cognitive case studies

Question 1

what was the aim of loftus and palmer experiment 1?

Answer 1

to test the effect of leading questions on recall

Question 2

what was the aim of loftus and palmer experiment 2 ?

Answer 2

to see if a leading question changes a persons subsequent memory of the event

Question 3

what was the experimental design of loftus and palmer?

Answer 3

independent measures design with repeated measures
1= snapshot study
2= longitudinal study

Question 4

what were the ivs of loftus and palmer?

Answer 4

the type of verb used - hit, contacted, smashed, bumped, and collided

Question 5

what were the dvs of loftus and palmer 1?

Answer 5

estimate of speed

Question 6

what were the dvs of loftus and palmer 2?

Answer 6

whether the pps said they saw broken glass

Question 7

what was the sample in loftus and palmer 1?

Answer 7

45 us college students - in 5 groups

Question 8

what was the sample in loftus and palmer 2?

Answer 8

150 Us college students - 3 groups

Question 9

what were the materials in loftus and palmer experiment 1 ?

Answer 9

7 brief film clips of car accidents
questionnaire

Question 10

what were the materials in loftus and palmer 2?

Answer 10

1 min film of a four second multiple car accident

Question 11

what was the procedure for loftus and palmer 1?

Answer 11

pps asked to describe the accident - answer questions
- included 1 critical question - how fast were the cars going when they (verb) each other ?
- five different verb conditions - hit, contacted, smashed, bumped, collided
. pps were asked to estimate cars speed mph

Question 12

what was the procedure for loftus and palmer 2?

Answer 12

PART 1- pps were asked to describe the accident - 1 min crash - answered questions - including critical question
. three groups of pps -
g1- the verb smashed
g2- the verb hit
control group - there was no question
PART 2
.pps returned to the lab a week later
. they were asked further questions about the film clips - did you see any glass - there was no broken glass

Question 13

what were the results for loftus and palmer in experiment 1?

Answer 13

. mean speed was faster for the smashed group - 40.5 mph- than the contacted group - 31.8mph
. pps were bad at estimating speed- actual speeds for the 4 clips - 20,30,30 and 40 mph - pps estimates were between 36 and 40 mph

Question 14

what were the results for loftus and palmer in experiment 2?

Answer 14

. mean speed estimates were faster for those who heard the verb smashed - 10.46- , than those with the verb hit - 8 mph
. more pps who heard the verb smashed reported seeing broken glass - 16/50 - than the other pps
. 7/50 pps with the verb hit and 6/50 in control group reported seeing broken glass
. most pps correctly reported seeing no broken glass 121/150

Question 15

what were the conclusions in loftus and palmer 1?

Answer 15

the way a question is asked can influence the answer given

Question 16

what were the conclusions for loftus and palmer 2?

Answer 16

questions influence the memory that is stored rather than just biasing a persons response,
two types of info make up our memory of a complex event 1- info from our perception of the event and 2 - the info we receive after an event

Question 17

evaluate the research method and techniques in loftus and palmer?

Answer 17

positive - lab conditions - means extraneous variables can be controlled -
for examples all pps were either shown 7 brief clips from 5 to 30 secs or a one min video
high internal validity
. if it was in real life - speed estimates might be affected where a person is standing - in a lab setting can ensure that each pps witnesses the accident from the same position
. however- watching films is not the same as watching a real life accident - pps lack emotional involvement - might react differently in real life situations.

Question 18

evaluate the reliability in loftus and palmer

Answer 18

positive - quantitative data is straightforward to assess the reliability of measurements
could ask the same pps to repeat the task a second time and would expect to get the same speed estimates each time

Question 19

evaluate the sampling bias in loftus and palmer

Answer 19

negative- used students 45 and 150 us college students
they have specific characteristics - some may have only learnt how to drive - some may not know how to drive yet - their speed estimates wont be a good as the general population
however- opportunity sample of us students on degree courses were easy to obtain

Question 20

evaluate the types of data in loftus and palmer

Answer 20

positive - quantitative data - the estimates of speed and yes or no questions
eg- mean speed for smashed group - 40.5 mph and the contacted group - 31.8 mph and is there broken glass
. this provides simple data - makes it easy to draw conclusions and see if the data is valid
. also uses qualitative data - following each film pps received a questionnaire - asked them to describe the accident

Question 21

what is visual attention?

Answer 21

the eye records the visual experience - but we dont remember everything

Question 22

what is change blindness?

Answer 22

failing to notice large changes from one view to the next

Question 23

what is inattentional blindness ?

Answer 23

failing to notice an unexpected object if attention is diverted

Question 24

what were the aims in simon and chabris ?

Answer 24

to investigate the factors affecting visual detection rates:
visual similarity of unexpected and attended object
task difficulty
superimposed or live version of a display
nature of the unusual event

Question 25

what was the design in simon and chabris ?

Answer 25

lab experiment that used independent measures design

Question 26

how many conditions were there in simon and chabris?

Answer 26

16

Question 27

how many ivs were in simon and chabris?

Answer 27

4

Question 28

what were the ivs of simon and chabris?

Answer 28

1- unexpected event was an umbrella woman or gorilla 2- film was transparent or opaque 3- task was easy or hard 4- observed followed black or white team

Question 29

what is the dv in simon and chabris?

Answer 29

percentage of observers noticing the unexpected event

Question 30

what was the sample in simon and chabris

Answer 30

self selected sample of 228 mainly American undergraduates

Question 31

what was the final sample in simon and chabris

Answer 31

192 - 36 ruled out because they already knew about inattentional blindness

Question 32

what were the materials in simon and chabris

Answer 32

4 video tapes of two teams of three players - black or white- lasts 75 seconds 44-48 secs unexpected event

Question 33

what was the procedure in simon and chabris

Answer 33

pps took part in only one condition and were tested individually pps watched black or white team pps counted silently the number of passes (easy) or number of bounce and aerial passes (hard) pps wrote down their count scores pps asked surprise questions about unexpected event - did you notice the anything unusual on the video? did you notice anything other than the six players? pps who said yes were asked for details pps who said that they knew anything about inattentional blindness were discarded pps gave informed consent and were debriefed

Question 34

what were the results in simon and chabris?

Answer 34

key - 54% pps noticed unexpected event umbrella was noticed more than the gorilla - 65% unexpected event was noticed more in opaque condition than transparent - 67% unexpected event was noticed more in the easy- 64%

Question 35

what were the conclusions in simon and chabris?

Answer 35

people are less likely to notice unexpected events if they are visually dissimilar to attended events an unexpected object can be undetected even when it passes through the area of attentional focus - shows no conscious perception without attention.