect by using deception by omission – that is, leaving out information about the study when getting consent. Participants were asked to watch films of car accidents. They were then given a questionnaire which asked them for information about the film that they saw. The key question was “How fast was the car going when it hit the other car?” However, there were five different conditions. The verb in the question was changed with different intensities (contacted, crashed, etc) to see if the memory of the speed was affected by the way the leading question was phrased. In this case, the researchers had told the participants that they were testing their skills as an eyewitness, but they did not tell them exactly what the researcher was testing. This is common practice in psychology.

The researcher has to justify that the deception was necessary and that no harm would come to the individual as a result. Often the reason that deception is used is to avoid demand characteristics; if the participants know what the goal of the experiment is, they may change their natural behavior to either help the research (expectancy effect) or not help the researcher (screw you effect). In this case, it is unlikely that the act of deception itself would have led to undue stress; however, the act of watching a video of a car crash might. But the participants were informed about the videos prior to giving their consent and the videos were taken from drivers education films and were not in any way traumatic. If they had surprised the participants with traumatic car crash videos, this would have been potentially undue stress or harm.

Loftus and Pickrell used deption by comission when creating false memories of participants being lost in a mall

Ethical considerations are an important part of psychology. Following ethics not only protects participants, but it helps to develop trust between participants and the field of psychology. Without participants, we cannot do research. When ethical considerations are not followed, there needs to be a justification that should be reviewed by an ethics panel. Deception, for example, must be justified and its potential effect on participants should be discussed. Debriefing, anonymity, and the right to withdraw are important ways to protect participants when they feel that this deception was not justified or that the study is stressful for them.

Question 7

Loftus and Pickrell

Answer 7

The aim of the study was to determine if false memories of autobiographical events can be created through the power of suggestion.
3 males and 21 females were the participants. Before the study, a parent or sibling of the participant was contacted and asked two questions. First, could you retell three childhood memories of the participant? Second, do you remember a time when the participant was lost in a mall?

The participants then received a questionnaire in the mail. There were four memories that they were asked to write about and then mail back the questionnaire to the psychologists. Three events were real and one was “getting lost in the mall.” They were instructed that if they didn’t remember the event, they should simply write “I do not remember this.”

The participants were interviewed twice over a period of four weeks. They were asked to recall as much information as they could about the four events. Then they were asked to rate their level of confidence about the memories on a scale of 1 - 10. After the second interview, they were debriefed and asked if they could guess which of the memories was the false memory.
About 25% of the participants “recalled” the false memory. However, they also ranked this memory as less confident than the other memories and they wrote less about the memory on their questionnaire.

Although this is often seen as strong evidence of the power of suggestion in creating false memories, only 25% had them. The study does not tell us why some participants were more susceptible to these memories than others.
It was possible to verify the memories through the involvement of parents and siblings.
Ecological validity was high as people were talking about their childhood memories.
The research has been applied in the areas of eyewitness testimony and therapy.
It is difficult to know whether this is a “true” false memory or a distortion of another memory of being lost.
There are ethical concerns about the deception used in this study.
The fact that the questionnaire was filled out at home could lead to contamination - that is, they could have consulted with someone.
There could be demand characteristics - such as social desirability effect.

Question 8

Ethical considerations in the study of emotion and cognition

Answer 8

Ethical considerations are an important part of the design of any study. The cognitive approach studies cognitive processes such as memory. One type of memory investigated is flashbulb memories. They are detailed, accurate and vivid memories as a result of experiencing something emotional and personally relevant. When investigating flashbulb memories, it is important to try to avoid undue stress of the participants. Also, the participants must have the right to withdraw.

The most basic ethical standard for researchers when conducting research is the protection from undue stress or harm. According to the ethical guidelines, it is important to make sure that no harm is done to the participants. It is not permitted to humiliate participants or force them to reveal private information. And it is important that there is nothing done to the participant that will have a permanent effect on their physical or psychological health. Undue stress is a higher level of stress than an individual may experience on a day to day basis. The general rule is that participants should leave the study in the same state as they entered the study.

