EoY [ERQ] Cog Flashcards
Outline how to structure an ERQ
- Define/explain
- Relevant study #1
- Relevant study #2
- Critical points [A, B, C]
- Considered Judgement
List the key exam acronyms
Define TEACUP
*used to evaluate theories
Testability: is it possible to set up an experiment to test the theory?
Empirical evidence: is there res. to support or contradict the theory?
Application: can the theory be used to explain or change behaviour?
Construct validity: are the concepts that make up the theory well-defined? Are they observable and measurable?
Unbiased: is the res. Ethnocentric (culture)? Androcentric (Gender)? Is the res. upon which the theory is based representative of a global population?
Predictability: does the theory enable us to predict trends or an individual’s behaviour?
Define MAGEC (pronounced magic)
*used to evaluate research
Methodological flaws
Alternative arguments
Generalizability
Ethical considerations
Cultural Differences
Define CARDUD
*Used to evaluate ethics
Consent
Anonymity
Right to Withdraw
Debrief
Undue stress or harm
Deception
Describe the Components of Schema Theory
Schemas: mental representations derived from prior experience & knowledge
Scripts: patterns of behaviour that are learnt through our interaction with the environment - developed within cultural contexts & thus aren’t universal
Schema Theory: theory of how humans process incoming information, relate it to existing knowledge and use it - based on assumption that humans are active processors of information
Define Cognition and list the core principles
Cognition: The mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension
Core Principles
Humans are active information processors
Mental Processes can be studied scientifically
Mental representations guide behaviour
Models can be used to understand complex processes such as memory & decision making
List the possible subjects in order
- Ethics
- Research Models
- Memory Models
- Schema Theory
- Thinking / Decision making
- Reconstructive M
- Biases
- Emotion
- Technology 1
- Technology P
- Technology N
Loftus and Pickerell [1995]
AIM: Determine if false memories of autobiographical events can be created through the power of suggestion
PROCEDURE:
- 24 participants - mostly female
- Before the study - parents/siblings asked for 3 childhood memories of the P. and if the P. ever remembered being lost in a mall, data only used if they weren’t ever lost in a mall
- P. received a questionnaire in the mail asking to write about 4 memories & mail reply
[3 real events and 1 false (about getting lost in a mall) - if didn’t recall, simply instructed to write ‘I do not remember this’]
- P. interviewed 2x over a period of 4 weeks
- Asked to recall as much information as possible for the events - and asked to rate information on confidence from 1-10
- After 2nd experiment P. debriefed & asked if they could guess which was the false mem.
FINDINGS:
25% recalled the false memory - but also less confident in the memory
EVALUATION:
Although the study is often seen as strong evidence in the power of suggestion in creating false memories, only 25% recalled the event
Study does not tell us why some P. more susceptible to these memories than others
But does show that the creation of false mem. is possible
Kahneman et al. [1993] [Sapiens (beginning - end)]
AIM: Investigate the idea that P. will judge an experiment based on the peak & end of the experience
PROCEDURE:
- P. had to hold their hand in painfully cold water - with the free hand, P. recorded the strength of the pain with their fingers
- Repeated measures - conditions: 60s, 14˚C at end, P. given a warm towel, or first 60s at the same conditions, then 30s slightly warmer water entered the tub, raising temperature by 1˚C
- Had to then chose to repeat 1 or 2
FINDINGS:
- 80% chose condition 2 - even though 1 would be better
- Clear example of Peak-end rule - based choice on how the condition ended
EVALUATION:
Not ethical
Framing Effect: people react to choices depending of presentation, when we expect success we would rather have a definite win, when defeat is expected we would rather have a uncertain loss
Kulkofsky et al. [2011] [Kopf “bling”]
AIM: See if there was a difference in rate of flashbulb memories in collectivistic & individualistic cultures
PROCEDURE:
- 275 adults from China, Germany, Turkey, the UK and the USA
- Given a memory questionnaire which mirrored the questionnaire used by BROWN & KULIK 1977; given a series of nine events and asked about the circumstances where they first heard about the event - when yes, P. asked to write an account of their memory & rate it on a scale of personal importance and asked if they had a flashbulb memory of personal events
- Asked about when and how they learnt about the events recalled by P. in 5 minutes, and then about the personal importance of the event
- In native language of the participants
FINDINGS:
- Collectivistic cultures (China): personal importance & intensity of emotion played less of a role in predicting flashbulb memories
- More individualistic cultures - opposite
- Less rehearsal of the triggering event compared to P. of other cultures lowered chances of developing a FBM, so significant difference in creation of FBM if event was of national importance
HM Milner [1966]
CASE STUDY:
- Example of biological evidence that STM and LTM are located in a different store in the brain
- HM had anterograde amnesia
- Could not transfer new information into LTM - but still had access to many of his memories prior to his surgery
- Fact that he could create new procedural memories shows that mem. may be more complex than the M-SMM predicts
Warrington & Schalice [1970]
AIM: To demonstrate a case where LTM remained intact while STM was damaged
PROCEDURE:
- Case Study
- KF’s LTM in-tact but showed impairment of STM
- Problem recalling lists of words/numbers but was able to learn
- Clearly moved information from STM to LTM
FINDINGS:
- Although KF quickly forgot words/numbers when presented orally, he could remember them when presented visually - supports theory that there are separate STM stores
- Longitudinal - Warrington and Schallice could later find that although KF could not recall words or letters orally, he had no difficulty recalling cats meowing or telephones ringing
- R. concluded that accident had resulted in damage due to a STM store that was auditory & not visual, and also verbal rather than non-verbal
- Supports theory that STM is much more complicated that suggested by M-SMM
Brewer & Treyens [1981]*
AIM: Investigate role of schema in the encoding and retrieval of memory
PROCEDURE:
- 86 university psych students
- Seated in a room made to look like an office - P. asked to wait in the professor’s office while the R. checked to make sure the previous participant had completed the experiment (did not realize experiment had already begun)
- All P. had the same vantage point
- After 35 seconds P. called into another room & asked to remember what was in the office - P. given a questionnaire asking if they expected to be asked to recall the office
- P. allocate 1 of 3 conditions
- Recall: asked to write & describe as many objects possible - location, shape & size
- After, given a verbal recognition test in which they had to rate items in a booklet for how certain they were that the object was in the room
- Drawing: P. given an outline of room & asked to draw what they could remember
- Verbal recognition: P. asked to read a list of objects and simply asked whether they were in the room/not
Bartlett [1932]* [Bar]
AIM: Investigate how the memory of a story is affected by previous knowledge
PROCEDURE:
- P. told a native american legend - P. were british, thus unfamiliar with the names and concepts
- P. allocated one of two conditions
- Repeated reproduction: P. heard story and told to reproduce it after a short time & then repeat this after a period of days, weeks, months and years
- Serial reproduction: Recall story & repeat to other P.
FINDINGS:
- No significant difference between the way groups recalled story
- Three patterns of distortion -
1) became more consistent w/ P.’s own cultural expectations.
2) became shorter (after 6/7 reproductions, it was 180 words).
3) change the order of the story in order to make sense of it using terms more familiar to the culture of P. - and added details/emotions
EVALUATION:
- No standardized intervals of reproducing the story
- No Significant independent variable
- Low reliability
- No standardized procedure