Cognitive area - Moray, Loftus & palmer, Grant, Simon and Chabris

Question 1

Moray - What was the aim/background of the study?

Answer 1

Test dichotic listening and the cocktail party effect

Question 2

Moray - What was the sample of the study?

Answer 2

Undergraduates / research workers (Male and female)
Experiment 1 - Unknown number
Experiment 2 - 12 P’s
Experiment 3 - 2 groups of 14

Question 3

Moray - What was the Method for experiment 1 of the study?

Answer 3

.Repeated Measure design for dichotic listening test and recognition test.
.Participant shadowed prose passage in one ear while a rejected passage was shown in the other ear, then asked how many words they remembered, and after asked to do recognition test on rejected message.
.DV - Number of words recognised in the rejected message.

Question 4

Moray - What was the Method for experiment 2 of the study?

Answer 4

.P’s Shadowed 10 short passages, while a rejected message played in their other ear, the rejected message contained certain commands with their name.
.P’s asked how many instructions and which ones they heard.

Question 5

Moray - What was the Method for experiment 3 of the study?

Answer 5

.Had to shadow one of two dichotic listening tasks, digits were added in one or both messages apart from a control group with none, one group were told they would be asked questions about shadowed message, the others had to count the numbers

Question 6

Moray - What was the Results for experiment 1 of the study?

Answer 6

Shadowed: 4.9/7 Rejected: 1.9/7 Similar words 2.6/7

Question 7

Moray - What was the Results for experiment 2 of the study?

Answer 7

.Affective instructions (name) 20 / 39 heard

.Non Affective instructions 4/36 heard

Question 8

Moray - Evaluation?

Answer 8

+ Internal validity / lab experiment
+ Highly standardised and replicable
- Low ecological validity
- Sampling Bias university

Question 9

Loftus and Palmer - What was the aim/background of the study?

Answer 9

To test the language used in eyewitness testimonies to see if it destroys memory.

Question 10

Loftus and Palmer - What was the sample of the study?

Answer 10

Experiment 1 - 45 students opportunity sample

Experiment 2 - 150 students

Question 11

Loftus and Palmer - What was the method for experiment 1 of the study?

Answer 11

.P’s watched 7 films of traffic accidents and then asked to describe what happened as eye witnesses.
.Including the critical question how fast were the cars going when they; smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted.
.The IV was the words Changed and the DV was the speed

Question 12

Loftus and Palmer - What was the method for experiment 2 of the study?

Answer 12

.Shows clip of car crash
.P’s questioned about the film; asked 50 students how fast the car was going when they hit each other, asked other 50 how fast they were going when they smashed each other and 50 others not asked at all.
.One week later asked 10 more questions, one question was critical which asked if they had seen any broken glass.

Question 13

Loftus and Palmer - What was the results of the experiment’s?

Answer 13

Experiment 1 -
Smashed (40.8 mph),“collided” (39.3 mph), “bumped” (38.1 mph), “hit” (34 mph), and “contacted” (31.8 mph)
Experiment 2 - (saw broken glass)
Smashed 16/50 Hit 7/50 Control 6/50

Question 14

Loftus and Palmer - Evaluation

Answer 14

+ standardised and replicable

• Student study not generalisable
• Low ecological validity

Question 15

Grant - What was the aim/background of the study?

Answer 15

To test the positive effects of context dependent memory

Question 16

Grant - What was the sample of the study?

Answer 16

.39 P’s, 17F / 23M aged 17 - 26

.recruited by experimenters 5 each

Question 17

Grant - What were the two conditions of the study?

Answer 17

.Reading condition (silent or noisy)

.Testing condition (silent or noisy)

Question 18

Grant - What were the dependent variables of the study?

Answer 18

Reading time (control)
Performance on a multiple-choice test
Performance on a short answer test

Question 19

Grant - What were the procedure of the study?

Answer 19

.Participant reads comprehension paragraph in silent/ noisy conditions with headphones on either way.
.2 min break
.P’s tested with short answer test, then multiple choice test with headphones and silent or noisy condition.
.P’s debriefed at end of experiment

Question 20

Grant - What were the results of the study?

Answer 20

.Silent Silent found to be best for both tests

.Noisy Noisy = second best showing context dependent memory

Question 21

Grant - What was the evaluation of the study?

Answer 21

+ ethics - debrief, consent
+ internal validity - reliability / standardisation
- Ecological validity

Question 22

Simon and Chabris - What was the aim/background of the study?

Answer 22

Test innattentional Blindness

Question 23

Simon and Chabris - What was the sample of the study?

Answer 23

228 Student volunteers

Question 24

Simon and Chabris - What were the task conditions of the study?

Answer 24

.White/Easy
.White/Hard
.Black/Easy
.Black/Hard

Question 25

Simon and Chabris - What were the Iv’s and DV’s of the study?

Answer 25

IV - Condition / task

DV - Number who noticed unexpected event

Question 26

Simon and Chabris - What were the conditions of the study?

Answer 26

.Transparent/Umbrella Woman,
.Transparent/Gorilla
.Opaque/Umbrella Woman
.Opaque/Gorilla condition

Question 27

Simon and Chabris - What was the procedure of the study?

Answer 27

.16 groups told to watch for black or white team and easy or hard task
.wrote down number of passes they counted
.asked additional questions eg did you notice anything unusual, did you notice anything other then the six players

Question 28

Simon and Chabris - What were hard/easy of the study?

Answer 28

.Easy - count all passes

.Hard - count both bounce and normal passes separately

Question 29

Simon and Chabris - What were the results of the study?

Answer 29

.54% noticed the unexpected event
.67% opaque condition 42% transparent condition.
.Easy condition 64% vs 45% hard condition
.Umbrella Woman 65% versus 44% gorilla

Question 30

Simon and Chabris - evaluation?

Answer 30

• Sampling bias student volunteers

+ quantitative data