Cognitive Studies Flashcards
Barlett (1932)
Schema Theory, Reconstructive Memory
Aim: to investigate how the memory of a story is affected by previous knowledge
Procedure: british participants
1. were told a Native American legend filled with unknown names and concepts and a foreign manner of story development
2. split into 2 conditions:
3. repeated reproduction condition (asked to reproduce repeatedly shortly after and after days, weeks, months and years)
4. serial reproduction condition (recall story and repeat to another person)
Results: reconstructional memory
in both conditions changed story when recalling: distortion in three different patterns:
1. Assimilation: unconsciouly changed story to fit cultural norms
2. Leveling: shortening story by ignoring information that was not seen as important
3. Sharpening: changed order of the story to make sense of it with more familiar cultural norms; added details/emotions
–> remembering is an active process where recalled info is fit into existing schemas
Evaluation:
- + high ecological validity (explains many real-life situations, has many applications)
- - no standardized instructions (not fully controlled)
- - no control group to justify culture as IV
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Schema Theory, Reconstructive Memory
Aim: demonstrate that memory can be manipulated by post-event info and leading questions
two different procedures:
Study 1: investigated leading question’s effect on estimation of speed in crash video
- independent sample design of 45 students
- split into 5 different groups and watched films of traffic accidents
- asked to give account of the accidents, answer questionnaire, and estimate speed with different intensity verbs
- control group: hit; other conditions: contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
Results 1: estimated highest speed in smashed & loswest in contacted –> memory changed by use of leading questions
Study 2: investigates if differences in study 1 is due to form of question
- sample of 150 students in random conditions
- shown 1 min film of car accidents
- asked to describe accidents in own words & answer questions with intensity word in it (hit/smash)
-1 week later asked if students saw glass in video (yes/no)
Results 2: more people in ‘smash’-condition indicated that they saw glass
Evaluation:
- - low ecological valididty (artificial bcs lab experiment)
- - sample bias (not representative)
HM: Milner (1966)
MSM, Localization of Function
Aim: understand effects of surgery on HM
Procedure: longitudinal case study on HM
- HM had a bike accident at 7 & hurt part of his brain –> caused seizures
- to stop the seizures his hippocampus was removed at 27
- used method triangulation (IQ testing, direct observation, interviews, cognitive testing, MRIs to determine damage)
- found that HM has anterograde amnesia (cannot acquire episodic or semantic knowledge, but had capacity for working and procedural memory) –> temporal lobe and hippocampus had most damage
Results: hippocampus plays role in memory; human has ability to allocate role of memory to other brain parts (neuroplasticity)
Evaluation:
- + longitudinal (observed change over time)
- + method triangulation
- + high ecological validity
- + high ethical standards
- - not easily replicable
- - low internal valididty
- - retroperspective (only annectdotal data on ability before accident)
Tversky & Kahnemann (1974)
Dual Processing Model, Anchoring Bias
Aim: investigate System 1 thinking and Anchoring bias
Procedure: sample of highschool students split into 2 conditions (independent sample design)
1. ascending condition: asked to estimate value of (1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8) in 5 secs (anchor=1)
2. descending condition: asked to estimate value of (8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1) in 5secs (anchor=8)
Results: ascending group estimated lower and descending higher
–> demonstrates effect of anchoring bias in math problems
Evaluation:
- + high reliability (easily replicable)
- + high internal validity (very controlled)
- + uses median to report data (excludes outliers)
- - low ecological validity (artificial)
- - patient variability (matched pairs design would be better)
Englich & Mussweiler (2001)
Anchoring Bias, Dual Processing Model
Aim: test whether a request for a certain length of prison sentence would unduly influence the decision made by a judge
Procedure: sample of 19 young trial judges
1. split into 2 conditions where the prosecutor demanded a sentence of either 2 or 34 months on a alleged rape case
2. these numbers acted as anchors
3. participants were then asked questions about the sentence and what they would recommend
Results: low anchor recommended around 18, high anchor 28 months
Evaluation:
- + true experiment –> cause and effect relationship
- + pilot study to establish reasonable anchors
- + low confidence ratings of judges shows awarness of being influenced
- - participant variability (due to independent sample design)
- - difficult to generalize (small sample)
Brown & Kulik (1977)
FBM
Aim: investigate whether surprising and personally significant events can cause flashbulb memories
Procedure: sample of 40 black and 40 white American men
1. asked to fill out questionnaire on death of public figures (Kennedy and MLK) and the death of someone close to them
2. questions like: where were you, who was with you, what were you doing, how found out, how did you feel, etc.
Results: 90% of the participants recalled a significant amount of detail
- but personal relevance, as black participants remembered more precisely MLKs death than the white men
Evaluation:
- + first to empirically test FBM
- + high reliability (can be replicated)
- - no cause and effect relationship between FBM and in-group identity ( because of interview/questionnaire)
- - retrospective (self-reported data that cannot be verified)
- - actual level of emotion and role of rehersion in creation of memory is unmeasurable
- - demand characteristics: social desirability effect
- - sampling bias
Kulkofsky et al (2011)
FBM
Aim: to test the role of culture on flashbulb memory
Procedure: sample of 274 adults from 5 different countries
1. given 5 minutes to recall as many memories of public events occurring in their life (1 year + old)
2. then asked “memory questionnaire” and about event’s personal importance
Results:
in collectivistic culture (China), personal importance/ intensity of emotion played less of a role in predicting FBM
individualistic cultures placed greater emphasis on individual’s personal involvement and emotional experiences
Evaluation:
+ + avoided interviewer effect (done in native language)
+ + ensured language was not confounding variable (back-translation)
- - ecological fallacy (
- - self-reported data
- - etic approach
Sharot et al (2007)
FBMs
Aim: determine the potential role of biological factors on flashbulb memories
Procedure: quasi-experiment with sample of 24 recruited adults who were in NYC during 9/11
1. while in fMRI scanner, words presented to them with control ‘Summer’ and research condition ‘September’
2. After brain scan asked to rate memory’s vividness, accuracy, detail & emotion
Results: activation in amygdala was higher in participants who were closer to terrorist attack than when recalled summer events
–> correlates with people who had flashbulb memories
Evaluation:
+ + no demand characteristics
- - correlational (no cause and effect relationship)
- - low ecological validity (artificial –> fMRI)
- - no explanation for FBMs of events seen online
- - sampling bias –> difficult to generalize
Landry and Bartling (2011)
WMM
Aim: investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of a written list of phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall
Procedure: sample of 34 undergrad students in independent sample design
1. experimental group: shown list of letters that they had to recall on an answer sheet while saying the numbers ‘1’ and ‘2’ (two numbers per second) –> articulatory suppression task
2. control group: did the same but did not carry out articulatory suppression task
Results: less than 50% recall accuracy in experimental group –> articulatory suppression is preventing rehearsal in the phonological loop because of overload
Evaluation:
- + high internal validity (cause and effect established)
- + high reliability (easily replicable)
- - low ecological validity (artificial)
articulary suppression:
supports WMM