Question 9

Research methods in the study of emotion and cognition

Answer 9

One method used when studying the influence of emotion on the cognitive process memory is questionnaires. Questionnaires were used by Brown and Kulik when investigating flashbulb memories - detailed, accurate and vivid memories as a result of experiencing something emotional and personally relevant.

Questionnaires are a written self-report technique where participants are given a pre-set number of questions to respond to. They can be administered in person, by post, online, over the telephone, or to a group of participants simultaneously. It will include open ended questions (with pre-determined sets of answers or using likert scales, etc.), closed ended questions (with no restrictions on how participants write the responses), or a combination of both. The data collected can be quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative data is numerical and measurable. Qualitative data is non-numerical, written information that should be analyzed further.

Questionnaires are often used when investigating flashbulb memories because they want to know where the participants were, what they felt while something emotional and surprising happened. They distribute standardized forms (in that all participants get the same list of questions) to all participants, in this case to 80 male Americans. The questions were open ended, meaning that the participants were supposed to describe where they were, etc. They used questionnaires because it is a quick and easy way to get answers to these questions. Brown and Kulik used the questionnaire once, and collected retrospective data.

Question 10

Models of memory

Answer 10

Schema theory
Flashbulb memory theory
Other models that you may know from the IA (levels of processing theory, etc.)
MSM (Just remember, you don’t know how to evaluate it, so use it only in SAQs unless you learn it on your own. No need though.)
WMM (Same here)

Question 11

Working memory model

Answer 11

Working memory is a kind of mental workspace, which provides a temporary platform that holds relevant information for use in any cognitive task. Once the task is completed, the information can quickly disappear and make space for a new round of information processing. Baddeley and Hitch (1974) proposed the working memory model and suggested that short-term memory (STM) is not a single store but rather consists of a number of different stores. They suggested that there are different stores for visual and auditory processing and that we perform less well if we have two visual or two auditory tasks at the same time, but we can perform better if we have one visual and one auditory task at the same time. (In lab experiments, if participants perform two tasks at the same time that both involve listening, they perform them less well than if they did them separately. They had also noticed that if participants performed two tasks simultaneously that involved listening and vision, there was no problem. The procedure where participants carry out two tasks at once is known as a dual-task technique. This just means that participants are performing two tasks at the same time and they are measured on performance.)

Studies
Warrington and Shallice (KF)

Question 12

Warrington and Shallice (KF)

Answer 12

Warrington and Shallice (1970) used the case study method and investigated the brain damaged patient KF, who had been in a motorcycle accident. This study provides biological evidence for the WMM. KF was investigated using many different types of tests. Among other things, he was presented with words and numbers orally (meaning that he heard them only) or visually (meaning in written form). The results showed that KFs long-term memory (LTM) after the accident was not damaged. He was able to learn new things but he quickly forgot numbers and words when they were presented to him ORALLY but he was able to remember the words or numbers when presented to him VISUALLY. So, his impairment was mainly for verbal information and his memory for visual information was largely unaffected. This supports the claim of the WMM, that there are separate working memory stores. There is one for visual information (In the model it is called the visuospatial sketchpad) and one for verbal information (In the model it is called the phonological loop), since damage to the brain could lead to one being damaged and one being unaffected.

Question 13

Multi store model

Answer 13

The multi-store model of memory (MSM) was the first to separate memory into sensory, short-term and long-term memory. The model argues/claims that we are bombarded with sensory stimuli/information. When we pay attention to the stimuli they pass through sensory memory and into short-term memory. There the information is held until either other information displaces it or, if we rehearse it, it is moved to long-term memory. When we remember something, we are moving that information from long-term memory back into short-term memory so that it can be used. This model was supported by Milner’s study of HM.

Studies
HM

Question 14

Schema theory

Answer 14

Schema theory is a theory of how humans process incoming information, relate it to existing knowledge and use it. Humans are active processors of information. People do not passively respond to incoming information. They interpret and integrate it to make sense of their experiences, but they are not always aware of it. If information is missing, the brain fills in the blanks based on existing schemas. Schemas can be defined as mental representations of knowledge stored in our mind and they are based on prior knowledge and expectations. Schemas are energy-saving devices, meaning that we use schemas and save mental energy since they help us understand and predict the world we live in, but schema processing may also lead to memory distortion and errors in decision making.The term schema was first used by Bartlett (1932). What we remember is influenced by what we already know and expect based on our prior experiences. Schemas may influence memory both during encoding and during retrieval of memory.

Schema theory is testable and there is empirical support, for example, experimental studies by Bartlett, Brewer & Treyens, Bransford and Johnson.The studies above provide empirical support for the theory, but most research consists of controlled lab studies which lack ecological validity. There is also biological research to support the way in which the brain categorizes input. These findings suggest that our brains automatically sort information and classify it, in the same manner which schema theory predicts. Schema theory has been applied to help us understand how memory works, how schemas can both help us fill in the blanks and remember better but also how schemas can distort memory. Schema theory has also been applied to abnormal psychology (for example, in cognitive behavioral therapy - CBT for depression and anxiety). It is a robust theory that has many applications across many fields of psychology. Some argue that the concept of schema is too vague and hypothetical to be useful. Schema cannot be observed. Schema theory is applied across cultures. There is no apparent bias in the research, although most of the early research was done in the West. The theory helps to predict behaviour. We can predict, for example, what types of information will be best recalled when given a list of words. We can predict trends in how memory is distorted, such as omitting information that is not of high relevance to the individual, are commonly seen in individuals recalling a news story. However, we cannot predict exactly what an individual will recall.

Studies
Bransford and Johnson, Allford and Postman

Question 15

Bransford and Johnson

Answer 15

The aim of the study was to determine if schema activation would result in a better understanding and recall of an ambiguous text.
The sample was made up of 52 participants. They were allocated to one of three conditions. In the No Topic group (n = 17), participants heard a passage with no additional information. In the Topic After group (n = 17), participants were told the topic of the passage after hearing it. In the Topic Before group (n = 18), participants were told the topic of the passage before hearing it.
All participants were told that they were going to hear a tape-recorded passage. They were told that they would later be asked to recall the passage as accurately as possible. All participants were tested at the same time, but they had different answer booklets. For those who were in the Topic-Before group, their instruction sheet said, “The paragraph you will hear will be about washing clothes.” After listening to the passage, they were asked to rate their comprehension of the passage on a 1 - 7 scale. Then, on the final page of the booklet, they were asked to recall the passage as accurately as possible. The Topic After group’s instructions included, “It may help you to know that the paragraph was about washing clothes.” Participants were given five minutes for recall. (Please see the actual passage below).
The researchers had decided on “idea units” before the experiment. Each participant’s summary was independently scored by two judges, using the list of 18 idea units. The results can be seen in the table below.

Cause and effect can be determined (relationship between knowing the topic before and the ability to recall and comprehend) because the IV (when the schema was activated) is manipulated and there is a high level of control of extraneous variables (High level of control means high internal validity). The procedure is standardized and could be easily replicated, allowing us to determine if the results are reliable. In this study, one extraneous variable that was controlled was that the same paragraph was read to all participants. The study has low ecological validity because of the high control of variables. The use of an independent groups design means that participant variability may have influenced the results - serving as a confounding variable. The participants in the different conditions could have had different memory abilities. The study has high heuristic validity meaning that results can be applied to education, for example. If students read ahead and activate schemas about a topic, they will comprehend and remember a lecture better.(THis paragraph evaluates the study. Not all of this is necessary, but try not to just list a lot of strengths and limitations. Instead, state something, explain what it means and state how it relates to this particular study.)

