Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology > Cognitive Area > Flashcards

Cognitive Area Flashcards

(64 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Moray- dichotic listening and shadowing

A

Playing different outputs to each ear

Repeating out loud what they could hear in one ear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

S & C general aim

A

Wanted to confirm that inattentional blindness occurs in a realistic, complex situation (5 seconds not unnoticed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

S&C aims

A

Testing a number of variables

  1. would similarity of the unexpected event to the attended event have an effect on inattentional blindness?
  2. would a particularly unusual event be more likely to be detected?
  3. would giving participants a more difficult task to do increase the rate of inattentional blindness?
  4. would use of a more realistic video (opaque) give different findings from those obtained via Neisser’s transparent video?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

S & C research methods

A

Lab experiment- 4IVs
Self report- P answered Qs
Independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

S & C sample

A

228 mainly undergraduate Harvard Uni
(Data had to be withdrawn from 36)
192 participants after
12 to each condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

S & C controls

A
  • actors
  • location
  • 75 second video clip
  • 2 teams of 3 players
  • pass ball same order
  • 44-48 seconds unexpected event started
  • event lasted 5 seconds
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

S & C IVs

A
  1. p’s focus (white/black)
  2. difficulty of task (pass/type of pass)
  3. unexpected event (gorilla/umbrella woman)
  4. Realistic video (opaque/transparent)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

S&C procedure

A

Participants tested individually
Told to count number of passes in clip
Couldn’t write down during cheek, had to count in head, then write on paper at the end
3 questions participants asked at the end
1. “While you were doing the counting, did you notice anything unusual in the video?”
2. “Did you notice anything other than the 6 players?”
3. “Did you see a gorilla/woman walking across the screen?”
If they answered yes to any, asked for more details and not asked later questions
Debrief and offered viewing of video after

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Overall results S&C

A

46% inattentional blindness

54% did see unexpected event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

S&C results

A 
Noticed unexpected event 
Transparent 41.6%
Opaque 66.5%
White 8%
Black 67%
Easy task 63.5% 
Difficult task 44.6%
Gorilla 42.6%
Umbrella woman 65.5%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

S&ax conclusion

A

Inattentional blindness occurs in dynamic events that are sustained
Also occurs in opaque condition
There did no conscious perception without attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

S&C reliability

A

Internal: Standardised
High- controlled lab environment
External: consistent effect
Low- 12 participants per condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

S&C validity

A

Internal: construct
High- independent measures means unlikely to find out aims, likely to be an accurate measure
External: population
Low- Harvard undergraduates not the average attention, youthful and smart
External: ecological
Low- counting passes on video not true to life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

S&C links to debates

A

Individual- situational
Usefulness
Psy as a science

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Grant aims

A

Outshining hypothesis: context dependent memory benefit recall not recognition- recognition cues will outshine environmental cues

Investigate context dependent memory effects on both recall and recognition for meaningful info (as opposed to a list)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Grant research methods

A

Lab

Independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Grant sampling method

A

Opportunity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Grant sample

A

40 original participants- only 39 data used
Ages 17-56
17 females, 23 males

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Grant test conditions

A

Silent- silent
Noisy- noisy
Noisy- silent
Silent- noisy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Grant recall part

A

10 short answer Qs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Grant recognition part

A

16 multiple choice questions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Grant procedure

A

Read 2 page academic article on psycho-immunity while wearing headphones with no output or background noise output
- 2 min break
Given the questions still hearing headphones

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Grant controls

A

Headphones, 2 min break, Qs, article, background noise, volume

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Grant Mean correct answers /10 recall task

A

Silent silent- 6.7
Silent noisy- 4.6
Noisy noisy- 6.2
Noisy silent- 5.4

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Grant mean correct answers /16 recognition task
Silent silent- 14.3 Silent noisy- 12.7 Noisy noisy- 14.3 Noisy silent- 12.7
26
Grant type of data collected
Quantitative
27
Grant conclusions
Context dependent memory aids both recall and recognition tests (contradicting previous research) Grant suggests it is because P were learning meaningful prose rather than list of words
28
Grant internal reliability
High | Lab- standardised controls (2 min break, order Qs)
29
Grant external reliability
Low | 39 across 4 conditions
30
Internal validity
Construct | High- controls rid of EVs
31
Grant external validity
Ecological More true to life than others like word lists Similar to real life college testing
32
Grant ethnocentrism
Memory should be relatively universal
33
Contemporary studies
Grant et al and Simons and Chabris
34
Classic studies
Moray | Loftus and Palmer
35
Moray 1: aim
Test Cherry’s findings more rigorously
36
Moray apparatus used
Brenell stereo graphic tape recorder | Headphones
37
Moray pretest
Participants given 4 passages of prose to shadow for practice 69 DB 150 wpm
38
Moray key terms
Dichotic listening- different outputs played to each ear Shadowing- day out loud what they hear Affective- meaningful instruction like their name Non affective- non meaningful instruction (without name)
39
Grant ind/sit
Sit | Focused not on individual ability but how context affects recall/recognition
40
Grant psy as science
Scientific Objective- quantitative data eg. 12.7&14.3 recognition task Falsifiable- can repeat to prove wrong easily and quantifiable results to compare with and measure Replicable- lab experiment had controls like 2 min break, headphones etc
41
Grant free-will/determinism
Free-will Shows how we can use our free will in order to increase effectiveness of memory and recall (matching context) Deter Memory may not be based on effort to remember or attention but determined by context cues
42
L&P aim
Investigate effects of language (in leading questions) on memory
43
L&P experiment 1 sample
45 American students (male and female) Washington state uni | 5 conditions- 9 each condition
44
L&P experiment 1 procedure
``` P watched 7 road safety clips Some videos had staged car crash Between 5-30 sec video P then filled out questionnaire Critical Q: about how fast were cars going when ____ eachother ? (Smashed, collided, hit, bumped, contacted) ```
45
L&P experiment 1 findings
``` Smashed- 40.8 MPH Collided- 39.3 MPH Bumped- 38.1 MPH Hit- 34 MPH Contacted- 31.8 MPH ```
46
L&P Conclusion/explanations finding experiment 1
Leading questions affect accuracy of memory Response bias- verb biased them to make a higher estimate Verb affected memory- caused them to genuinely remember the crash as more serious
47
L&P experiment 2 sample
150 students Washington Uni | 3 conditions- 50 each
48
L&P experiment 2 procedure
A clip of car crash ‘Hit’ or ‘smashed’ in critical question Another group did not have critical Q A week later asked if saw glass
49
Experiment 2 L&P aim
Aimed to test which explanation was correct for experiment 1 Response bias or verb affected memory
50
Experiment 2 L&P results
``` Speed estimate Smashed- 10.46 Hit- 8 Glass reported Smashed- 16 Hit- 7 Control- 6 ```
51
2 experiment L&P conclusion
More likely to report broken glass with verb smashed 2 things merge to create memory: 1. Original perception 2. Information gained after
52
Moray 1: sample
Students Oxford
53
Moray 1: method
Dichotic listening task - shadow prose from one ear ‘attended message’ other is ‘rejected message’ - simple word list repeated 35X Chose from list of words whichever words they recognised
54
Moray 1: results
Words recognised Shadowed- 5 Rejected- 2 Neither message (but similar to attended)- 3
55
Moray 1: conclusion
Much more able to recognise shadowed and almost none rejected/similar words could break inattentional barrier
56
Moray 2: aim
Investigate if affective cues break IAB
57
Moray 2: sample
12 students Oxford
58
Moray 2: method
10 dichotic listening tasks Used instructions ‘alright you may stop now’ Some had affective cues ‘John smith, you may stop now’ Counted as heard if instruction followed/ actually heard
59
Moray 2: results
Affective- 20/39 | Non- 4/36
60
Moray 2: conclusion
Affective cues more likely to be heard
61
Moray 3: aim
If being instructed to listen out for info breaks inattentional barrier
62
Moray 3: method
Some participants told to look out for digits in dichotic listening task - number towards end of rejected message
63
Moray 3: results
No significant diff
64
Moray 3: conclusion
Neutral info like digits cannot be made important enough to break barrier

Psychology (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions