RM- cognitive processing Flashcards
RM- cognitive processing
When conducting investigations on cog processing, we use a variety of RMs
As cognitvie processes arent easily observable, we need to use well controlled methods such as experiments which can isolate variables and help us find specific cog processes which influence us
We might also use case studies to complement this, so that we have some studies that are high in eco validity, and can give us a detailed idea of cog processes. In unique cases, case studies are good for finding what cog processes are responsible/ serve what function
HM case study
Case study
In depth investigation of an individual or a group
They often involve lots of other methods, such as observations and interviews
Are focused on a small group of individuals or a single individual
Are often very in depth and detailed
The indv/ group that is being studied is unique in some way. The purpose of the case tudy is to gain a deeper understanding of the indv/ group
When studying cog processing, we often have to look at individuals with brain damage or mental illness. As these people make up a small sample of the population, case studies are appropriate
In the case of studying the cog processes, we may have to study people with mental illnesses or brain damage. This is because the result of their brains being different in some way, this may change the way they think
Case studies are good for investigating phenomena that couldnt be studied otherwise
If we use a case study, we can observe the changes in their behavior in detail, and so gain a better understanding of what parts of their brain caused this change, leading to a better understanding of how our cognition is affected
Case studies
Study ppl who have had an accident
Benfit: allows u to study u couldnt do experimentally
Good bc we can see damage to brain on humans
STRENGTH:
Very in depth and detailed
Allow us to gain a better understanding of what makes a certain indv unique.
In the case of HM, it is because there was such an in depth case study of him, that we were able to find out new things about how memory works in the brain.
This is useful for cog processes bc:
This study showed how the hippocmapus is important in memory processing and particualry in the storage of new memories.
LIMITATIONS:
As it is a very in depth and detailed study, findings are not generalisable to toehr people
Findings about the role of the different parts of the brain may not necessarily be true for other individuals, as the sample size was only on HM
If we were to investigate the cog proccesses, a larger sample size would be needed
BUT no cause and effect bc u cant induce it
HM, didnt carefully decide which part to damage, and so cant be sure what parts of brain affected memory. Didnt carefully control the IV, and so you cant be sure it affected the DV (his memory)
Bc cog processes arent easily observable, we need to use controlled studies to be able to see speicifcally what trypes of cog proccesses there are. We need it to be well controlled as we cant observe them directly, and so need to use reductionist approach to see what processes there are
Lab experiments are good for this
Glanzer and Cunitz
GOOD
Well controlled experiment.
High construct validity
When given filler task, recency effect doesnt happen
Through this well controlled experiment, they found that the STM and LTM are separate. Only through lab experiment being well controlled and reductionist
BAD
Ecological validity- not realistic situation artificial
Ppl never have to rmeembr a random list of 20 abstract words, so might not happen irl
As cog processes may be affected by other things, its important for studies to have eco validity.
To address the lack of eco valid in lab experiments, quasi experiments are a good compromise
Quasi experiments are both controlled and are more ecologically valid, as they arent artifically set up in a lab setting
Hupp et al
GOOD
Quasi experiments are both controlled and are more ecologically valid, as they arent artifically set up in a lab setting
Using controlled test w kids, they found that kids w unmarried mothers less likely to have stereotypical gender schema. Found these results using well controlled test, but is also ecologically valid
BAD
Cause and effect inferences cant be made
U cant be sure if IV affects DV, because u didnt allocate the IV
Cant be sure whether or not the groups were the same at the beginning of the study
Pre existing differences in one variable may be accompanies by a difference in other unexpected confounding variables
Not sure if other factors other than marital status of mom affects results