Question 16

Allport and Postman

Answer 16

One study that shows how memory can be distorted by social schemas is Allport and Postmans classic study from 1947. A social schema is a schema of a group. One example is stereotypes of blacks.. Allport and Postman investigated how memory of a story changes when it is passed from person to person (just like rumors are passed from person to person). They showed participants different pictures in many experiments but in one of the studies they showed a picture of a subway scene, of two men evidently engaged in an argument. While looking at the picture, the first participant is asked to describe the picture. Then the participant is asked to describe the picture to another person from memory, then that person describes it to a third, and then up to six or seven participants. In the picture with the subway scene, the better-dressed man is black (which would not be expected according to our stereotypes) and the white man is holding a razor (same here). When the descriptions of the different pictures were retold, the details tended to change (meaning memory was distorted). The most important change with this particular picture was that in about half the cases, the razor was reported as being held by the black man instead of the white man at some point in the chain. Presumably, the white participants used a schema which included the belief that black men are more prone to violence than white men. This study indicates that memory is reconstructed based on schemas. Memory of what they saw or were told changed with every time it was retold, based on the participants’ own social schemas or stereotypes of blacks.

One limitation of the study might be low temporal validity, which means the validity of the findings in relation to progress of time (that the results would change with time and that the results can not be applied today), since this study was done in the US in the 1940s. The study is very old, but more recent research indicates that it is relevant today. A strength of the study is that it is easily replicable and therefore reliability can be checked. This is because the study is standardized. In this study, it is assumed that racial schemas have influenced the participants memory of the picture, but schemas are hypothetical constructs and they are not easily measured in a study.

Question 17

Thinking and decision making

Answer 17

People are prone to errors in thinking and decision-making due to the way we process information. There are trends in how we make these errors; those trends are called cognitive biases. These errors often occur as we are cognitive misers so we prefer to quickly come up with an answer as opposed to logically think through a problem. The Dual Processing Model explains this as a tendency to choose System 1 over System 2 thinking. System one thinking is faster but is more prone to being incorrect. Two examples of cognitive biases are anchoring bias and the peak-end rule. Anchoring bias is when we base our estimates around a given value (the anchor) even if the value is implausible or highly unlikely. We do this because we are uncertain of how to make a decision so we use the anchor as a reference point for making what we believe is our own decision. The peak-end rule is about how we tend to remember things either at the peak of the experience or at the end. This is done because we have difficulties remembering the average experience over time, so we make decisions based on the most salient information.

Strength and limitations of the dual process model
Strengths
There is biological evidence that different types of thinking may be processed in different parts of the brain.
The Wason selection task and other tests for cognitive biases (see the next part of this chapter) are reliable in their results.
Limitations
The model can seem to be overly reductionist as it does not clearly explain how (or even if) these modes of thinking interact or how our thinking and decision-making could be influenced by emotion.
The definitions of System 1 and System 2 are not always clear. For example, fast processing indicates the use of System 1 rather than System 2 processes. However, just because processing is fast does not mean it is done by System 1. Experience can influence System 2 processing to go faster.

Anchoring bias
TESTABLE and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE The anchoring bias is testable using the experimental method, so cause and effect can be inferred, and there is a lot of experimental evidence for the anchoring bias, such as the studies by Tversky and Kahneman as well as English and Mussweiler. These studies tend to lack ecological validity (English and Mussweiler used an imaginary case, for example). But it is difficult to measure the actual use of such biases in real life situations. (Example: Remember the example of buying a lamp at the market. It is possible that an anchor may play a key role in determining how much you are willing to pay for the lamp - but in this naturalistic situation there are also other factors: how much money I have to spend, the amount of time I am willing to spend bargaining, my emotional state at the time of the purchase, whether I like the shop owner or my past experience in buying lamps. And that is not a complete list.).
APPLICATION Results from this type of research can be applied, for example by marketers and other persuaders to influence our decisions. Marketers may influence prices or quantities we buy, which may be seen as a negative application of research results. However, it is also possible to influence people in a positive way. The theory thus has high heuristic validity. Application also means can it explain many different behaviors and it can (why certain marketing strategies work, why calculations may be incorrect, why judges may be misled by a prosecutor…)
UNBIASED The evidence may be biased. Much of the research is done with Western university student samples under highly controlled - and rather artificial - conditions. Many of the questions given to the students would be of little interest to them and were not asked in a way that was natural (however, English and Mussweiler used a relevant task). The studies often lack ecological validity as well as cross-cultural support - assuming that cognitive biases are universal.

