COGNITIVE APPROACH

schema theory

based on the idea that humans are active processors of info and that this process is influenced by our existing schema

• cognitive misers - we tend to avoid effort when making decisions and use shortcuts in order to simplify

• leveling - we simplify info and omit certain details

• sharpen - exaggerate or highlight certain details to fit with our schemas

schema

a mental representation of the world and how our mind organizes information - based on past experiences to simplify the world and predict things

• Jean Piaget suggested that schemas are formed through accomodation (existing schema is replaced) & assimilation (when new info is added to existing schemas)

• we only notice things that align with our schema, impacting encoding and retrieval

  • encoding: transforms sensory info to memory

  • storage: creates trace of the encoded info (consolidated or lost)

  • retrieval: using stored info in cognitive processes

Bartlett (1932) AIM

investigate how memory is affected by previous ideas and schemas - how cultural backgrounds and unfamiliarity with a cultural story can influence recall

Bartlett (1932) SAMPLE

unstated number of British participants

Bartlett (1932) PROCEDURE

• tells participants a native american legend called the war of ghosts - filled with culturally foreign aspects to the British )name, concept, ideologies)

• 1st condition - the repeated reproduction where participants heard the story and were told to reproduce it over a short period of time and again over a period of days, weeks, months, and years

• 2nd condition - serial production where participants were asked to recall the story to another person

Bartlett (1932) RESULTS

• showed no significant difference between the two conditions

• both groups altered the story when recalling it (created distortion)

• consistent with participants cultural expectations

• told the story much shorter than the original and used terms that matched their own cultural norms

Bartlett (1932) CONCLUSION

• assimilation was demonstrated - retold stories became more consistent with participants own culture (details were unconsciously changed)

• leveling & sharpening was shown - stories got shorter and participants altered the order of events to make it make sense in their own culture

• memory is reconstructive and influenced by schemas & culture influences recall

Bartlett (1932) STRENGTHS

• confirmed schema theory and reconstructive memory

• high ecological validity - theory of reconstructive memory has several applications and is relevant

• reliable - was replicated many times with similar results

Bartlett (1932) LIMITATIONS

• small and unrepresentative sample size, limiting generalizability

• lack of control over participants' prior knowledge of the story

• potential for researcher bias in interpreting qualitative data

• reactivity - demand characteristics

Brewer & Treyens (1981) AIM

to investigate the role of schema theory in the encoding and retrieval of episodic memory

Brewer & Treyens (1981) SAMPLE

86 university psychology students

Brewer & Treyens (1981) PROCEDURE

• told to wait in the experimenter’s office for the experimenter

• the office had typical objects for an office except for a skull or a toy top

• after 35-60 seconds the participant was taken to a room and allocated to 3 conditions

  • recall - asked to write down as many objects as they could remember from office; given a booklet containing 131 objects that they would rate from 1-10 based on how sure they were that the object was in the room (70 were not in the room)

  • drawing - given an outline of the room and asked to draw the objects they could remember

  • verbal recognition condition - read a list of objects and asked whether or not the object was in the room

Brewer & Treyens (1981) RESULTS

• found that when they were recalling by writing a paragraph or drawing, they were more likely to remember items in the office that aligned with their schema of an office

• the items that were inconsistent with their schema of an office were not often recalled & participants often changed the nature of the objects to match their schema

Brewer & Treyens (1981) CONCLUSION

schema played a role in the encoding and recall of objects

Brewer & Treyens (1981) STRENGTHS

highly controlled experiment (standardized procedure) - internal validity

Brewer & Treyens (1981) LIMITATIONS

biased sample - only psych students

low ecological validity - lab setting

schema theory COUNTER ARGUMENTS

• unclear how schemas are formed & howo the influence cognitive processes

• not possible to actually observe schema processing

• does not account for new info not linking with preexisting knowledge

testable & empirical evidence - lots of studies

applicable - help understand how memory works & memory distortion

unbiased - biased studies

predictability - does not explain why info related to schemas are forgotten/distorted

cohen (1993) said that schema theory was not clearly defined

• vague & hypothetical, cannot be observed

• even using fMRI does not clarify what the individual is processing

• schema has not been universally defined

influence of emotion on cognitive processes - flashbulb memories

one way emotion impacts cognitive processing - memory

• encoding: sensory stimuli into memory

• storage: making traces of the memory

• retrieval: recalling info

a highly detailed, exceptionally vivid snapshot of the moment when a surprising & emotionally arousing event happened

