SL - Cognitive processing - schema theory

Question 1

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Answer 1

aim -> To investigate whether a question’s phrasing can affect the memory of an event
Method -> Ppts shown a video of a car crash. After a week, they were asked a question: “Did you see any broken glass when the cars [smashed/hit]”. There was no broken glass in the video.
Results -> Found that the frequency of ppts who were questioned with the verb “smashed” incorrectly recalled that there was broken glass more than double than those who were questioned with the verb “hit”.
Conclusion -> A question’s phrasing can affect memory: memory is reconstructive.
Every word has a different schema and this can affect how people think.

Evaluation ->

✔ High validity -> Two experiments were conducted to investigate these results so we can have high trust in these results and conclusions.
✔ Supported by Bergman and Roediger (1999) ~RM~, Bransford and Johnson ~ST~ (1972), Palmer ~ST~ (1975), and Kahneman ~ST~

❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point
❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point

Question 2

Palmer (1975)

Answer 2

aim -> To investigate the effect of context on perception
Method -> Ppts firstly presented with a context scene that briefly appeared and then an object. Four conditions: appropriate (context scene matching object, ie bread in a kitchen), inappropriate different (context not matching object, ie a drum in a kitchen), inappropriate similar (context seemingly matching the object but doesn’t, ie a mailbox in a kitchen), and a control condition (a blank screen).
Results -> Appropriate condition had the highest accuracy, context had the second-highest accuracy, inappropriate different had the third-highest accuracy, and the inappropriate similar had the worst accuracy
Conclusion -> A contextual scene activates the features of all concepts associated with that scene. So a context scene, which activates our schema for that context, affects our perception

Evaluation ->

✔ High validity -> high control due to the lab experiment increases validity but also the use of a control condition allows us to understand the effect of a situation with no activated schemas and how that interacts with the other conditions.
✔ Supported by Loftus and Palmer (1974) and Bransford and Johnson (1972)

❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point
❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point

Question 3

Bransford and Johnson (1972)

Answer 3

aim -> To demonstrate the connection between prior knowledge and comprehension of an ambiguous passage of text.
Method -> Ambiguous text was read out to ppts. Some ppts were provided with some information about the text before they heard it. Some were provided with some information after they’d heard it. Others were never given any information about the text.
Results -> ppts rated the passage as significantly more understandable if they had been given the context before the passage compared to having no information or information after listening.
Conclusion -> recall is significantly better when the material is first understood.

Evaluation ->

✔ high reliability and validity -> The use of the same sort of procedure with various stimulus materials contributes to high reliability. Different modes of context presentation (image and title) leading to similar results suggest good internal validity. A combination of these allows high trust in the results.
✔ Supported by Palmer (1975) and Loftus and Palmer (1974)

❌ Although Bransford and Johnson (1972) confidently claim that context will affect recall, The mechanism through which the context might affect comprehension and/or recall is not explained.
❌ n/s ~ good negative evaluative point

Question 4

Tversky and Kahneman ()

Answer 4

Dual-process theory -> We have two thinking systems: System 1 (fast, intuitive, best for quick thinking) and System 2 (slow, rational, focussed).

Although system 2 is better and more accurate, we still need system 1 as it is efficient, saves energy, and is especially needed in dangerous situations where instant thinking is required, ie a predator running towards you.

Question 5

Rational thinking and Intuitive thinking

Answer 5

Rational thinking (controlled)—goal-orientated and requires intentional effort and time, analyses/controls for biases
Intuitive thinking (automatic)—automatic, quick thinking; requires limited effort and is influenced by biases (Palmer)

Question 6

Schema theory

Answer 6

A schema is an organised unit of knowledge for a subject or event. It is based on past experience and is accessed to guide current understanding or action.
Schemas are dynamic – they develop and change based on new information and experiences.
Schemas guide how we interpret new information.
Schemas store both declarative (“what”) and procedural (“how”) information.

✔ Supported by Loftus and Palmer (1974), Palmer (1975), Bransford and Johnson (1972), and Bergman and Roediger (1999)
✔ Strong predictive power -> ST has been used in countless studies to hypothesise, the behaviours which are eventually found by the research.

❌ Lacks explanatory power -> Schemas can’t be seen or measured. We can find evidence for schemas only in the ways that they affect behaviour. There is currently no satisfactory explanation regarding how schemas do affect behaviour.
❌ No physical models for schemas.