Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > Cognitive Area > Flashcards

Cognitive Area Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Moray- dichotic listening and shadowing

A

Playing different outputs to each ear

Repeating out loud what they could hear in one ear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

S & C general aim

A

Wanted to confirm that inattentional blindness occurs in a realistic, complex situation (5 seconds not unnoticed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

S&C aims

A

Testing a number of variables

  1. would similarity of the unexpected event to the attended event have an effect on inattentional blindness?
  2. would a particularly unusual event be more likely to be detected?
  3. would giving participants a more difficult task to do increase the rate of inattentional blindness?
  4. would use of a more realistic video (opaque) give different findings from those obtained via Neisser’s transparent video?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

S & C research methods

A

Lab experiment- 4IVs
Self report- P answered Qs
Independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

S & C sample

A

228 mainly undergraduate Harvard Uni
(Data had to be withdrawn from 36)
192 participants after
12 to each condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

S & C controls

A
  • actors
  • location
  • 75 second video clip
  • 2 teams of 3 players
  • pass ball same order
  • 44-48 seconds unexpected event started
  • event lasted 5 seconds
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

S & C IVs

A
  1. p’s focus (white/black)
  2. difficulty of task (pass/type of pass)
  3. unexpected event (gorilla/umbrella woman)
  4. Realistic video (opaque/transparent)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

S&C procedure

A

Participants tested individually
Told to count number of passes in clip
Couldn’t write down during cheek, had to count in head, then write on paper at the end
3 questions participants asked at the end
1. “While you were doing the counting, did you notice anything unusual in the video?”
2. “Did you notice anything other than the 6 players?”
3. “Did you see a gorilla/woman walking across the screen?”
If they answered yes to any, asked for more details and not asked later questions
Debrief and offered viewing of video after

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Overall results S&C

A

46% inattentional blindness

54% did see unexpected event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

S&C results

A 
Noticed unexpected event 
Transparent 41.6%
Opaque 66.5%
White 8%
Black 67%
Easy task 63.5% 
Difficult task 44.6%
Gorilla 42.6%
Umbrella woman 65.5%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

S&ax conclusion

A

Inattentional blindness occurs in dynamic events that are sustained
Also occurs in opaque condition
There did no conscious perception without attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

S&C reliability

A

Internal: Standardised
High- controlled lab environment
External: consistent effect
Low- 12 participants per condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

S&C validity

A

Internal: construct
High- independent measures means unlikely to find out aims, likely to be an accurate measure
External: population
Low- Harvard undergraduates not the average attention, youthful and smart
External: ecological
Low- counting passes on video not true to life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

S&C links to debates

A

Individual- situational
Usefulness
Psy as a science

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Grant aims

A

Outshining hypothesis: context dependent memory benefit recall not recognition- recognition cues will outshine environmental cues

Investigate context dependent memory effects on both recall and recognition for meaningful info (as opposed to a list)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Grant research methods

A

Lab

Independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Grant sampling method

A

Opportunity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Grant sample

A

40 original participants- only 39 data used
Ages 17-56
17 females, 23 males

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Grant test conditions

A

Silent- silent
Noisy- noisy
Noisy- silent
Silent- noisy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Grant recall part

A

10 short answer Qs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Grant recognition part

A

16 multiple choice questions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Grant procedure

A

Read 2 page academic article on psycho-immunity while wearing headphones with no output or background noise output
- 2 min break
Given the questions still hearing headphones

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Grant controls

A

Headphones, 2 min break, Qs, article, background noise, volume

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Grant Mean correct answers /10 recall task

A

Silent silent- 6.7
Silent noisy- 4.6
Noisy noisy- 6.2
Noisy silent- 5.4

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Grant mean correct answers /16 recognition task

A

Silent silent- 14.3
Silent noisy- 12.7
Noisy noisy- 14.3
Noisy silent- 12.7

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Grant type of data collected

A

Quantitative

27
Q

Grant conclusions

A

Context dependent memory aids both recall and recognition tests (contradicting previous research)

Grant suggests it is because P were learning meaningful prose rather than list of words

28
Q

Grant internal reliability

A

High

Lab- standardised controls (2 min break, order Qs)

29
Q

Grant external reliability

A

Low

39 across 4 conditions

30
Q

Internal validity

A

Construct

High- controls rid of EVs

31
Q

Grant external validity

A

Ecological
More true to life than others like word lists
Similar to real life college testing

