Cognitive approaches to psychology Flashcards
Models of memory
- Multi-store model of memory
2. Working memory model
Multi-store model of memory (MSM)’s creator + year
Atkinson & Shiffrin 1968
Multi-store model of memory’s concept
o 3 stores of memory (sensory memory, STM & LTM)
o All differs in encoding, capacity, and duration
1. Sensory memory:
- Encodes: pays attention to the five sensory
information, if not, it decays, if there’s attention
given it moves into STM
- Capacity: very limited
- Duration: very limited
2. Short-term memory:
- Encodes: rehearsal of information, if not, it’s
forgotten or displaced, if there’s enough rehearsal
it moves into LTM
- Capacity: limited in 7 +/- 2 chucks of information
- Duration: approx. 30 seconds without rehearsal
3. Long-term memory:
- Capacity: unlimited
- Duration: unlimited
Glanzer and Cunitz’s year
1966
Glanzer and Cunitz’s aim
to investigate how filler task would affect the serial positioning effect
Glanzer and Cunitz’s sample
46 army enlisted men
Glanzer and Cunitz’s method + procedure
Experiment w/ repeated measures
- Researchers read out a set of 5 words in three recalling conditions
- They had to do a free recall task, immediately, 10 sec filler task & 30 sec filler task
Glanzer and Cunitz’s findings
o Immediately recalling showed both signs of serial positioning effect (Primacy effect - recalling as the individual is able to rehearse and repeated the word enough to transfer it from STM to LTM store. Recency effect - recalling due to it being the last word that was given attention to, which is still active within the STM store.)
o Filler tasks only showed signs of primacy effect (as the information had already been transferred to LTM store, which prevented it from decaying, while the words at the end of the list decayed as the STM store was unable to continuously perform rehearsal)
o This effect was more significant in the 30 sec filler task condition
Glanzer and Cunitz’s evaluation
+ The study supports the idea of multiple stores (STM and LTM stores)
+ Provides the duration of information that stays in the STM store without rehearsal (~30 seconds)
- Controlled lab study + highly controlled variables, but there is no random allocation of participants to experimental conditions so it is not a true experiment.
- Low ecological validity (participants aren’t usually given a list of 5 words to remember without additional purpose given to remembering it)
- Small + culturally specific sample = low generalizability to other populations
H.M Milner’s year
1966
Milner’s aim
to better understand the effects that the surgery (which removed parts of his hippocampus) had had on patient HM
Milner’s sample
H.M (suffered from severe seizures => medial temporal lobe + hippocampus region got removed
Milner’s findings
o H.M was unable to acquire new episodic memory of events and semantic knowledge about the world.
o Unable to transfer knowledge from STM to LTM
o Hippocampus area is responsible of the formation of memories
o H.M still retained procedural memories (i.e how to ride a bike)
Milner’s evaluation
+ provided detailed qualitative information and insight
+ permitting research on unethical situation
+ high ecological validity (no variables were manipulated and HM was observed in his natural environment)
- unable to generalize the results
- difficult to replicate the procedures
- researcher bias
- time-consuming
Multi-store memory model’s evaluation
+ Large based research supporting the concept of distinct stores (e.g STM store and LTM store)
+ Suggests an explanation of how memory is encoded and displaced/ decayed
- Oversimplifies the process of memorizing information
- Assumes there are only 3 stores, there could be more than 3
- Procedural memory (e.g how to ride a bike) isn’t encoded systematically
- Vagueness surrounding the capacity and duration that LTM store has
- Doesn’t explain memory distortion
- Doesn’t explain the ability to do
Working memory model’s year + creator
1974, Baddeley and Hitch
Working memory model’s concept
A more specific and better model to understand the components of the STM store.
Consists of 4 elements:
1. Central executive - in charge of allocating
resources between visuospatial sketchpad and
phonological loop
2. Visuospatial sketchpad - holds visual and spatial
resources/ information
3. Phonological loop - holds auditory information
(Inner ear - holds sound passively + inner voice -
re-words audio prolonging memory)
4. Episodic buffer - integrates information from
sketchpad and loop into LTM
Baddeley & Hitch’s year
1976
Baddeley & Hitch’s aim
to investigate whether individuals can use different parts of the working memory model at the same time
Baddeley & Hitch’s sample
12 people
Baddeley & Hitch’s method + procedure
Experiment
1. Asked the participants to perform two tasks simultaneously
o digit span task - repeating list of numbers
(increasing)
o verbal reasoning - answering true or false
questions
Baddeley & Hitch’s findings
o Participants could use different parts at the same time (phonological loop - activated to perform digit span task while the central executive activated the reasoning and logical processing)
o Despite small delays there were no errors
Baddeley & Hitch’s evaluation
+ easily replicated which would increase the reliability of the results
+ Participants had inform consent
- No external variables were controlled (e.g age, IQ score)
- Can’t generalize the findings
- Small sample size
- Low ecological validity due to the lab environment
Working Memory Model’s evaluation
+ Explains parallel processing/ doing 2 things simultaneously
+ Model is based on evidence from lab experiments, which controlled for confounding variables
+ Brain scans showed there’s different parts that the brain uses for verbal and visual tasks
- Too simplistic and vague (the function of central executive is unclear)
- Lab experiment has low ecological validity which doesn’t represent everyday life
- Doesn’t explain memory distortion or how emotion affects memory
Dual system model’s creator
Tversky and Kahneman
Attempts to explain two systems people use when processing information
Dual system model’s concept
System 1: o Fast o Effortless o Automatic o Intuitive o Prone to errors and cognitive biases o Mental shortcuts System 2: o Slow o Requires a lot of cognitive effort o Deliberate o Mental work + concentration o Not prone to errors
Bechara et al’s year
2000
Bechara et al’s aim
To compare the decision-making of people with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFCs), which has been shown to play a role in regulating behavior, to a healthy control group
Bechara et al’s sample
17 healthy participants + 8 people with lesion in vmPFC
Bechara et al’s method + procedure
Quasi-experiment w/ repeated measures
- Asked the sample to pick a card out of 1/4 decks for 100 trials
- Decks A&C: low initial reward and risk
- Decks B&D: high initial reward and risk
Bechara et al’s findings
o Healthy participants usually took 20 to 30 trials to see the pattern
o Healthy participants switched from system 1 to system 2 once they saw the pattern
o Those with lesions in their vmPFC continued to choose decks B&D
o Those with lesions in their vmPFC were unable to activate their system 2 thinking and processing
o Suggests vmPFC’s role in regulating impulsive and automatic thinking
Bechara et al’s evaluation
+ Researchers received consent + participant confidentiality & anonymity
+ Brought insight to vmPFC role in human behaviour without causing harm or being too invasive
- Small sample size
- Lowers generalizability
- Low ecological validity (handles fake money)
- No cause-effect inference
Alter & Oppenheimer’s year
2007
Alter & Oppenheimer’s aim
to investigate the effect of cognitive disfluency (rational thinking over intuitive thinking)
Alter & Oppenheimer’s sample
40 Princeton students
Alter & Oppenheimer’s method + procedure
Experiment
- The participants were required to take a cognitive reflection test (CBT) with 3 questions in two conditions
- Easy to read font
- Hard to read font
Alter & Oppenheimer’s findings
o 10% of easy to read font got all the questions correct
o 65% of hard to read font got all the questions correct
o Hard to read font required the participant to pause and think about the statement
o Slowing down activates system 2 processing hence, using a more logical and requires more cognitive effort to think about the answer.
Alter & Oppenheimer’s evaluation
\+ Support system 1 and 2 model \+ Controlled certain external variables (e.g the cognitive reflection test questions + answers) - Small and culturally biased sample - Low generalizability - Low ecological validity
Illusory correlation
Confirmation Bias
The belief that two phenomena are connected when they are not (e.g stereotypes)
Overlooking information that contradicts what they already believe (only pays attention to confirm what they believe about a group while ignoring those behaviors contrary to their beliefs)
Snyder and Swann’s year
1978
Snyder and Swann’s aim
To investigate how perception/ reconvened notion (stereotypes) and confirmation bias on people
Snyder and Swann’s sample
Female college students
Snyder and Swann’s method + procedure
- Female participants were told that they would meet a person who was either introverted (reserved) or extroverted (outgoing)
- They were asked to prepare a set of questions for the person they were going to meet.
Snyder and Swann’s findings
- Study showed that the participants wrote questions that were consistent with whom they were expecting to meet.
Introvert questions: “What do you dislike about parties?” + “Are there times where you wish you could be more outgoing?”
Extrovert questions: “What do you do in a liven up party?” - This belief is biased because we pay attention to behaviors that confirm what they believe about a group and ignore those behaviours contrary to their beliefs.
- Researchers concluded that the questions asked confirmed participants’ stereotypes of each personality type of each personality type so that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy - for example because they believed he was an introvert they asked him questions which made him appear to be one.
- Evidence for illusory correlation.
Synder & Swann’s evaluation
– Lab setting
– Low ecological validity (not what commonly happens in real-life)
– No control group
– No cause and effect relationship inferred (does not take into account of other factors that may impact TDM)
– Gender bias
– Lowers representational generalizability (females only = results do not provide how other genders may respond to the task)
Hamilton & Gifford’s year
1976
Hamilton & Gifford’s aim
to investigate how the co-occurrence of two distinctive events may result in an illusory correlation
Hamilton & Gifford’s sample
104 undergrad
Hamilton & Gifford’s method + procedure
Experiment
- Read series of sentences describing group A or group B members doing desirable or undesirable behaviors
- Undesirable behaviours were less frequent (9:4 ratio)
- Group B sentences were less likely to occur, depicted as the minority group (1/2 as likely compared to group A sentences)
Hamilton & Gifford’s findings
o Generally, participants significantly overestimating group B members performing undesirable behaviours
o Due to the perceived correlation with the appearance of sentences describing group B members and sentences describing undesirable behaviours
o Encountering both undesirable and group B sentences makes it more memorable, which is more ingrained within the sample’s memory
