Cognitive Area Flashcards
Key assumptions about cognitive area
Mind works like a computer processor-inputting and storing and retrieving
Investigates internal mental processes influence behaviour
People make decisions about how they behave
What was the aim of loftus and palmers
To investigate the effects of language on memory
What was experiment 1 method and design in L.P
Lab and independent measures
How many participants in L.P experiment 1
45 students slept into 5 groups of 9
What was the procedure of experiment 1 in L.P
All participants shown 7 film clips and given a questionnaire to complete after each one, they were asked to give an account of accident and to answer questions relating to it
How was Order effects eliminated in L.P’s experiment 1
Groups presented with different order of films
What was the independent variable in experiment 1 of L.P
Wording of critical question: “about how fast were the cars going when they …… each other?”
Contacted, hit, bumped, collided, smashed
What were the results of experiment 1 in L.P
Smashed-40.8 Collided-39.3 Bumped-38.1 Hit-34.0 Contacted-31.8
What did loftus and Palmer say to explain/interpret the results of experiment 1
Response bias, if deciding between 30 and 40, smashed may cue the response of 40 as it suggests higher speed
Language used causes change in participants memory representation of events, very smashed may change participants memory such as that he sees that accident as more severe than it was
What was the aim of L.P second experiment
To see if participants asked the smashed question would be more likely than two other groups to report seeing broken glass when tested week later
What was the research method and design of experiment 2 in L.P
Lab and independent
How many participants took part in L.P second experiment
150, split into 3 groups of 50
What was procedure f experiment two in L.P
1 min clip of Multiple car crash with accident lasting less than4 seconds shown to each group
After they were asked critical question including smashed, hit, or not asked speed at all
Then week later asked question did you see any glass, with choice of yes or no
What were results of experiment two in L.P
Smashed group predicted sig higher speed estimate 10.46mph than hit group 8mph
Smashed- 16 yes 34 no
Hit-7 yes 43 no
Control- 6 yes 44 no
What was conclusions of loftus’ second experiment
- Questions asked subsequent to event can cause memory reconstruction
- verb in question can affect speed estimates info they can recall such as seeing broken glass
How did loftus explain his conclusions of experiment two
- Suggested participants took in info from original scene and merged it with info given after event
- producing a memory of event with original info and subsequent info
Discuss ethics of loftus and Palmer
- No deception as knew it was memory tes
- deceived as didn’t know about hypothesis of leading questions but this ensured demand characteristics didn’t occur
No harm as clips were not gruesome
Discuss validity of L.P
Highly controlled lab-high design validity however low ecological validity as it was lab and in real life you don’t get to prepare to memorise accidents
Knowing they are in study may affect their answers may not be valid demonstration of how leading questions affect memory
Discuss reliability of L&P
Highly controlled lab, meets criteria for scientific research, therefore study is replicable and the findings of originals nd secondary study’s can be correlated to see if test refers reliability is established
Discuss sample bias of L&P
Done in university and so uni students are the sample as it’s cost effective and easy, however it means the sample isn’t generalisable as students will use their memory more in every day studying than perhaps other people
Is L&P ethnocentric
Not ethnocentric, as species specific behaviour as cognitive processes such as reconstructive memory depend on the physiognomy of brain
However may only reflect how university educated people’s cognitive processes work, as only students studied, and many are top or middle social classes
Why does L&P link to link to psychology as science
Carried out laboratory experiment
Fulfil theory, control, evidence, replication
Why does loftus and Palmer link to usefulness
Series of studies showing how memory can be used to distort eyewitnesses memories, led to research being Carrie don’t in best way for police to interview and question witnesses without altering their memories
Why does L&P fall into cognitive area
Investigating the cognitive process of memory, specifically aimed to investigate the reconstructive nature of memory showing that information introduced after event in form of leading questions would have effect on eye witness testimony
Why does L&P link to key theme memory
Provides empirical evidence into effects of information received after the event on a persons memory of an event. An experimental demonstration of effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony and show how memory is reconstructive in nature
What was the aim of grants study
Investigate context dependent memory effects on both recall and recognition
What was Grants sample
8 psychology student experimenters recruited 5 participants each, data from 39 was recorded (1 dismissed as results atypically low)
17 female, 23 male aged 17-56
What was procedure of Grant
Participants read two page article, given a recall test - short answer test, given recognition test - multiple choice test
What were the 4 test conditions in grant
Silent study silent test
Silent study noisy test
Noisy study silent test
Noisy study noisy test
Name some controls grant used
All participants wore headphones
All told they could highlight or under line and they’d be tested after