32
Q

Grant ethnocentrism

A

Memory should be relatively universal

33
Q

Contemporary studies

A

Grant et al and Simons and Chabris

34
Q

Classic studies

A

Moray

Loftus and Palmer

35
Q

Moray 1: aim

A

Test Cherry’s findings more rigorously

36
Q

Moray apparatus used

A

Brenell stereo graphic tape recorder

Headphones

37
Q

Moray pretest

A

Participants given 4 passages of prose to shadow for practice
69 DB
150 wpm

38
Q

Moray key terms

A

Dichotic listening- different outputs played to each ear
Shadowing- day out loud what they hear
Affective- meaningful instruction like their name
Non affective- non meaningful instruction (without name)

39
Q

Grant ind/sit

A

Sit

Focused not on individual ability but how context affects recall/recognition

40
Q

Grant psy as science

A

Scientific
Objective- quantitative data eg. 12.7&14.3 recognition task
Falsifiable- can repeat to prove wrong easily and quantifiable results to compare with and measure
Replicable- lab experiment had controls like 2 min break, headphones etc

41
Q

Grant free-will/determinism

A

Free-will
Shows how we can use our free will in order to increase effectiveness of memory and recall (matching context)
Deter
Memory may not be based on effort to remember or attention but determined by context cues

42
Q

L&P aim

A

Investigate effects of language (in leading questions) on memory

43
Q

L&P experiment 1 sample

A

45 American students (male and female) Washington state uni

5 conditions- 9 each condition

44
Q

L&P experiment 1 procedure

A 
P watched 7 road safety clips 
Some videos had staged car crash 
Between 5-30 sec video 
P then filled out questionnaire
Critical Q: about how fast were cars going when \_\_\_\_ eachother ? (Smashed, collided, hit, bumped, contacted)
45
Q

L&P experiment 1 findings

A 
Smashed- 40.8 MPH 
Collided- 39.3 MPH 
Bumped- 38.1 MPH 
Hit- 34 MPH
Contacted- 31.8 MPH
46
Q

L&P Conclusion/explanations finding experiment 1

A

Leading questions affect accuracy of memory
Response bias- verb biased them to make a higher estimate
Verb affected memory- caused them to genuinely remember the crash as more serious

47
Q

L&P experiment 2 sample

A

150 students Washington Uni

3 conditions- 50 each

48
Q

L&P experiment 2 procedure

A

A clip of car crash
‘Hit’ or ‘smashed’ in critical question
Another group did not have critical Q
A week later asked if saw glass

49
Q

Experiment 2 L&P aim

A

Aimed to test which explanation was correct for experiment 1
Response bias or verb affected memory

50
Q

Experiment 2 L&P results

A 
Speed estimate 
Smashed- 10.46
Hit- 8 
Glass reported 
Smashed- 16 
Hit- 7 
Control- 6
51
Q

2 experiment L&P conclusion

A

More likely to report broken glass with verb smashed
2 things merge to create memory:
1. Original perception
2. Information gained after

52
Q

Moray 1: sample

A

Students Oxford

53
Q

Moray 1: method

A

Dichotic listening task
- shadow prose from one ear ‘attended message’ other is ‘rejected message’
- simple word list repeated 35X
Chose from list of words whichever words they recognised

54
Q

Moray 1: results

A

Words recognised
Shadowed- 5
Rejected- 2
Neither message (but similar to attended)- 3

55
Q

Moray 1: conclusion

A

Much more able to recognise shadowed and almost none rejected/similar words could break inattentional barrier

56
Q

Moray 2: aim

A

Investigate if affective cues break IAB

57
Q

Moray 2: sample

A

12 students Oxford

58
Q

Moray 2: method

A

10 dichotic listening tasks
Used instructions ‘alright you may stop now’
Some had affective cues
‘John smith, you may stop now’
Counted as heard if instruction followed/ actually heard

59
Q

Moray 2: results

A

Affective- 20/39

Non- 4/36

60
Q

Moray 2: conclusion

A

Affective cues more likely to be heard

61
Q

Moray 3: aim

A

If being instructed to listen out for info breaks inattentional barrier

62
Q

Moray 3: method

A

Some participants told to look out for digits in dichotic listening task
- number towards end of rejected message

63
Q

Moray 3: results

A

No significant diff

64
Q

Moray 3: conclusion

A

Neutral info like digits cannot be made important enough to break barrier

Psychology (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions