Cognitive Flashcards
(32 cards)
Memory
persistence of learning over time through the encoding, storage and retrieval of information
Encoding: the processing of information into long-term storage
Storage: the retention of encoded material over time
Retrieval: the process of getting the information out of memory storage
Multi-Storage Model
Environmental input -> sensory [attention]-> STM ->[recall]/->[rehearsal loop]/[rehearsal]-> <-[retrieval] LTM
Sensory buffer/memory
Temporary store holding visual, auditory, tactile and olfactory information from the environment very briefly in the form received. Echoic (sound) stays for 2-5 seconds. Iconic (vision) stays for a fraction of second. Most info unprocessed. Information must receive attention to be processed+transferred to STM.
Short-term memory
Store with limited capacity and duration. Capacity refers to the amount of information that can be held in the store. Duration refers to how long information can stay in the store for. 7 separate items, 18 secs. If info rehearsed, moves to LTM. If new info not rehearsed/more information disrupts rehearsal, info in STM store may be displaced or lost.
Long-term memory
Store with unlimited capacity and duration. Endless items, indefinitely. However, not all information is easily retrievable. When we recall something, it’s retrieved from the LTM to the STM, and so decisions can be made and problems can be solved.
MSM S+L
Strengths: Significant research supports theory of separate stores, in cognitive research and biological case studies of patients with brain damage. Presents good account of basic mechanisms in memory processes. Model has historical importance+significant research which followed influenced by model.
Limitations: Over-simplified - assumes that each store works as independent unit. Does not explain memory distortion of separate areas for different types of memory such as procedural/episodic memory or explain why some things may be learned with minimal rehearsal or rehearsal of material that is not transferred to the LTM.
Study: Glanzer and Cunitz
- Aim: To investigate if there are two separate stores of memory (STM & LTM).
- Procedure: US Army enlisted males were given lists of words one at a time. They were asked to freely recall the words (without order).
Research method: Quasi-Experiment (no random allocation)
Independent variable: Number of seconds between word presentation and recall
Dependent variable: Number of words recalled from different positions in the list (beginning, middle, end).
Immediate recall: half participants asked to recall the words immediately after memorising
Recall after distraction: participants counted backwards for either 10, 30s before recalling the words - Results: Participants had higher probability of recalling items near the start of the list = primacy effect. Participants had higher probability of recalling items near the end of the list = recency effect. Participants had lower probability of recalling items in middle of list.
Delaying recall affects recency effect, with the longer the recall, lower the probability of remembering words at end of list, causing recall of later words to be similar to ones in the middle, no influence on primacy effect. This implies that the primacy words were stored somewhere different to the recency words.
Link to multi-storage model: Serial position effect demonstrated by this study. When recalling list, people tend to recall the end of the list, called recency effect, and the beginning of the list, called primary effect. The reason for the primacy effect is because the initial items presented are most effectively stored in LTM because of the greater amount of processing devoted to them. As the MSM explains that the transfer from STM to LTM depends on rehearsal and amount of attention the information has received. And the reason for the recency effect was because the items at the end of the list were still present in the STM when the recall was solicited, which is why the participants could not remember the items at the end of the list with a distraction task. - Strengths
Highly controlled - Limitations
Low ecological validity as people usually do not have to memorise meaningless words
Low generalisability, all army men
No random allocation = participant variability
Study: Peterson & Peterson
- Aim: To investigate the duration of short-term memory.
- Procedure: Lab experiment where participants (psychology students) recalled trigrams (meaningless three-consonant syllables). Trigrams were presented one at a time and no two successive trigrams contained any same letters. After hearing trigram, participants asked to count backwards in threes or fours from a number until they saw a red light (then they recalled the trigram) to prevent rehearsal.
IV: Time interval between hearing the trigram and recalling the trigram (after seeing a red light), e.g. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 seconds.
DV: Number of trigrams correctly recalled after every trial (6 in total). - Results: Results showed that the longer each student had to count backwards, the less well they were able to recall the trigram accurately.
After 3 secs - 80% of the trigrams correct. 6 seconds - 50%. 18 seconds - less than 10%. - Link to MSM:
Short-term memory has a limited duration (of about 18 seconds) when rehearsal is prevented. It is thought that this information is lost from short-term memory from trace decay. The results of the study also show short-term memory is different from long-term memory in terms of duration. Thus supporting the multi-store model of memory. If person unable to rehearse information, will not transfer to LTM. - Strengths
Lab experiment = confounding variables were controlled to establish cause and effect relationship.
Standardised instructions = easily replicable. - Limitations
Low external validity as the stimuli is very artificial as people do not try to recall trigrams in real life.
Only considered short-term memory duration for one type of stimuli. Did not provide information about other types of stimuli such as pictures and melodies.
Working memory model
Input->central executive<->episodic buffer->LTM
^Visuo-spatial sketchpad
↓Phonological Loop
Working memory
A store with limited capacity and duration, also known as the short-term memory.
Central executive
Allocates information based on modality, directs attention to tasks and is a temporary store of sensory information.
Phonological loop
Limited capacity. Deals with auditory information (Phonological store) and language (Articulatory control).
Visuo-spatial sketchpad
Limited capacity where visual and spatial information is stored. Contains visual-cache which stores information about what things look like e.g. form and colour. Inner scribe which processes spatial information and movement.
Episodic buffer
Communicates with LTM. Links information across domains to form integrated units of visual, spatial and verbal information with time sequencing.
WMM strengths + lims
Strengths: The model is supported by considerable experimental evidence. Brain scans have shown different areas of the brain active while carrying out verbal compared to visual tasks. Case studies of patients with brain damage support the theory that there are different parts of memory for visual and verbal tasks. Model helps us understand ability to multitask in some situations but not others.
Limitations: The role of the central executive and interactions between components is unclear. The model only explains short-term memory and tells us very little about long-term memory. The model does not explain memory distortion or the role of emotion in memory formation.
Study: Landry and Bartling
Study: Landry and Bartling
Aim: To investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall of a written list of letters in serial recall.
Procedure: Independent samples design, psychology students tested individually. Participants in experimental group saw list of letters that they had to recall while saying numbers ‘1’ and ‘2’ at rate of two numbers per sec from beginning of presentation until answer sheet filled. Repeated ten times. Control group saw list of letters but did not do articulatory suppression task. Shown list for 5s, instructed to wait for 5s, then instructed to write correct order of letters as accurately as possible. Letters chosen so that they did not sound phonologically similar. Accuracy and order of letters recalled was recorded.
Results: Showed that scores from experimental group were much lower than scores from control group. Differences in means of the groups was significant however standard deviations nearly identical, showing that participant variability not a confounding variable.
Links to models of memory: Supports WMM because it shows that disruption of phonological loop through use of articulatory suppression prevented the rehearsal in phonological loop because of overload, leading to less accurate working memory. Resulted in difficulty in memorising letter strings for participants in experimental conditions whereas participants in control did not experience overload, showing that there are separate stores of the working memory. This supports the idea that phonological loop has limited capacity + cannot attend to many things at once.
- Strengths
Laboratory experiment = well-controlled, clear causation between the IV (single vs. multi-tasking) and the DV variable (recall of letters)
Supports WMM’s predictions (each memory system has limited capacity)
May help understand the risks of multitasking in the real world - Limitations
Low ecological validity as memorising standalone letters = not real world
Schema Theory
hypothesis that we have cognitive framework that organises our stored memories and knowledge. Includes characteristics and different types of schema, and how they influence our mental processes and behaviour.
Schema
cognitive framework that organises our stored memories and clusters of knowledge. Schemas are mental representations which organise our knowledge, objects, events, ourselves and others. Influences the way we interpret, organise, communicate, and remember information. Schemas are either accommodated (when existing schemas are replaced) or assimilated (when you add information to existing schemas)
Schema S+L
Strengths: Testable, by priming schema, we can determine whether schema helps/interferes with learning. Plenty of empirical evidence supporting. Applied to understand memory+distortion+health. We can predict what types of information will be best recalled. Trends are seen, however, we cannot predict exactly what an individual might recall.
