Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A LEVEL > Cognitive Studies > Flashcards

Cognitive Studies Flashcards

1
Q

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Theme

A

Memory-Eyewitness testimony

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

Grant et al (1998) Theme

A

Memory-Context Dependent Memory

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

Moray (1959)

Theme

A

Attention- Auditory Attention

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

Simon and Chabris (1999)

Theme

A

Attention-Visual Attention

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

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Background and Hypothesis

A
  • Already known there was an effect of leading questions and inaccuracy of estimations (Air Force)
  • Hypothesis: info received (in the form of a leading question) after an event would be integrated into a person’s memory.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Grant et al (1998)

Background, aims and hypothesis

A

Godden and Baddeley- experiment of recall of information from divers above/below water.

Aims: Investigate context dependent memory effects of recall and recognition. Look at tests and conclude as to whether study habits would affect performance due to mismatched environments.

Hypothesis: If no environment-context effects occur, then the environment studied in will have no significant difference in final testing performance.

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

Moray (1959)
Background

Previous study

2 types of attention

Aim

A

Cherry’s ‘cocktail party effect’ in response to your name.

Selective attention- Could be asked to focus on one thing. Could be as a result of a limited capacity processing system(overload).

Divided attention- multiple stimuli at the same time but one side of the information is commonly lost.

Aim: what kind of stimuli and situation, might lead to how some features of a ‘rejected’ message might be ignored and how some break though the attentional barrier.

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

Simon and Chabris (1999)
Theories

Visual attention
Change blindness
Inattentional blindness
Superimposition effects
Inattentional amnesia
A

Visual attention-eye records, but we don’t change our attention to it. Selective attention.

Change blindness- fail to notice large changes.

Inattentional blindness- when attention is diverted.

Superimposition effects- due to odd appearance.

Inattentional amnesia- event immediately forgotten.

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

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Sample

A

Opportunity sample from same uni
EX1: 45 American students
EX2: 150 American students

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

Grant et al (1998)

Sample

A

Opportunity sample
39 (associates of the 8 psychology students at the university)
17-56 year-olds

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

Moray (1959)

Sample

A

Undergrad and research workers at Cambridge University.
EX1:?
EX2:12
EX3: two groups of 14

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q 
Simon and Chabris (1999)
Sample details (remember removal of some)
A

Self selected sample (for candy or money)
228 Harvard uni students
-192 observers over 16 conditions
-36 ruled out because they’d heard of the theory
+12 took part in controlled observation

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

Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Design
Method
IV and DV

A 
Lab Experiment (longitudinal for EX2)
Independent measures 
IV: 1- verb (hit/smashed/collided/contacted/bumped)
     2- smashed/hit /control
DV: 1-speed estimation (mph)
      2-was there any broken glass?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Grant et al (1998)
Design
Method
IV and DV

A 
Lab/field experiment (snapshot)
Independent measures (randomly assigned)
IV:
NOISY, NOISY
NOISY, SILENT
SILENT, NOISY
SILENT, SILENT

DV: number of correct answers on each test.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q 
Moray (1959)
Designs
IVs
DVs
Level of data
A

EX1: repeated measures. Shadowed message vs rejected message. No. of words recognised out of 21 word list. Ordinal

EX2: independent measures. Name with instruction (cue) or instruction on own. If instruction was heard-changed to shadowing the other ear. Nominal

EX3: (control) independent measures. Told they’d be asked questions at the end vs told to remember as many digits. Number of digits correctly recorded. Ordinal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q 
Simon and Chabris (1999) 
Design 
Method
IVs
DVs
A

Lab experiment
Independent measures

IV: 16 conditions in total [umbrella lady/gorilla, transparent/opaque, easy/hard task, following black/white team]

DV: unexpected event seen or noticed
Did you notice anything unusual?
Anything other than six players? 
Anyone else?
Gorilla or umbrella woman?
17
Q

Loftus and Palmer (1974) EX1

Materials-questionnaire

A
  • Questionnaire after each clip.
  • describe the accident and were given specific questions
  • A critical question was embedded asking ‘About how fast were the cars going when they () each other?’
  • The critical verb was either of the 5 critical verbs.
18
Q

Grant et al (1998)

Method

A
  • Standardised instructions. Read the text as if they were studying(could use highlighters etc to help).
  • Told that they would be tested afterwards on the text. -They were told to ignore any noise.
  • 2-minute break in-between to minimise recall from short-term memory.
  • Questionnaire was given.
  • They were then debriefed concerning the purpose of the experiment.
19
Q

Simon and Chabris (1999)

Method

A

All tested individually and given informed consent before.

Instructions- told to watch either the black or white team and to keep a silent count of either the number of passes (easy task) or the number or bounce and aerial passes (hard task).

Questions after interviewing-
Asked to write down counts immediately. Then asked a series of surprise questions. (DV)

‘Had they previously participated in a similar experiment?’ if yes then results were discarded.

20
Q

Loftus and Palmer (1974) EX2

Method

A
  • 1-minute clip of a 4 second accident
  • asked to describe what had been seen
  • Embedded in the questions was the critical question used in the previous experiment.

A week later, the participants were `asked to return and given a questionnaire of 10 questions which included ‘Did you see any broken glass?’

21
Q 
Moray (1959) 
EX1
Told to do
What was in each ear?
How did they measure?
Anything special about it?
A
  • Reject the words in the left ear and told to shadow the passage heard in the right ear.
  • A random list of words were said in the left.
  • A passage from Alice in Wonderland was said in the right.
  • list of 21 words and told to circle those that had been heard.
  • Included those from the passage, from the words list and some words were not said into either ear.
22
Q 
Moray (1959)
EX2
How many passages?
How many had instructions embedded?
How were these thens split?
A
  • 10 passages read to them through headphones.
  • Each passage had instructions at the start.
  • 6 of the 10 passages had instructions within the rejected passage.
  • 3 of those passages had non-affective cues “change to the other ear” and the other 3 had affective cues “John Smith change to the other ear”.
  • The remaining 4 had no instructions in the rejected passage.
23
Q 
Moray (1959)
EX3
Purpose?
Had to do what?
What was at the end?
DV?
Difference between the two groups?
A
  • CONTROL.
  • two simultaneous dichotic messages and had to shadow one.
  • In some passages, spoken digits were said aloud towards the end of the message.
  • The DV was the number of digits correctly reported.
  • Group 1 were told they’d be asked questions about the message.
  • Group 2 told specifically to remember the digits.
24
Q

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Materials

A

Ex1: 7 film clips of different traffic accidents ranging from 5-30seconds. Different ordering.
Ex2: 1-minute film clip of a 4-second car accident.
Questionnaires used in both experiments.

25
Q

Grant et al (1998)

Materials

A
  • Headphones (noise from uni canteen)
  • 2 page, 3 columns of text of psychoimmunology (interesting and understandable)
  • Tests: 10-short answer + 16 multiple-choice.
26
Q

Simon and Chabris (1999

Materials

A

Materials 75 second clip of two teams playing a ball game.
At 44-48 seconds, the woman with an umbrella or a person in a gorilla suit would walk between the game, in front of some of players from the left side of the camera to the right. This was presented on a TV monitor.

27
Q

Moray (1959)

Materials and controls

A

Same passages/words list.
Volume matched each time.
Tape recorder was used which had two independent outputs.
Participants were given 4 trial shadowing tasks to ensure they could shadow messages.
Loudness 60db above hearing threshold.
One male speaker.
Speed was at 150 words per minute.

28
Q

Loftus and Palmer (1969)

Results

A

Ex1:
Smashed:40.8mph
Contacted: 31.8
(the speeds of clips ranged from 20-40mph)

Ex2:
Smashed 16/50
Control 5/50
121/150 correctly reported seeing no broken glass.

29
Q

Grant et al (1998)

Results

A

SILENT-SILENT-81%
NOISY-NOISY-79%
NOISY-SILENT-70%
SILENT-NOISY-67%

30
Q

Moray (1959)

Results EX1

A

SHADOWED 4.9/7
Rejected 1.9/7
Random list 2.6/7 (schemas)

31
Q

Moray (1959)

Results EX2

A

AFFECTIVE: 20/39=HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT

Non-affective 4/36

32
Q

Moray (1959)

Results EX3

A

No significant difference between no of digits recalled.

33
Q

Simon and Chabris (1999)
Results

Noticed?
What condition had 100%?
Compare event in relation to team colour?

A

192= 54% noticed 46% didn’t notice

100% of participants saw the umbrella lady when carrying out the easy task on the white team through the opaque video clip.

Gorilla seen by 58% of participants watching the black team.
Umbrella lady seen by 69% of participants when they were watching the white team.

34
Q

Simon and Chabris (1999)
Conclusions
4 key ideas

A

Demonstrated inattentional blindness.

  1. Pay attention to something similar to focused task.
  2. Less likely to attend an event if it is unusual (idea of schemas).
  3. The more realistic= the more likely to pay attention.
  4. Easy task= easier to pay attention to other things.

We can choose what to attend to or reject using an attentional block.

35
Q

Moray (1959)
Conclusions
One for each experiment

A

Ex1: We can divide attention. We reject information we are told to not pay attention to.

Ex2: Cues are ‘subjectively important’ and are more likely to be attended to.

Ex3: Numbers are not important enough to break your attentional block. Attention was not as a result of being told to pay attention to instructions at the start of Ex2.

36
Q

Grant et al (1998)
Conclusions
Simple and apply to context/aim

A

Participants had higher test scored when studying and testing in matched conditions.

There was a context dependent effect for both kinds of test: since exams are in silence, it is beneficial to study in silence as performance will be increased/better.

37
Q

Loftus and Palmer (1969)

Conclusions for both and consider factors

A

Ex1: leading questions can affect accuracy of memory.

  • Response bias factors from the verb-effects what was remembered immediately.
  • Memory representation altered of an event.

Ex2: leading questions altered a memory participant had of an event. Memory was determined by two factors.

  • Own perception at the time
  • External into supplied after the fact

A LEVEL (15 decks)

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