Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology > cognitive psychology- paper2 > Flashcards

cognitive psychology- paper2 Flashcards

1
Q

twhat is the aim of Loftus and palmer
(exp1)

A

to investigate if the eye witness testomy be distorted by the change of a critical verb.

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

what is the sample of exp 1

A

45, students , America ( target population and where video is from so can be argued for culture bias)

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

what is the method of L+P and iv/dv

A

lab experiment, independent measures design.
IV- smashed, collided, bumped ,contacted, hit.
dv- estimation of speed when asked the question ‘how fast were you going when’ and changed the critical verb.

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

what is the procedure of L+P (exp1)

A

Participants were shown a brief film of a
car accident involving a number of cars from a driving safety course . They were then asked to describe what had happened
as if they were eyewitnesses. After they had watched the film, the participants were asked the question “About how fast were the cars going when they
(hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted-the five conditions) each other?”

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

findings of L+P (EXP 1)

A

Those who were asked the question where the verb used was “smashed” thought the cars were going faster than those who were asked the question with “hit” as the verb. The mean estimate when “smashed” was used was 41mph, versus 34mph
when “hit” was used. therefore a response bias.

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

conclusion of L+P (exp 1)

A

leading questions can distort memories .

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

aim of Loftus and palmer (exp2)

A

To investigate if changing the critical verb can reconstruct memories.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

iv/dv of exp 2 of L+p

A

IV - hit/ smashed ( concurrent validity - ‘same thing again’ ) - predictive validity.
dv- amount of people who recalled seeing broken glass.

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

procedure of L+P (exp2)

A

shown a one minute film with a 4 sec multiple car crash.
then given questionnaire with questions about the incident .
the question was ‘’ how fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed each other ? ‘’
one week later all participants were asked ‘’ did you see any broken glass’’ yes/no (nominal data)

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

finding of L+P (exp2)

A

more ppts recalled broken glass when the critical verb was smashed (16) hit (7).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

conclusion of L+P (exp2)

A

This research suggests that memory is easily distorted by leading questioning and information acquired after the event can merge with original memory causing inaccurate recall or reconstructive memory.

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

what is the aim of grant

A

to investigate if the environmental context can have ore positive effect on performance in a meaningful memory test.

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

method iv/dv of Grant

A

lab, independent measures
IV1- whether participant read two page article in silence or noise.
IV2- participant tested in matching/ mismatching conditions.
DV- performance on short-answer recall test and multiple-choice recall test.

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

sample of Grant

A

39, students, USA ( 1 dropped out because it skewed results)
snowball sampling - 8 experimenters with 5 recruited ppts.

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

procedure of grant

A

all had headphones ( standardisation) on some played muffled canteen sound ( told to ignore it) some were silent.
studied 2 page psychoimmunity and then given 10 short answer questions , then 16 multiple-choice questions- tested memory.
reading times recorded, 2 min break then debriefed.

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

finding/ conclusion of Grant

A

matched conditions recalled more.
conclusion- if you learn in the same environment your tested in you will recall more.

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

what is the theme of moray

A

attention- select information to concentrate on that is constantly being bombarded whilst rejecting other information

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

what is the background

A

cherry: cocktail party effect- can we block information from other conversations and concentrate on their own
investigate by a dichotic speaker- one ear told to shadow, one ear told to ignore, after they were told to recall as many words from ignored ear as they can
Broadbent: selective attention- can we filter sensory information at an early stage, allowing attention to be focussed. concluded that we can’t have attention without sensation
Johnsons and Heinz: said it wasn’t an early stage it can happen at any stage of processing, so we can select things we don’t want- explains how people can quickly change attention

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

what are the controls for all the experiments

A

same twin amplifier- Brenell mark 4 stereo tape recorder
loudness matched at 1 bd higher above decibel score
all had 4 trial tasks before
all passages were recorded by a male speaker

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

what is the aim of experiment one:

A

to further investigate cherry’s findings ( simple shadow task)

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

what is the method of exp1

A

lab experiment, repeated measures
IV- shadowed ear, rejected ear
dv- number of words recalled from the rejected ear

22
Q

procedure of exp 1

A

shadowed ear was read passage and told to shadow
rejected ear was read a list of words x 35 times
30 sec gap between recall, asked to recall as many words from rejected ear they could