Limitations: Concept of schema is vague and cannot be observed, brain scans do not clarify processings. Mostly unbiased, however, most early research was conducted by Western cultures.
Reconstructive memory
suggests that in the absence of all information, we fill in the gaps to make more sense of what happened. Memory s not saved as completed as retrieval of memory influenced by perception, belief, past experience, cultural factors and content in which we are recalling.
Study: Brewer and Treyens
Aim: To investigate whether schemas would affect encoding and retrieval of episodic memory.
Procedure: Participants = university psychology students led into room made to look like office to ‘wait for professor’ (not realise that study begun). In office were objects typically found in an office such as papers and electronics. Items not typically found in office such as skull and toy top. Omitted items typically found in office such as books. After 35 seconds, participants led to 2nd room.
Condition 1: written recall - describe room to someone who has never seen it before with as many details as possible. Afterwards, participants were also given list of objects to rank on certainty of it being in room.
Condition 2: draw objects in the room.
Condition 3: were read list of objects, had to say whether they were in the room or not.
Results: Writing and drawing conditions, participants likely to recall objects congruent with schema of office (items typically found in office) and not recall items schema-incongruent items (items not typically found in office). When given or read list of objects - more likely to recall objects incongruent with schema, however, also more likely to falsely recall items congruent with office schema. In drawing+writing condition, likely to change nature of object more schema-congruent (participants recalled that the trapezoid shaped table was rectangular).
Link to schema theory: Supports schema theory - encoding + retrieval process of memory affected by existing schemas. Participants’ memory of the items distorted due to their existing schemas of office. Recalled incorrectly so that the information could ‘fit’ into their own schema of an office, showing that schemas do affect our mental process of memory.
Link to reconstructive memory: Supports reconstructive memory theory - shows that the encoding and retrieval process of memory is affected by existing schemas and that schemas can cause the false reconstructive of memory. The participants’ memory of the items were distorted due to their existing schemas of an office. They recalled incorrectly so that the information could ‘fit’ into their own schema of an office, showing that our memory is susceptible to reconstruction due to schemas.
Strengths
The participants were debriefed afterwards due to the use of deception and were not harmed
Limitations
This study was a lab experiment with low ecological validity.
There is sample bias. University psychology students as participants = low generalisability
Participant variability, they may have been focused on different parts of the room
Study: Martin + Halvorsen
Link 2 Schema + Reconstructive
L+S
Link to schema: This supports the schema congruent process which suggests that children are actively seeking out information and developing their gender schema. Childhood is a critical phase of development as biases and prejudices are hard to change at an older age. This study supports the idea that through observation and experience we adapt our behaviour to the norms of our culture like how the children’s established gender norms affect the behaviour of memory.
Link to reconstructive: This supports the reconstructive memory theory as the study shows that retrieval processes of memory are affected by existing schemes and that schemas can cause the false reconstruction of memory. This study supports the idea that through observation and experience we adapt our retrieval of memory to the schemas of our culture like how the children’s established gender schemas cause reconstructive memory.
Strengths
The study is highly standardised and can be replicated to determine its level of reliability.
The study controlled for response bias. Those that claimed to remember images that were not seen tended to have very low levels of confidence.
The researchers avoided a “forced choice” response of “boy” or “girl” and gave the children five choices to choose from: man, woman, boy, girl, “I don’t know.”
Limitations
Low ecological validity, the study is highly controlled = may not reflect how children process information about gender in the real world
Thinking
process of using knowledge and information to make plans, interpret the world and make predictions about the world
Decision making
cognitive process that involves choosing action, belief or strategy, making a choice between some alternatives. Closely linked to thinking because before we can choose, we have to analyse - thinking = prerequisite of decision making
Dual Processing Model
suggests that there are two systems of processing information that influence judgement and decision-making.
System 1 - thinking fast, focuses on seen, ignores absent information, bases decisions on past experience and knowledge (already established schemas), effortless way of thinking, employs heuristics, ‘shortcut’ used to make decisions. ‘Automatic’ thinking, expected to create a greater feeling of certitude that the initial response is correct.
System 2 - Slow thinking, requires concentration and effort, is conscious, works with abstract concepts and through logic, uses conscious reasoning, more reliable.
We use system 1 thinking because we are cognitive misers and want to use as little energy as possible to think and make decisions. When there is problem we need to solve, we tend to use least demanding course of action
Dual Processing S+L
Strengths: Distinction betw. System 1 + System 2 = well supported by research. Can explain why intelligent people can make poor decisions when they rely on System 1 to come up with a fast answer. Consistent with evolution: System 1 believed to evolved in the past to make quick, life saving decisions/System 2 = more modern adaptation to help us think deliberately and carefully.
Limitations: Difficult to measure thinking+ decision making in natural scenarios as there are multiple factors that affect decision making in real life, difficult to measure what type of thinking. Most research done w Western university student samples under artificial conditions. Low ecological validity+cross-cultural support
Cognitive misers
we want to use as little energy as possible to think and make decisions
Heuristics
mental ‘shortcut’, an efficient way to process information received from world and is fast and requires minimal effort. Results in patterns of thinking and decision making which are consistent but inaccurate, cognitive biases
Anchoring bias
cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on first piece of information we are given about topic. First piece of information influences subsequent judgements
Anchoring bias S+L
Limitations: Difficult to measure actual biases in natural scenarios as there are multiple factors that affect decision making in real life. Most research done with Western university student samples under artificial conditions. Low ecological validity+cross-cultural support
Study: Englich and Mussweiler
Aim: To investigate whether anchoring with higher and lower sentences will influence a judge’s decision on the sentencing.
Procedure: Participants = young trial judges. Independent samples design. Participants given constructed case. Prosecutor in two conditions demanded either 2 months or 34 months as lower and higher anchor. Case materials advised by experienced trial judges. Case materials tested on group of senior law students as pilot study. Average prison term recommended was 17.21 months. Used as basis to determine anchors. Were asked to read through materials and form opinion about case in 15 minutes. They were then given questionnaire regarding prosecutor’s demand regarding recommended sentence
Results: Low anchor recommended significantly lower average sentence compared to average sentence of higher anchor.
Link to dual processing: Pilot study of experienced judges demonstrated system 2 thinking as they took time to consciously think to develop reasonable sentence time. Two conditions demonstrated system 1 thinking, led them to rely on information given and anchoring bias to make decisions.
Link to anchoring bias: Supports anchoring bias in sense of relying too heavily on first sentence (first piece of information/anchor) when making sentencing decisions of case. Suggested sentencing of prosecutor influences sentencing recommended by participant, showing anchoring bias influencing thinking and decision making
- Strengths
True experiment = cause and effect relationship between anchor and sentence
Use of pilot study helped establish reasonable anchors
High ecological validity, the case was realistic - Limitations
Small sample size, low generalisability, generalisable to younger and less experience judges
Independent samples design increases participant variability
Study: Tversky + Kahneman
Aim: To investigate the effect of anchoring bias on decision making.
Procedure: Lab experiment. High school students asked to estimate product of 1 through 8 in ascending (low anchor) or descending (high anchor) order within 5 seconds. The product is same, but they had to make intuitive numerical calculation.
Results: Found that when “anchor” was smaller, so was final estimate. Median for ascending group was significantly smaller than median for descending group. Payoffs for accuracy (which means that they got a reward for accuracy) didn’t reduce this bias.
Link to system 1: Demonstrates that when participants have little time to make a decision, they tend to use system 1 thinking. They made a quick intuitive estimation based on first few numbers they saw. This system 1 thinking made them susceptible to anchoring bias.
Link to anchoring bias: First number seen by participants seems to have biased final estimate. Since they had no time to calculate in 5 seconds, they had to make estimation based on first few multiplications. When those numbers were smaller, estimate was smaller.
Strengths
High internal validity, lab experiment = controlled extraneous variables, cause and effect relationship established
Replicable
Limitations
Low ecological validity because there are no consequences in this experiment that participants would experience in the real world which would lead to stress in decision making
Sampling bias, low generalisability to other ages, only high school students asked
Independent samples design increases participant variability (different maths levels)
