cognitive psychology- paper2

Question 1

twhat is the aim of Loftus and palmer
(exp1)

Answer 1

to investigate if the eye witness testomy be distorted by the change of a critical verb.

Question 2

what is the sample of exp 1

Answer 2

45, students , America ( target population and where video is from so can be argued for culture bias)

Question 3

what is the method of L+P and iv/dv

Answer 3

lab experiment, independent measures design.
IV- smashed, collided, bumped ,contacted, hit.
dv- estimation of speed when asked the question ‘how fast were you going when’ and changed the critical verb.

Question 4

what is the procedure of L+P (exp1)

Answer 4

Participants were shown a brief film of a
car accident involving a number of cars from a driving safety course . They were then asked to describe what had happened
as if they were eyewitnesses. After they had watched the film, the participants were asked the question “About how fast were the cars going when they
(hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted-the five conditions) each other?”

Question 5

findings of L+P (EXP 1)

Answer 5

Those who were asked the question where the verb used was “smashed” thought the cars were going faster than those who were asked the question with “hit” as the verb. The mean estimate when “smashed” was used was 41mph, versus 34mph
when “hit” was used. therefore a response bias.

Question 6

conclusion of L+P (exp 1)

Answer 6

leading questions can distort memories .

Question 7

aim of Loftus and palmer (exp2)

Answer 7

To investigate if changing the critical verb can reconstruct memories.

Question 8

iv/dv of exp 2 of L+p

Answer 8

IV - hit/ smashed ( concurrent validity - ‘same thing again’ ) - predictive validity.
dv- amount of people who recalled seeing broken glass.

Question 9

procedure of L+P (exp2)

Answer 9

shown a one minute film with a 4 sec multiple car crash.
then given questionnaire with questions about the incident .
the question was ‘’ how fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed each other ? ‘’
one week later all participants were asked ‘’ did you see any broken glass’’ yes/no (nominal data)

Question 10

finding of L+P (exp2)

Answer 10

more ppts recalled broken glass when the critical verb was smashed (16) hit (7).

Question 11

conclusion of L+P (exp2)

Answer 11

This research suggests that memory is easily distorted by leading questioning and information acquired after the event can merge with original memory causing inaccurate recall or reconstructive memory.

Question 12

what is the aim of grant

Answer 12

to investigate if the environmental context can have ore positive effect on performance in a meaningful memory test.

Question 13

method iv/dv of Grant

Answer 13

lab, independent measures
IV1- whether participant read two page article in silence or noise.
IV2- participant tested in matching/ mismatching conditions.
DV- performance on short-answer recall test and multiple-choice recall test.

Question 14

sample of Grant

Answer 14

39, students, USA ( 1 dropped out because it skewed results)
snowball sampling - 8 experimenters with 5 recruited ppts.

Question 15

procedure of grant

Answer 15

all had headphones ( standardisation) on some played muffled canteen sound ( told to ignore it) some were silent.
studied 2 page psychoimmunity and then given 10 short answer questions , then 16 multiple-choice questions- tested memory.
reading times recorded, 2 min break then debriefed.

Question 16

finding/ conclusion of Grant

Answer 16

matched conditions recalled more.
conclusion- if you learn in the same environment your tested in you will recall more.

Question 17

what is the theme of moray

Answer 17

attention- select information to concentrate on that is constantly being bombarded whilst rejecting other information

Question 18

what is the background

Answer 18

cherry: cocktail party effect- can we block information from other conversations and concentrate on their own
investigate by a dichotic speaker- one ear told to shadow, one ear told to ignore, after they were told to recall as many words from ignored ear as they can
Broadbent: selective attention- can we filter sensory information at an early stage, allowing attention to be focussed. concluded that we can’t have attention without sensation
Johnsons and Heinz: said it wasn’t an early stage it can happen at any stage of processing, so we can select things we don’t want- explains how people can quickly change attention

Question 19

what are the controls for all the experiments

Answer 19

same twin amplifier- Brenell mark 4 stereo tape recorder
loudness matched at 1 bd higher above decibel score
all had 4 trial tasks before
all passages were recorded by a male speaker

Question 20

what is the aim of experiment one:

Answer 20

to further investigate cherry’s findings ( simple shadow task)

Question 21

what is the method of exp1

Answer 21

lab experiment, repeated measures
IV- shadowed ear, rejected ear
dv- number of words recalled from the rejected ear

Question 22

procedure of exp 1

Answer 22

shadowed ear was read passage and told to shadow
rejected ear was read a list of words x 35 times
30 sec gap between recall, asked to recall as many words from rejected ear they could

Question 23

what are the results of exp1

Answer 23

mean number of words recalled in shadowed ear was higher than rejected

Question 24

what is a conclusion of exp 1

Answer 24

repeating something won’t make it past a cognitive block
paying attention allows more words to be recalled
concurrently validates cherry- can have a cognitive block

Question 25

what is the aim of exp2 of moray

Answer 25

to investigate if affective information can break a cognitive block

Question 26

what is an example of affective information

Answer 26

anything personal- e.g. name

Question 27

method of exp 2

Answer 27

lab, repeated measures
IV- instructions prefixed with name or no-name in instructions
DV- number of instructions responded to from the rejected ear

Question 28

sample of exp 2

Answer 28

12 participants

Question 29

what is the procedure of exp2

Answer 29

shadowed 10 passages of light fiction, word list to left ear with instructions within “ (name) you may stop now”, “you may stop now”
they were asked to make as few errors in shadowed ear as their responses were recorded, ignore rejected ear

Question 30

what are the results of exp2

Answer 30

with affective instructions ( name)- 20 times heard
with non-affective (no name)- 4 times heard
affective instructions ( personal) had greater number of times the instruction was heard

Question 31

what is a conclusion of exp 2

Answer 31

affective instructions can break a cognitive break
concurrently supports Johnson and Heinz- filter information at any stage

Question 32

what is the aim of exp3

Answer 32

to investigate if expectation effects the way the message to the rejected ear is processed

Question 33

method of exp 3

Answer 33

lab experiment, independent measures
IV1: digit, no digit inserted into one or both message
IV2: whether told to remember shadowed content or remember digits heard
DV: number of digits correctly recalled

Question 34

what is the procedure of exp3

Answer 34

digits at the end of either one , both or neither message
group 1- told they would be asked to remember shadowed content
group2- instructed to remember digits

Question 35

what are the findings of exp3

Answer 35

no difference in mean scores for digits recalled between 2 groups

Question 36

what are the conclusions of exp 3

Answer 36

expecting something doesn’t break cognitive break
numbers don’t have meaning so cannot break cognitive block
concurrently validates exp2 as to break a cognitive block it has to have meaninghg

Question 37

what is the theme of Simons and Chabris

Answer 37

visual attention

Question 38

what is change and intentional blindness

Answer 38

change blindness- observers fail to notice large changes to objects from one view to the next, particularly if those aren’t the centre of attention
inattentional blindness- observers fail to perceive unexpected object when attention is diverted to another- we don’t see things when we don’t pay attention

Question 39

what is the background of Simons and Chabris

Answer 39

Neisser et al- dynamic visual displays- more realistic- increases validity. umbrella women walked past screen and less than 50% said they noticed her

Question 40

what is overall aim of S+C

Answer 40

to further investigate Neisser and factors that may affect visual detection rates
( factors- iv’s)

Question 41

what is method/ design of s+c

Answer 41

lab experiment , independent measures, 16 conditions

Question 42

what are the 4 IV’s of s+c

Answer 42

1- unexpected event- umbrella women or gorilla women
film- transparent or opaque
task- easy or hard
participant followed- black or white

Question 43

what is the DV of s+c

Answer 43

number of ppts who noticed umbrella or gorilla woman

Question 44

what is the sample of S+C

Answer 44

228, undergraduates, America. self-selected and rewarded through a candy bar
final analysis - 192 as others dropped out because thye had heard about phenomenon before
further 12 took part in controlled observation

Question 45

what are the materials used in S+C

Answer 45

4 videos of two teams of 3 throwing balls at each other, tape lasted 75 secs, unexpected event after 44-48 secs lasting for 5 secs
women walked left- right either holding umbrella or in gorilla costume
videos were either transparent or opaque

Question 46

what is the difference between images being opaque or superimposed

Answer 46

superimposed- layered on top
opaque- filmed at the same time as event

Question 47

what is the procedure

Answer 47

observers tested individually for only one of the conditions and told to watch either white team or black team
they were asked to keep count of how many times the players passed the ball ( easy) or the number of Ariel or bounce passes ( hard)
given surprise questions to determine if observers noticed event stating with did you notice anything unusual and ending with did you see a gorilla or umbrella women walk across the screen?
if yes they were asked details and if they have ever heard anything like this before if so removed
then debriefed and watched back video

Question 48

what are the results of S+C

Answer 48

54% observers did notice unexpected event
umbrella women noticed more- visually distinctive
black shirt watches noticed gorilla more
no correlation between noticing and poor counting ( in case people can’t count)

Question 49

what is a conclusion of S+C

Answer 49

no conscious perception without attention
if event is dissimilar to events paying attention to , less perception

Question 50

What is sample

Answer 50

228, undergraduates form America , self-selected and rewarded by a candy bar, final analysis 192 as 36 already knew about phenomenon, 12 in controlled observation