Reliability of Cognitive Processes

Question 1

reliability of CP studies

Answer 1

Loftus and Pickerall|Yuille and Cutshall

Question 2

LPi aim

Answer 2

The aim of this study was to determine if false memories of autobiographical events can be created through the power of suggestion.

Question 3

LPi method

Answer 3

The family members of the small sample of participants, mostly female, were contacted and asked “Could you retell three childhood memories of the participant?” and “Do you remember a time the participant was lost in the mall?” Afterwards, the participants received a questionnaire in the mail, in which three events were real and one was “getting lost in the mall” They were instructed to say whether they remembered or didn’t. Over the next four weeks, participants were interviewed twice, and asked to recall as much information as they could about the four events, and then rate their levels of confidence on the memories from 1 - 10. After the second interview they were debriefed and asked which of the memories was false.

Question 4

LPi results

Answer 4

About 25% of participants recalled their false memory however they also ranked it lower on the scale when it came to confidence and wrote less about it on the questionnaire.

Question 5

LPi conclusion

Answer 5

Some people can be misled into believing a false event happened to them in their childhood through suggestion that it was a true event. Therefore, in some people, memories can be altered by suggestion.

Question 6

LPi strengths

Answer 6

• Quantitative data
• Replicable
• High level of control
• Ecological validity was high when participants talked about childhood memories

Practical applications
Research has been applied to eyewitness testimony and therapy

Question 7

LPi weaknesses

Answer 7

• Low generalisability
• Lack of detail - could be recalling other instances in which they had been lost in crowded areas
• Ethical issues - informed consent, deception, harm
• Doesn’t tell us why some participants were more susceptible to false memories than others - possible to verify memory through family
  Difficult to know whether this is a “true” false memory or a distortion of another time being lost

Question 8

YC aim

Answer 8

• To record and evaluate witness accounts
• To examine issues raised by laboratory
  research
• To look at witness verbatim accounts - their accuracy and the kind of errors made.

Question 9

YC method

Answer 9

The researchers contacted the eyewitnesses four mother after the event. 13 of the eyewitnesses agreed to be interviewed as part of a study. They gave their account of the incident, and then they were asked questions. Two misleading question were used, and example being “a busted headlight” vs “the busted headlight.” They were also asked to rate their stress on a seven-point scale.

Question 10

YC results

Answer 10

Although of the 13 participants, 7 were central and 6 peripheral, the responses were equally accurate. Even after 4-5 months, the accuracy remained similar and higher for most witnesses and errors were relatively rare. Misleading information had little effects - 10 said there was no broken headlight or no yellow quarter panel , or said they had not noticed the detail. Researchers found that witnesses experienced adrenaline more than stress, which came later. Hence, they found that stress did not affect memory negatively.

Question 11

YC conclusion

Answer 11

The research contradicts Loftus and Palmer’s finding as the eyewitnesses weren’t influenced by the leading question. However, the eyewitnesses associated a lot of emotion with this event which may have helped with the accuracy of the memory.

Question 12

YC strengths

Answer 12

High ecological validity
Field study looking at a real incident with real witnesses has validity that is lab experiments

Purpose sample
There was a purposive sample so only eyewitnesses were used. This means that the results will be relevant towards the study and that there won’t be false data.

Question 13

YC weaknesses

Answer 13

• Low reliability
  
  • Since it was a field study, there were no standardised instructions, meaning that it can’t be replicated and thus, isn’t generalisable.

Flashbulb memory?
Could be a flashbulb memory, so may be unfair to use these findings to criticise lab experiments.
* Problems with the scoring - however, as the accounts were largely accurate, emphasising inaccuracies would not have affected the findings in this case. Turning qualitative into quantitative data can always lead to bias.

Question 14

Biases in TDM studies

Answer 14

Mendel et al 2011|Synder and Swann|Hamilton and Gillford

Question 15

Mendel aim

Answer 15

To study whether psychiatrists and medical students are prone to confirmation bias.

Question 16

mendel method

Answer 16

75 psychiatrists and 75 medical students were given the same test. They were given a summary of a case study of an old man, the first of which was written so that the most probable diagnosis was depression, although the correct diagnosis if all the information was revealed was Alzheimer’s disease. After an initial diagnosis, participants could then ask to receive additional information related to either diagnosis. The researchers measures accuracy of diagnosis and also the correlation between what further information was asked for and the % correct diagnosis.

Question 17

mendel results

Answer 17

A small percentage of psychiatrists and a quarter of students showed confirmation bias when searching for new information after having made a preliminary diagnosis. Participants conducting a confirmatory information search were significantly less likely to make the correct diagnosis compared to participants searching in a disconformity or balanced way.

Question 18

mendel conclusion

Answer 18

Confirmatory information search harbors the risk of wrong diagnostic decisions. Psychiatrists should be aware of confirmation bias and instructed in techniques to reduce bias.

Question 19

mendel strengths

Answer 19

• Controlled variables
• Easily repeated
  Supports the effect that confirmation bias can have on the patients

Question 20

mendel weaknesses

Answer 20

• Difference in experience between the two groups
• Limited generalisability
• Low ecological validity
  Used case studies and not real people

Question 21

SS aim

Answer 21

To test whether individuals display a cognitive bias about personal attributes of other people.

Question 22

SS method

Answer 22

Female college students were randomly allocated to either meet a person who was introverted (reserved, cool) or extroverted (outgoing, warm). The participants were given a brief written overview of extravert or introvert personality traits then asked to prepare a set of questions for the person they were going to meet.

Question 23

SS results

Answer 23

In general, participants came up with question that confirmed their perceptions of introverts and extroverts. Those who thought they were going to meet an introvert asked, “What do you dislike about parties?” or “Are there times you wish you could be more outgoing?” and extroverts were asked, “What do you do to liven up a party?” The researchers concluded that the questions asked confirmed participants’ stereotypes of each personality type so that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy - for example, because they believed he was an introvert they asked him questions which made him appear to be one. In reality the descriptions were matched randomly to the students being interviewed. The interviewers simply found what they expected to find.

Question 24

SS conclusion

Answer 24

Researchers concluded that the questions asked confirmed participants’ stereotypes of each personality type so that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy - for example, because they believed he was an introvert they asked him questions which made him appear to be one. In reality, the descriptions were matched randomly to the students being interviewed. The interviewers simply found what they expected to find.

Question 25

conclusion strengths

Answer 25

• Internal validity
  
  • Random allocations - prevents researcher bias and potentially controlling extraneous variables
• Theory is deterministic
  
  • Predict
  • Measure - cause and effect
    Results have theoretical generalisability

Question 26

SS weaknesses

Answer 26

• Lab experiment - findings can’t be generalised to other situations
  
  • Low ecological validity
  • Artificial task
  • POSSIBLE COUNTER - can be applied to real life situation
• Gynocentric sample
  
  • Low external validity (population)
  • Beta bias (minimises gender differences)
• Low internal validity
  
  • Construct validity
    Difficulty operationalising questions

Question 27

HG aim

Answer 27

To investigate how our expectations of events can distort how we process the information.

Question 28

HG method

Answer 28

Participants read descriptions of various people from imaginary groups: Group A & Group B. Group A was considerably larger than group B. The readings contained descriptions of the individuals group membership and a specific behaviour. These behaviours were either helpful or harmful (e.g. John, a teacher in Group B, screams at his students). Participants were asked to give their impressions of a typical group member.

Question 29

HG results

Answer 29

When giving their descriptions, participants considered the behaviour of group B members (the minority) to be considerably less desirable that those of group A. There was no correlation between group membership and desirability and so participants were making an illusory correlation.

Question 30

HG conclusions

Answer 30

It was concluded that there was no correlation between group membership and desirability and so participants were making an illusory correlation.

Question 31

HG strengths

Answer 31

• Highly controlled –> high internal validity
• Repeated measures design
  
  • Not two distinct conditions running separately –> eliminate participant variability as all participants took part in all aspects of the study
• Practical applications
  E.g. Found that doctors tend to “over-remember” poor health practices in obese patients compared to other patients - suggests that stigmatised patients suffer more from an illusory correlation bias than non-stigmatised patients.

Question 32

HG weaknesses

Answer 32

• Low ecological validity - highly artificial
  
  • Can not know to what extent this can predict the development of stereotypes under natural conditions
    Although findings do show a difference between the positive and negative traits attributed to each group, the findings were not all significant.