the cognitive area

Question 1

background of moray

Answer 1

cherry- looked into inattentional barrier put up at a party and how this can be broken by the cocktail effect

Question 2

cocktail party effect definition

Answer 2

concept suggested by cherry in which we could hear it when our own name is said within a room

Question 3

dichotic listening definition

Answer 3

when headphones are worn by a participant and a diff message is played to each ear

Question 4

shadowing definition

Answer 4

when a participant is told to focus on a passage of text and repeat it out loud as they hear it

Question 5

affective instructions definition

Answer 5

when a person is asked to do something, preceded by their name being said

Question 6

non-affective instructions definition

Answer 6

when a person is asked to do something, but their name is not used

Question 7

morays aims

Answer 7

to test cherrys findings on the inattentional barrier more thoroughly

Question 8

morays procedure experiment 1

Answer 8

-shadow a piece of prose in one ear (the attended message)
-in the other ear a list of simple words was repeat 35 times (the rejected message)
-at the end of the task participants completed a recognition task where they had to indicate what they recognised from a list of 21 words (7 from the shadowed passage, 7 from the rejected passage and 7 similar words that were in neither)

Question 9

moray experiment 1 conclusions

Answer 9

participants are more able to recognise words from the shadowed message, almost none of the words from the rejected message are able to break the ‘inattentional barrier’

Question 10

moray experiment 2

Answer 10

-2 passages of light fiction heard one in each ear
-2 passages contained an instruction at the start and then another within
-both passages were read in a steady monotone pace

Question 11

conclusions from moray expeirment 2

Answer 11

affective messages (such as names) are able to break the ‘inattentional barrier’ - backing up previous work by cherry

Question 12

experiment 3 moray

Answer 12

wanted to find if pre warning would help break the inattentional barrier:
-asked to shadow one of 2 simulataneous dichotic messages: one group told to remember as many digits as possible, the other that they would be asked questions at the end

Question 13

conclusions from moray experiment 3

Answer 13

no difference in mean score of digits recalled directly between the 2 ‘set’ conditions because numbers are not important enough to break the inattentional barrier

Question 14

4 conclusions of morays experiments

Answer 14

1. almost none of the verbal content from a rejected message can penetrate the block
2. simple words as the rejected message show no trace of being remembered
3. important messages like names can penetrate the barrier
4. it is difficult to make ‘neutral’ material important enough to break the inattentional barrier

Question 15

ethics in moray

Answer 15

upheld: no deception, no physical harm
broken:potential mental harm

Question 16

ethnocentrism in moray

Answer 16

only reflects english speaking
cognitive process so should not apply as the same process in all humans

Question 17

reliability in moray

Answer 17

internal- lab experiment so controlled, standardised and replicable
external- small sample size of only 12 and 28

Question 18

validity in moray

Answer 18

internal- low contruct validity as may have worked out purpose of study
external- low population validity as only used uni students, low ecological validity as highly controlled lab experiment

Question 19

the defining principles of the cognitive area

Answer 19

-our behaviour is influenced by internal mental processes such as memory, attention, language and perception
-our mind processes info similar to a computer: info is inputted from the senses, processed, stored and later retrieved

Question 20

how does moray link to the principles of the cognitive area

Answer 20

internal mental processes-attention
like a computer- processing auditory input

Question 21

evaluation of the cognitive area

Answer 21

strengths: useful in trying to improve mental capabilities, internal mental processes are universal
weaknesses: often lab experiments, often small sample sizes and unrepresentative, relies on self report, ethnocentric, potential mental harm, deception

Question 22

loftus and palmer background

Answer 22

loftus interested in the fragility of memory and the validity of eyewitness testimony

Question 23

schlema theory definition

Answer 23

the ability to retain info and to demonstrate this retention of info through behaviour

Question 24

reconstructive memory definition

Answer 24

the way in which our biases and prejudices can unconsciously lead us to have memories of events that are distortions of what acc happens

Question 25

leading questions definition

Answer 25

a question which, by its form or content, suggests what answer is desired

Question 26

aim of loftus and palmer

Answer 26

to investigate the effect of language on memory

Question 27

loftus and palmer experiment 1 procedure

Answer 27

1. students shown 7 clips of car crashes (4 showing the speed of the crash)
2. each student given a questionnaire of 2 parts
   -firstly they were asked to give an account of the accident
   -then they would answer questions on the accident

Question 28

loftus and palmer conclusions
and explanations

Answer 28

people are not good at estimating the speed of cars - the word used biases participants answer
the form of question does change the answer given by a witness - memory change because of use of the word

Question 29

loftus and palmer experiment 2 procedure

Answer 29

stage 1:
watch clips of car crashes
answer questionnaire including the critical question which was changed for each group: speed when they hit or crashed, control group
stage 2:
returned a week later to answer 10 more qs including “did u see any broken glass”

Question 30

loftus and palmer experiment 2 conclusions + explanations

Answer 30

the form of question does change the witnesses memory
2 things make up your memory:
1. own perception 2. external info

Question 31

loftus and palmer ethics evaluation

Answer 31

upheld: consent
didnt: deception, protection from harm

Question 32

loftus and palmer ethnocentrism evaluation

Answer 32

only carried out on american students
however cognitive processes are universal (same for all humans)- doesnt matter where the research was carried out

Question 33

loftus and palmer reliability evaluation

Answer 33

internal- standardised as all participants watched the same vids with same qs and same amount of time between testing
external- sample sizes of 45 and 150 large enough - but 9 per condition maybe not

Question 34

loftus and palmer validity evaluation

Answer 34

internal- controlled so unlikely to have extraneous variables, seeing glass could be demand characteristics
external-
popuation- lack diversity.
ecological- dont represent irl accidents as staged crashes

Question 35

grant et al background

Answer 35

context dependant memory is the idea that we can recall info best in the same context the info was learnt in
godden and baddeley- divers learning words in 2 natural environments: wet or dry and lists were recalled better in the environment learnt
smith- outshining hypothesis: cues from familiar environments will be ‘outshone’ by the info contained within the options a person is given to choose from

Question 36

grants aims

Answer 36

whether the kind of context dependancy effect has often been reported for recall of unrelated lists of words would also be seen in relation to the type of meaningful prose that is presented in many academic courses

Question 37

grants sample

Answer 37

17 females and 23 males aged 17-56
10 participants for each of the 4 conditions
only 39 participants data was used due to one being an anomaly

Question 38

grants procedure

Answer 38

1. learning- participants read an article on psychoimmunology in either silence or noise made up of background sounds in a cafeteria at lunch wearing headphones
   then they had a 2 min break
2. testing- participants all took tests in order recall test then recognition in either noise or silence

Question 39

grants findings/conclusions

Answer 39

recall tests: mean 6.7/10 in silent-silent conditions, 5.3 in silent-noise, 4.6 noise-silent, 6.2 in noise-noise
recognition: 14.3/16 in silent-silent and noise-noise, 12.7 silent-noise and noise-silent

Question 40

how does grants study link to the cognitive area

Answer 40

it is focused on understanding one particular theory about memory- context dependant memory.
it proposes that when a memory is formed characteristics of the environment are encoded with it, so retrieval of the memory is helped by revisiting the same environment

Question 41

similarities and differences between grant and loftus and palmer studies

Answer 41

similarities: sample size-45/40, self report used for both-verbally and written
differences: focuses on different influences on memory-language and context, type of stimulus given to participants- video clips/article

Question 42

how grants study has changed our understanding of memory

Answer 42

investigates a new type of memory: context dependant vs reconstructive
but both studies use students and only look into external influences on memory
hasnt changed cultural social and individual diversity as both done on uni students in the USA and look into situational not individual differences

Question 43

simon and chabris background

Answer 43

inattentional blindness- when people fail to see something in their field of vision
neisser - studied this with 2 teams passing a ball between them while a women with an umbrella walked across the screen, who participants failed to see
these videos were made by overlaying 3 seperate filmed videos of a black team, white team, and the women walking across, creating a transparent effect.

Question 44

simon and chabris aims

Answer 44

investigate if the results from Neisser’s research were affected by the way he had made his video or if the same results were be obtained from an opaque video.
and to investigate if other effects (the nature of the event, the difficulty of the task and what the participants were told to focus on)

Question 45

simon and chabris sample

Answer 45

192 undergraduate students (12 per condition)

Question 46

simon and chabris procedure

Answer 46

participants individually watched short videos and were asked questions about them. they were in one of 16 conditions based on the manipulation of either
1. the video being opaque or transparent
2. the unexpected event being a women carrying an umbrella or a woman wearing a gorilla costume
3. participants counting the basketball passes of the team with black or white shirts
4. participants doing an easy or hard task ( count passes of one team or the bounces and number of aeriel pass)
the dependant variable was if they reported seeing the unexpected event or not

Question 47

simon and chabris findings

Answer 47

participants noticed the unexpected event 54% of the time
41.6% saw the unexpected event in the transparent condition, and 66.5% in the opaque.
65.5% saw the umbrella women, 42.6% saw the gorilla
63.5% doing the easy task and 44.6% doing the hard task
8% of the white team and 67% of the black team
this shows that paying attention to a primary monitoring task can result in people failing to see an unexpected event nearly half the time

Question 48

simon and chabris evaluation

Answer 48

external reliability: sample of 192 large but only 12 per condition
population validity: only undergraduate students from harvard

Question 49

simon and chabris debates

Answer 49

usefulness: dont use phone when driving
holism: looks at range of conditions (16)
determinism: the participants attention change based on the conditions (task and video)

Question 50

comparison of attention studies

Answer 50

similarities:
both involve deception
both had small samples for conditions
differences:
different experimental designs - repeated vs independant
different types of attention studies - inattentional blindness vs barrier for hearing

Question 51

how simon and chabris changed our understanding

Answer 51

tells us about a new type of attention ( visual vs auditory)
but still tells the same thing about how you can miss something by being focused on something else