Studies
Tversky and Kahneman, Englich and Mussweiler

Question 18

Tversky and Kahneman

Answer 18

In this study, high school students were used as participants. Participants in the “ascending condition” were asked to quickly estimate the value of 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8 in five seconds.
Those in the “descending condition” were asked to quickly estimate the value of 8 X 7 X 6 X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 X 1.
Since we read from left to right, the researchers assumed that group 1 would use “1” as an anchor and predict a lower value that the group that started with “8” as the anchor. The expectation was that the first number seen would bias the estimate of the value by the participant.
The researchers found that the median for the ascending group was 512; the median for the descending group was 2250. The actual value is 40320.

The study is a very simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the reliability of the results. The study is highly controlled and has high internal validity. It can be inferred that the anchor was the cause of the higher (or lower) estimates by the students.
The experiment has low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. It is not too often in life that we have only five seconds to estimate the value of something! It is questionable to what extent the findings can be applied. However, as shown in the studies above, there is evidence that anchoring is shown in other situations.
The researchers used the median to report the data. This allowed the researchers to diminish the influence of outliers on the reporting of the data.
The study was an independent samples design. This means that participant variability may have played a role in the results. It would be better to have a matched pairs design to attempt to have two groups with an equivalent level of maths competency.

Question 19

Englich and Mussweiler

Answer 19

To test their hypothesis that the recommended sentence proposed by a prosecutor would unduly influence a judge’s decision, the researchers used an independent samples design. This allowed the researchers to use the same case study for both conditions – the high anchor and the low anchor.
In order to control for the level of courtroom experience, the sample was made up of 19 young trial judges (15 male and 4 female) – with an average age of 29.37 and with an average of 9.34 months of experience.
The participants were given a case of alleged rape. The prosecutor in one condition demanded a sentence of 2 months vs. 34 months.
To develop the case materials, advice was sought from highly experienced trial judges. Then the case materials were tested on a group of 24 senior law students – this served as a pilot study. The average recommended prison term suggested by the law students was 17.21 months. This was then used as a basis for determining the anchors.
Participants were given the case materials along with copies of the penal code. They were asked to read through the materials and form an opinion about the case. After they had formed an opinion about the case (about 15 minutes), they were given a questionnaire. Half of the participants were told that the prosecutor demanded a 34-month sentence; while the other half were told that he demanded a 2-month sentence.
They were then asked the following questions:
Do you think that the sentence was too low, adequate, or too high?
What sentence would you recommend?
How certain are you about your sentencing decision? (a scale of 1 – 9)
How realistic do you think this case is? (a scale of 1 – 9)
The average rating for the realistic nature of the case was 7.17, with a standard deviation of 1.3. The judges’ certainty about their responses, however, was not as strong, with an average rating of 4.53 and a standard deviation of 2.29.
When presented with a low anchor of two months, the average sentence was 18.78 months, with a standard deviation of 9.11. in the high anchor condition of 34 months, the average sentence was 28.70 months, with a standard deviation of 6.53.

The study was a true experiment, allowing the researchers to infer a cause-and-effect relationship between the value of the anchor and the sentence.
The use of an independent samples design means that participant variability may have played a role in the results - serving as a confounding variable.
The sample size is small. It is difficult to generalize the findings. In addition, the sample was limited in courtroom experience - which means that the results can best be generalized to younger, less experienced judges.
The use of the pilot group helped to establish reasonable anchors. In addition, the pilot group demonstrated System 2 thinking, serving as a control group for the other two conditions, which demonstrated System 1 thinking.
The low scores on the judges’ sense of confidence indicate that they may have been aware that their judgment was being influenced by other factors.

Question 20

Rational or intuitive thinking

Answer 20

The Dual Process Model of thinking and decision-making postulates that there are two basic modes of thinking - what Stanovich and West (2000) refer to as “System 1” and “System 2.”
System 1 is an automatic, intuitive, and effortless way of thinking. System 1 thinking often employs heuristics - that is, a ‘rule’ used to make decisions or form judgments. Heuristics are mental shortcuts that involve focusing on one aspect of a complex problem and ignoring others (Lewis, 2008). This ‘fast’ mode of thinking allows for efficient processing of the often complex world around us but may be prone to errors when our assumptions do not match the reality of a specific situation. These errors may have greater consequences in our day-to-day lives because system 1 thinking is expected to create a greater feeling of certitude – certainty that our initial response is correct.
Gilbert and Gill (2000) have argued that we become more likely to use System 1 thinking when our cognitive load is high - that is, when we have lots of different things to think about at the same time, or we have to process information and make a decision quickly.
System 2 is a slower, conscious, and rational mode of thinking. This mode of thinking is assumed to require more effort. System 2 starts by thinking carefully about all of the possible ways we could interpret a situation and gradually eliminates possibilities based on sensory evidence until we arrive at a solution. Rational thinking allows us to analyze the world around us and think carefully about what is happening, why it is happening, what is most likely to happen next, and how we might influence the situation. This mode of thinking is less likely to create feelings of certitude and confidence.

Studies
Tversky and Kahneman

Question 21

Research methods in the study of cognitive processes

Answer 21

Experiments
Experiments are often used because they have several key strengths. First, because an independent variable is manipulated and its effect on a dependent variable is measured while other variables are controlled, a cause-and-effect relationship can be determined. In addition, because they are highly standardized, they may be replicated. This allows other psychologists to “redo” the experiment to attempt to get the same results. This means the reliability of the results can be tested. The data in an experiment is usually quantitative and can be statistically analyzed for significance. Finally, participants are randomly allocated to groups to avoid the characteristics of the individuals influencing the results.
One experiment was done by Loftus & Palmer (1974). They wanted to test if a person’s memory could be influenced by a leading question. Participants watched a video of a car crash and then were given a questionnaire. One of the questions was different “How fast was the car going when it x’d the other car?” Some participants had the word “smashed” and others had words like “hit” or “bumped.” The researchers found that the participants who had a verb with a higher intensity (smashed), remembered a higher speed of impact than those that had the word “bumped.”
Experiments have limitations. This situation is rather artificial – when we see an accident, there is powerful emotion which is not true when watching a video in a classroom. This means that the study lacks ecological validity.

Another research method is questionnaires. Brown and Kulik used questionnaires to study flashbulb memory – that is, vivid memories that are the result of strong emotional and personal experiences. Questionnaires are standardized in that all participants get the same list of questions. Questionnaires, unlike experiments, get mainly qualitative data and analysis looks for trends in the data, but not statistical significance. And unlike experiments, they are naturalistic. The situation is not artificial and so the studies have higher ecological validity. Unlike experiments, there are no controls for other variables that may influence the results of the study.
In their study, they asked 40 black and 40 white American male participants to fill out a questionnaire regarding the death of John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King - as well as of someone they personally knew. They were asked a series of questions about where they were when they heard about it, who they were with, what they were doing, and how they found out. They found that 90% recalled a significant amount of detail about the death of a loved one; however, social identity played a role in the flashbulb memories of the assassinations. 75% of black participants had FBMs of the death of MLK, whereas only 25% of white participants did. The researchers concluded that personal relevance plays a key role in the creation of FBMs.
One limitation of the study is that there was no way to verify the accuracy of the participants’ memories. In addition, when it came to the death of JFK or a loved one, it is possible that the social desirability effect played a role – that is, they may have said that they had memories of the president’s death because they did not want to appear “unpatriotic.”

Unlike experiments, questionnaires cannot be used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. Although they can be given to other participants to see if there is a similar result, because the data is often not quantitative and able to be statistically analyzed, it is not always possible to establish the reliability of the findings. Questionnaires on flashbulb memory also rely on retrospective data, which means it is difficult to establish the validity and reliability of the data.
Finally, a key difference between questionnaires and experiments is that in questionnaires participants are not randomly allocated to conditions. Questionnaires often use purposive samples; in other words, the participants are chosen because of a certain trait that the researchers want to study. This is also true in quasi-experiments which, like questionnaires, cannot then establish a cause-and-effect relationship.
Questionnaires are less artificial and allow the participant more “voice” than an experiment and produce richer data for analysis. Experiments isolate variables to study cause-and-effect relationships. Together these methods give us a richer understanding of cognitive processes.