23
Q

what are the results of exp1

A

mean number of words recalled in shadowed ear was higher than rejected

24
Q

what is a conclusion of exp 1

A

repeating something won’t make it past a cognitive block
paying attention allows more words to be recalled
concurrently validates cherry- can have a cognitive block

25
what is the aim of exp2 of moray
to investigate if affective information can break a cognitive block
26
what is an example of affective information
anything personal- e.g. name
27
method of exp 2
lab, repeated measures IV- instructions prefixed with name or no-name in instructions DV- number of instructions responded to from the rejected ear
28
sample of exp 2
12 participants
29
what is the procedure of exp2
shadowed 10 passages of light fiction, word list to left ear with instructions within " (name) you may stop now", "you may stop now" they were asked to make as few errors in shadowed ear as their responses were recorded, ignore rejected ear
30
what are the results of exp2
with affective instructions ( name)- 20 times heard with non-affective (no name)- 4 times heard affective instructions ( personal) had greater number of times the instruction was heard
31
what is a conclusion of exp 2
affective instructions can break a cognitive break concurrently supports Johnson and Heinz- filter information at any stage
32
what is the aim of exp3
to investigate if expectation effects the way the message to the rejected ear is processed
33
method of exp 3
lab experiment, independent measures IV1: digit, no digit inserted into one or both message IV2: whether told to remember shadowed content or remember digits heard DV: number of digits correctly recalled
34
what is the procedure of exp3
digits at the end of either one , both or neither message group 1- told they would be asked to remember shadowed content group2- instructed to remember digits
35
what are the findings of exp3
no difference in mean scores for digits recalled between 2 groups
36
what are the conclusions of exp 3
expecting something doesn't break cognitive break numbers don't have meaning so cannot break cognitive block concurrently validates exp2 as to break a cognitive block it has to have meaninghg
37
what is the theme of Simons and Chabris
visual attention
38
what is change and intentional blindness
change blindness- observers fail to notice large changes to objects from one view to the next, particularly if those aren't the centre of attention inattentional blindness- observers fail to perceive unexpected object when attention is diverted to another- we don't see things when we don't pay attention
39
what is the background of Simons and Chabris
Neisser et al- dynamic visual displays- more realistic- increases validity. umbrella women walked past screen and less than 50% said they noticed her
40
what is overall aim of S+C
to further investigate Neisser and factors that may affect visual detection rates ( factors- iv's)
41
what is method/ design of s+c
lab experiment , independent measures, 16 conditions
42
what are the 4 IV's of s+c
1- unexpected event- umbrella women or gorilla women film- transparent or opaque task- easy or hard participant followed- black or white
43
what is the DV of s+c
number of ppts who noticed umbrella or gorilla woman
44
what is the sample of S+C
228, undergraduates, America. self-selected and rewarded through a candy bar final analysis - 192 as others dropped out because thye had heard about phenomenon before further 12 took part in controlled observation
45
what are the materials used in S+C
4 videos of two teams of 3 throwing balls at each other, tape lasted 75 secs, unexpected event after 44-48 secs lasting for 5 secs women walked left- right either holding umbrella or in gorilla costume videos were either transparent or opaque
46
what is the difference between images being opaque or superimposed
superimposed- layered on top opaque- filmed at the same time as event
47
what is the procedure
observers tested individually for only one of the conditions and told to watch either white team or black team they were asked to keep count of how many times the players passed the ball ( easy) or the number of Ariel or bounce passes ( hard) given surprise questions to determine if observers noticed event stating with did you notice anything unusual and ending with did you see a gorilla or umbrella women walk across the screen? if yes they were asked details and if they have ever heard anything like this before if so removed then debriefed and watched back video
48
what are the results of S+C
54% observers did notice unexpected event umbrella women noticed more- visually distinctive black shirt watches noticed gorilla more no correlation between noticing and poor counting ( in case people can't count)
49
what is a conclusion of S+C
no conscious perception without attention if event is dissimilar to events paying attention to , less perception
50
What is sample
228, undergraduates form America , self-selected and rewarded by a candy bar, final analysis 192 as 36 already knew about phenomenon, 12 in controlled observation

Psychology (20 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions