core studies- cognitive

Question 1

background of loftus and palmer?

Answer 1

Reconstructive memory-not a direct record of what was witnessed. bartlett
Schemas- mental representations of the world based on expectations and experience can predict things, may distort witnesses’ memory of crime during recall like LEADING QUESTIONS

Question 2

aim of loftus and palmer?

Answer 2

To test their hypothesis that eyewitness testimony (EWT) is fragile and can easily be distorted

Question 3

sample of loftus and palmer?

Answer 3

Experiment 1-45 students from the University of Washington divided into groups of 9.
Experiment 2- 150 students divided into 2 groups.

Question 4

methods of loftus and palmer?

Answer 4

Experiment 1 and 2 = lab experiment, independent measures

Question 5

IV’s and DV of experiment 1 of loftus and palmer?

Answer 5

IV- verb of critical question in questionnaire ‘about how fast were the cars going when they ____ into each other?’(smashed, collided,contacted,hit,bumped
DV- estimate of speed (mph)

Question 6

IV’s and DV of experiment 2 of loftus and palmer?

Answer 6

IV- wording on questionnaire ‘about how fast were the cars going when they smashed/hit into each other?’ Critical question ‘did you see any broken glass?’
DV- response to critical question yes/no

Question 7

procedure of experiment 1 in loftus and palmer?

Answer 7

participants shown the same 7 film clips of different traffic accidents which were from a driver safety film. After each clip, the ppts were given a questionnaire containing the critical question ‘about how fast were the cars going when they ____ into each other?’ with one of the five verbs (smashed, hit, bumped, collided, contacted)

Question 8

results of experiment 1 in loftus and palmer?

Answer 8

40.5mph for verb smashed.
34mph for verb hit.
Shows a response bias.

Question 9

procedure of experiment 2 of loftus and palmer?

Answer 9

ppts shown a 1-minute film which contained a multiple car crash. Then given a questionnaire with the critical question ‘about how fast were the cars going when they smashed/hit into each other?’
1 week later completed another questionnaire which contained the critical question ‘did you see any broken glass?’

Question 10

results of experiment 2 in loftus and palmer?

Answer 10

smashed= Yes glass= 16 no glass=34
Hit= yes glass=7 no glass=43
Verb distorts memory.

Question 11

conclusions of loftus and palmer?

Answer 11

Verb used in questions can influence ppts response.
Misleading extra information after the event can distort an individual’s memory.
Supports their theory that EWT isn’t very accurate.

Question 12

background of grant?

Answer 12

environmental context effect. improved recall when context present at encoding and retrieval are the same eg in same place. wanted to do this with other factors such as noise not just place

Question 13

aim of grant?

Answer 13

To show that environmental context can have a positive effect on performance in a memory test, using environmental factors such as noise

Question 14

sample of grant?

Answer 14

39 participants, originally 40 but 1 was removed due to skewed results.
Eight experimenters recruited the participants. Each experimenter recruited 5 participants each.
Snowball sampling

Question 15

methods of grant?

Answer 15

Lab experiment, independent measures

Question 16

IV’s and DV of grant?

Answer 16

Study condition (IV1) (silent or noisy)
Test condition (IV2) (silent or noisy)
Ppts had either matching or mismatching conditions.
DV-Ppts performance on short answer recall test and multiple-choice test

Question 17

measures of grant?

Answer 17

Each experimenter provided own cassette player and headphones, exact copies made from a master tape of background noise recorded during lunchtime in a uni cafeteria.
A two-page, three-columned article on psychoimmunology (Hales,1984) was selected as the to-be-studied material.
16 multiple-choice questions which tested memory for points stated in the text.
10 short-answer questions

Question 18

how is the procedure in grant standardized?

Answer 18

-short-answer test was always administered first to ensure that recall of information wasn’t from the multiple- choice test.
-participants randomly assigned to conditions
-The participants’ reading times were recorded by the experimenters as a control measure.
-all wore headphones
-A break of approx 2 minutes between the end of the study phase and the beginning of the test phase to minimise stm recall

Question 19

procedure of grant?

Answer 19

Participants were read aloud the instructions of the study, which stated participation in the study was voluntary.
The ppts instructed to read the psychoimmunology article as if they were reading for a class project. And that their comprehension would be tested with both a short-answer test and a multiple-choice test. The participants were allowed to highlight and underline the article
All the participants wore headphones while they read.
had a break of approx. 2 mins between studying and testing.
The test phase began with the short-answer test, followed by the multiple-choice test.
Participants were informed of the condition before testing and debriefed at end.

Question 20

findings of grant?

Answer 20

Testing in the same condition as studying produced better results.
No overall effect of noise on performance

Question 21

conclusions of grant?

Answer 21

There are context-dependency effects for newly learned meaningful material regardless of test used to assess learning.
suggesting studying and testing in the same environment leads to enhanced performance. eg useful for students to study without noise as its not present in actual exam.

Question 22

background of moray?

Answer 22

• Colin cherry- cocktail party effect, tune into 1 conversation whilst tuning others out. did Dichotic listening task- ppts had to shadow message in one ear and ignore the other one and found little info could be recalled from the ignored message
• Broadbent- Filter model of selective attention – In this model he suggested that there was a sensory filter mechanism that, early on in processing of information, selected one channel of incoming sensory information and blocked all others, allowing attention to be focused.
• Johnson and Heinz- suggested selective attention could happen at any stage in the processing of information. This theory best describes why we can switch attention if the unattended channel becomes more meaningful to us

Question 23

aim of moray?

Answer 23

1. provide a rigorous empirical test of Cherry’s findings. (Experiment 1) (Simple shadowing task)
2. To see if some messages (such as hearing your name) break through the attentional block to the rejected ear (exp 2) (Affective cues)
3. To see if expectations might affect the way the message to the rejected ear is processed (exp 3) (Expectation)

Question 24

materials in moray?

Answer 24

Brenell mark 4 stereo tape recorder, modified with twin amplifiers to give 2 independent outputs, one to each ear piece in the headphones.
Loudness was matched to the earpieces by asking participants to say when the message appeared to be equivalent volume

Question 25

what are some controls in moray?

Answer 25

The loudness of each message was approx. 60db above the participants hearing threshold and the speech rate approx. 150 words a minute.
All passages were recorded by one male speaker.
completed trials on shadowing for practice before study

Question 26

methods of exp 1 of moray?

Answer 26

Lab experiment, repeated measures, no sample size

Question 27

IV and DV of exp 1 of moray?

Answer 27

IV- message played to shadowed and rejected ear
DV-number of words recalled from rejected ear

Question 28

procedure of exp 1 of moray?

Answer 28

Ppts had 1 person reading passage to shadow ear and another person reading a word list to the rejected ear (approx. 35 times)
Ppts asked to recall words from rejected ear. Gap between recall was 30 secs
Word list consisted of similar words but not present in passage.

Question 29

results and conclusions of exp 1 of moray?

Answer 29

Results- more words recalled in shadowed passage compared to less in rejected
Conclusions- even if info is repeated it doesn’t mean it will break through cognitive block, supports cherry’s research

Question 30

methods of exp 2 of moray?

Answer 30

Lab experiment, repeated measures, 12 ppts

Question 31

IV’s and DV of exp 2 in moray?

Answer 31

IV- whether instructions to rejected ear was prefixed by ppts own name
DV-number of instructions that were responded to

Question 32

procedure of exp 2 of moray?

Answer 32

Ppts had to shadow 10 paired passages of light fiction, each listener received one passage in their right ear and a different passage in their left ear (ten times)
They were told their responses to the shadowed ear would be recorded and that they should aim to make as few errors as possible and ignore the rejected ear.
The rejected ear – in the middle of some of the passages random messages containing the participant’s name. “John smith you may stop now” (affective cue) the next instruction contained no name (non affective)

Question 33

results and conclusions of exp 2 of moray?

Answer 33

Results- responded to name in instructions more than no name
Conclusions- attentive cues such as someone’s name can break through a cognitive block, when it contains meaningful info to ppts. Supports Heinz and Johnson’s theory

Question 34

methods of experiment 3 of moray?

Answer 34

Lab experiment, independent measures, 2 groups of 14 participants

Question 35

IV’s and DV of moray?

Answer 35

IV1- whether digits were inserted into one or two messages
IV2-whether ppts were told they would be asked questions about shadowed message or told to remember digits
DV-no of digits remembered

Question 36

procedure of exp 3 of moray?

Answer 36

Ppts were asked to shadow one of two simultaneous dichotic messages (one to each ear)
Digits were inserted towards the end of the message – these were sometimes present in each message, one message or neither
Group 1- told they would be asked questions about the shadowed content
Group 2 – Instructed to remember all the digits they could.

Question 37

results and conclusions of moray?

Answer 37

Results- no difference in mean scores of digits recalled between 2 conditions as number isn’t meaningful to ppts to break through cognitive barrier
Conclusions- concurrently validates experiment 2

Question 38

background to simons and chabris?

Answer 38

*Inattentional blindness occurs when attention is diverted to another object or task and observers often fail to perceive an unexpected object.
*Change blindness =individuals often do not detect large changes to objects and scenes from one view to the next, especially if change is not centre of interest.
*dynamic visual displays- video (more realistic). Used by Neisser in ‘the umbrella woman’ experiment where actors were filmed passing a ball in 2 teams, ppts told to focus on one of the teams as the woman with umbrella walked across the screen. only 48% noticed her.

Question 39

aim of simons and chabris?

Answer 39

build upon previous research and investigate factors that may affect visual detection rates.
1. similarity of unexpected objects to attended ones.
2. task difficulty
3. superimposed vs live version
4. nature of the unusual event

Question 40

sample of simons and chabris?

Answer 40

self-selected, 228 undergraduate students from America, rewarded a candy bar for taking part.
final analysis- 192 included as 36 were ruled out because they knew about the phenomenon already.
further 12 took part in a controlled observation.

Question 41

methods in simons and charbis?

Answer 41

lab experiment
independent measures design
total 16 conditions

Question 42

IV’s and DV of simons and charbis?

Answer 42

IV’s- unexpected event- gorilla/umbrella woman
film- transparent/opaque.
task- easy/hard
team followed – black team/white team.
DV- number of ppts who noticed unexpected event (gorilla or umbrella woman)

Question 43

materials in simons and chabris?

Answer 43

4 video tapes created of 2 teams throwing a basketball to each other.
tapes lasted 75 seconds.
3 players in each team, passed ball1>2>3>1>2 etc.
after 44-48 seconds the unexpected event occurred lasting approx. 5 seconds
woman walked from left of screen to right either holding an umbrella or in a gorilla costume.

Question 44

procedure in simons and chabris?

Answer 44

all observers tested individually and were told to be silent when counting number of passes or hard condition-no of bounce + aerial passes
immediately after viewing observers asked to write down their count.
series of surprise questions asked afterwards to determine whether they had seen the unexpected event such as ‘did you notice anything unusual?’ ‘did you notice anything apart from the players in the video?’ then finally asked ‘did you see the gorilla/umbrella woman?’
after this, they were given a questionnaire asking if they had ever heard about this concept then debriefed after replaying the videos.

Question 45

results of simons and chabris?

Answer 45

54% of ppts did notice the unexpected event.
umbrella woman was noticed more.
event noticed more in opaque version.
black team noticed gorilla more, little dif between teams for the woman.
hard condition was more difficult.
no correlation between noticing and poor counting

Question 46

conclusions of simons and chabris?

Answer 46

individuals have inattentional blindness for dynamic events. They will often fail to notice an obvious, but unexpected event if they are engaged in another monitoring task. The extent of inattentional blindness is dependent on the difficulty of the primary task. We are more likely to notice unexpected events if these events are visually like the events, we are paying attention to. Without attention we have no conscious perception – objects can pass through the spatial extent of attentional focus, but still not be ‘seen’ if they are not attended to.