Given 2 min break between study and test without headphones on
What are the conclusions of Grant
Context dependency effects for newly learned meaningful material, best performance achieved when studying and testing take place in same environment with same level of noise
What are results of Grant study
Silent study silent test - 6.7/10 & 14.3/16
Silent study noisy test - 4.6/10 & 12.7/16
Noisy study silent test - 5.4/10 & 12.7/16
Noisy study noisy test - 6.2/10 & 14.3/16
Discuss the ethics of Grant
Informed consent and briefed about task told it was voluntary and debriefed after
Discuss validity of Grant
Lab-highly controlled, standardised so high design validity
No extraneous variables
Ecological validity-artificial background noise reduces it, the task is ecological in terms of class room tasks
Discuss Reliability of Grant
Highly controlled lab, meets scientific criteria, it is very replicable due to the standardised procedure
Is Grant ethnocentric
No as cognitive processes depend on physiognomy of brain
Only conducted in America may not be same for those in western cultures or not so wealthy people
Why does a grant link to psychology as science
Ab, which fulfills criteria of theory control Evidence and replicable
Why does Grant link to usefulness
Suggests students are like,y to perform better in exams if they study with minimum background noise in order to benefit from context dependent effect
Why does Grant link to individual situational
Suggests performance of students in exams may be affected by situational factors as opposed to individual factors
Why does Grant fall into cognitive
Investigating the cognitive process of memory, specifically aimed at context dependent memory
Why does grant link to key theme of memory
Memory is improved by by studying in same conditions as test conditions
How does Grant change or not change our understanding of memory
Adds to a different aspect of memory-not reconstructive
Both conducted it in Uni’s, as studied students from similar background and culture as loftus
How is Grant similar to loftus and Palmer
Both lab
Both independent measures design
Both samples made of uni students
Both conducted ethically
What are some differences between loftus and Grant
Reconstructive memory in eyewitness and context dependent memory
Loftus couldn’t easily generalise to target population whereas grant could as his target was students
What was the aim of Moray
To provide a rigorous empirical test of cherry’s findings
To find out what would penetrate the unattentional barrier
What was morays sample
No sample for experiment 1
12 in experiment 2
14 in experiment 3
Both sexes and were undergraduate students and research workers
What was the common apparatus used in morays studies
Vernell mark IV stereophonic tape recorder with twin amplifiers
What happened in experiment one Moray
Rejected task was a list of words read 35 times
Attended task was a passage
After shadowed participants were asked to recall all they could remember from rejected message, given recognition test of 21 words, 7 from shadowed passage, 7 from rejected, 7 random
What was results of morays experiment 1
- 9 (mean) words recognised from shadowed
- 9 (mean) words recognised from rejected
- 9 (mean) words recognised from control
What did morays conclude from experiment 1
“In a situation were subject directs his attention to the reception of a message from one ear and rejects a message from the other ear, almost none of verbal content of rejected message able to penetrate the block set up
What happened in moray experiemnt 2
Aimed to test if effective cue (their name) that has strong meaning to participant would penetrate the block
Two passages of light fiction one in each ear, all participants given instruction “listen to right ear” at start, another instruction to Chang ears would also be said later on, each participant has 10 trials
What was a control used by moray
Experiment 2 steady monotone or 130 words a minute by a single male voice
What were the results of experiment two moray
Affective instructions presented 39 times, heard 20
Non affective instruction presented 36 times, heard 4
What did morays experiemnt 3 test
Whether being told to listen for instruction meant participant is more likely to hear material in rejected message
What did T test analysis show of morays second experiemnt
Less than 1 per cent probability the results were due to chance, meaning that the participants name did break through the block on the rejected message and was heard supporting claim that a person hears instructions if they are presented with own name
What was morays experiemnt 3
Participants told to shadow one of two dichotic messages
Sometimes there were numbers in the passages, sometimes only in shadowed, or only in rejected, or neither
IV was instruction given: either told they’d be asked questions about shadowed at end or told to remember as many digits as possible
What was results of morays experiemnt 3
No difference in mean scores between two conditions, moray concluded this is due to numbers not being affective enough to penetrate the block on rejected message
What were morays overall conclusions
- when subject directs attention to message of one ear, almost none of verbal content of rejected message can penetrate block
- short list of simple words presented as rejected message show no trace of being remember when presented many times
- subjectively “important” messages such as own name can penetrate the block thus person will hear instructions if presented along with name
- very hard to make neutral material important enough to break through block set up in dichotic listening
Discuss the ethik of moray
Tasks explained before study, procedure did not put them under undue stress or discomfort
Discuss the validity of moray
Hugh design validity as lab experiemnt
Invalid as participants knew in study-demand characteristics
Lack ecological as headphones block out background noise and so participants won’t experience this in day to day life
Discuss reliability of moray
Highly controlled and standardised to replicable, test retest reliability as conducted 3 experiements
Is morays study ethnocentric
Cognitive proccesss such as selective attention depend on physiognomy of brain, so species specific
However, only reflect english speaking westerners attentional processes and so brains may be shaped by culture and language
Why does moray link to usefulness
Psychology as academic discipline as empirical eveidnce
Contributed to understanding of auditory selective attention
Why does moray link to cognitive area
Investigating cognitive processes of attention, aimed to investigate selective attention by trying to find out what material break through attentional barrier
What were the aims of Simon and chabris’ study
- Aim to confirm that inattentional blindness occurs in a realistic complex situation
- find out whether events that are particularly unusual are more likely to be detected
- investigate effect of unusual superimposition and transparency of characters in video used by Neisse
- does level of difficulty of focused task increase rate of inattentional blindness
What was Simon and chabris sample
228 participants, almost all undergrad students from Harvard, some given candy bar or a single payment for taking part
What did the videos all have in common in C&S
75s
Same actors
Two teams, 3 players each team, white shirts and black shirts
Basketball aerial and bounce passes, dribbling and moving about
In front of elevator doors
44 to 48s unexpected occurred
What was the two video conditions and two unexpected events in S&C
Umbrella woman- tall lady holding open umbrella walks across from left to right
Gorilla - shorter lady in full costume walk across left to right
Each lasted 5s
Transparent-black and white team and unexpected event filmed separately then superimposed on each other so that each character is transparent
Opaque-rehearsals to avoid collisions all 7 actors recorded at same time
What was procedure of C&S
Scripted and standardised
21 experimenters
Participants tested individually,informed they watching clip involving basketball, pay attention to white or black team and count number of passes
Two types of task mental note of passes or number of bounce and aerial passes
After asked “did you notice anything other than 6 players”,”did you see gorilla/umbrella”, if yes asked for details, asked if seen anything similar if yes data removed from results then they are debriefed
What was results of S&C
- 192 bits of data left for analysis
- 46% inattentional blindness “substantial level”
- Transparency lead to higher level of inattenial blindness, 42% saw unexpected compared to 67% spotting in opaque
- Increased difficulty of task lead to higher levels of inattentional blindness 64% saw in easy task, 45% saw in hard task
What did S&C conclude
Objects passing through central visual field can not be seen if not specifically attended to which is “consistent with claim there’s no conscious perception without attention”
Discuss ethics of S&C
Conducted entirely within guidelines
Informed consent obtained and briefed about task they would do
Discuss validity of S&C
High design validity-lab, highly controlled and standardised
Demand characteristics if already seen video but did not tell experimenter
Concurrently valid with computer based studies and Neissers
Opaque design was more realistic and so higher ecological valid, but still on film different to real life settings
Discuss reliability of S&C’
Lab, standardised so it’s replicable (was done 228 times in study)
Test retest reliability as repeating Neissers to show same results
Discuss the ethnocentricity of S&C
Cognitive processes of inattentional bias depends on physiognomy of brain and so is species specific
However may only represent university educated processes as student sample bias
Why does S&C link to individual/situational
Overall level of inattentional blindness was 46%, means more than half of participants saw unexpected event, suggesting individual differences in attention
Study showed different situation could affect inattentional blindness eg gorilla in black team condition due to colour made it more noticeable
Why does S&C link to freewill/determinism
Make assumption we act according to our free will on evidence of own eyes, yet study demonstrates attentional processes influence us such that we fail to see object in centre of vision, cognitive processes have influence on behaviour and an influence which we have no conscious control over
Why does S&C fall into cognitive area
Cognitive process of attention, aimed to investigate selective attention by trying to find out if unexpected event in centre visual field be missed if person focuses attention on different feature of visual event
Why does S&C link to attention
Study is rigour empirical demonstration of visual selective attention, study confirms phenomenon of inattentional blindness in dynamic events
Showed some individuals more affected by phenomenon than others
similarities S&C with moray
Both highly controlled lab Both samples made of university students Both investigated process of selective attention Both ethical Both had quantitative data
How is S&C different from Moray
Moray was auditory and S&C was visual
Moray small sample, S&C large sample
S&C used sophisticated computer technology whereas moray used tape recorder