• often include

  • place

  • informant

  • on-going event

  • own affect (emotional state)

  • impact on others

  • aftermath

  • hugh surprise & emotion

• assume the special-mechanism hypothesis - argues that there is a special bio memory that when triggered creates a permanent record of the details

• rehearsal strengthens memory

Brown & Kulik (1982) AIM

investigate if surprising or personally significant events could create a flashbulb memory

Brown & Kulik (1982) SAMPLE

80 (40 white & 40 black) adults

Brown & Kulik (1982) PROCEDURE

• based on interviews

• given a series of 9 events (assassination of Kennedy)

• asked if they remembered when they first learned about the event

• asked to fill in a questionnaire with questions like where were you, how often have you talked about it, how did you feel

• also asked about the death of a loved one

Brown & Kulik (1982) RESULTS

• 90% of participants recalled a significant amount of detail about the day the events occurred & the death of a loved one

• difference in memory of assassination of public officials based on personal relevance

  • 75% of black individuals had a flashbulb memory of the assassination of Martin Luther KJ vs 33% of white part.

Brown & Kulik (1982) CONCLUSIONS

• flashbulb memories are long-lasting and include info about where, when, ad with whom info was received

• people form flashbulb memories of events that are personally significant - more emotions

Brown & Kulik (1982) STRENGTHS

used questionnaire - efficient & quick way to gather info

high ecological validity

Brown & Kulik (1982) LIMITATIONS

low external validity - can’t generalize

can’t measure level of surprise

Sharot et al (2007) AIM

to study the biological basis of flashbulb memory

Sharot et al (2007) SAMPLE

24 participants in New York City during 9/11

Sharot et al (2007) PROCEDURE

• participants put into an fMRI & presented with word cues on a screen

• projected with the words summer & september to have participants link cue words to either summer or 9/11

• memories of summer served as baseline for studying brain activity when recalling 9/11 memories

• had to rate memories for vividness & confidence in accuracy

• asked to write a description of their personal memories

Sharot et al (2007) RESULTS

• half reported having what would be called a flashbulb memory - closer to the World trade center

• strength of amygdala activation at retrieval was shown to correlate with flashbulb memories

• found that activation of the amygdala in participants who were closer to the world trade center was higher than recalling summer vs. those who were father that had equal activation of amygdala

Sharot et al (2007) CONCLUSIONS

results suggest that close personal experience is important for producing vivid memories - flashbulb memories

Sharot et al (2007) STRENGTHS

strong bio evidence w/ MRI usage

Sharot et al (2007) LIMITAIONS

small sample size - low external validity

flashbulb memories COUNTER ARGUMENTS

Neisser & Harsch (1992) demonstrated that flashbulb memories can be inaccurate - even vivid memories can be distorted

testable - difficult to measure

applicable - yes

construct validity - cannot accurately measure a memory/ its vividness

predictability - cannot fully predict how individuals differ in emotional responses

thinking & decision making - Dual Processing Model

• a conceptual framework where the processes of thinking and decision-making are presented

• Wason & Evans proposed in 1975 as a way of highlighting the idea that human being use system 1 & 2 thinking

  • too many things to think about - choose the least demanding course of action

• system 1 focuses on what it sees & ignores absent evidence

  • happens automatically & is prone to biases and heuristics

  • based largely on instinctive responses that may be crucial when split-second decisions are required

• system 2 is slower, effortful and more analytical - only used by humans as it involves higher-order info processing and is more likely to mean that decisions reached and problems solved are accurate & reliable

  • uses lots of cognitive energy & is unnecessary for day-to-day decisions

Tversky & Kahneman (1983) AIM

to test whether people mistake representativeness for similarity - representativeness heuristic

Tversky & Kahneman (1983) METHOD & SAMPLE

88 US statistically naive undergrad, informed grad & PhD - questionnaires

Tversky & Kahneman (1983) PROCEDURE

asked to answer “Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, also participating in anti-nuclear demonstrations. What is more probable?

1) Linda is a bank teller.

2) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.”

Tversky & Kahneman (1983) RESULTS

90% answered incorrectly saying that Linda was more likely to be a bank teller & active in the feminist movement

Tversky & Kahneman (1983) CONCLUSIONS

naive, informed & sophisticated all inclined to make incorrect decisions - system 1 overrode system 2

• quick, emotion-based thinking made the answer wrong

Tversky & Kahneman (1983) STRENGTHS

highly reliable

diverse education group

Tversky & Kahneman (1983) LIMITATIONS

limited sample - US university students

low external validity

Tversky & Kahneman (1974) AIM

to investigate the impact of cognitive biases (anchoring bias) on decision making when system 1 thinking is employed

IV - order of numbers

DV - estimated number

Tversky & Kahneman (1974) SAMPLE

high school students

Tversky & Kahneman (1974) PROCEDURE

asked to compute the product of the numbers 1 through 8 in 5 seconds

demonstrated in ascending or descending order

• (8 × 7 × 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1) OR (1 × 2 ×3 × 4 ×5 ×6 × 7 × 8)

needed to make an estimate due to lack of time

Tversky & Kahneman (1974) RESULTS

ascending order gave smaller answers - median was 512

descending gave larger numbers - 2,250

correct answer was 40,300 - both groups largely underestimated the number but condition A was way smaller

anchored to the first few numbers

did system 1 thinking due to time - needed to rely on automatic estimations

Tversky & Kahneman (1974) STRENGTHS

highly standardized - high reliability

Tversky & Kahneman (1974) LIMITATIONS

low ecological validity/mundane realism - no actual threat to one’s life & unrealistic situations

Dual processing model COUNTER ARGUMENTS

testable - studies

empirical evidence - studies

applicable - understand how humans behave and make decisions

predictability - offers hypotheses about when each kind of thinking will be employed

unbiased - all us participants

reconstructive memory

memory: how the brain encodes, stores, and retrieves info

• constructed through sounds, images, semantics, and emotions

reconstructive theory of memory: assumes that memories are not saved as complete, coherent wholes - instead, the retrieval of memory is influenced by our perception, beliefs, past experiences, cultural factors, and the context in which info is recalled

• suggests that people are active info processors who reconstruct memories to make sense of what happened based on their schemas

false memories - when a person believes smth occurred even when it didn’t

confabulation - attempting to fill gaps in memory by creating false ones unintentionally

schema processing - where existing cognitive frameworks influence the construction and retrieval of memories

Shaw & Porter (2015) AIM

whether or not it was possible to implant rich false memories in individuals, specifically of committing a crime that led to police contact during adolescence

Shaw & Porter (2015) SAMPLE

60 adult paricipants (uni aged) with no prior criminal record

Shaw & Porter (2015) PROCEDURE

• study used suggestive memory implantation techniques in a controlled lab setting

• participants were randomly assigned to crime (assault/theft) or non-crime group (animal attack, losing money)

• contacted caregivers to collect true events from their teen years

• over 3 interviews each a week apart, participants were told 2 events from their teen years, one that was true and one that was constructed

  • used guided imagery, social pressure and suggestive techniques to encourage retrieval

• asked to recall as much detail as possible

Shaw & Porter (2015) RESULTS

70% of participants in crime group developed rich false memories of committing a crime

reported vivid details, emotions, and believed that the false memory was accurate

Shaw & Porter (2015) CONCLUSIONS

• how susceptible memory is to suggestion, even for highly serious and emotional events

• also raised ethical and legal concerns

Shaw & Porter (2015) STRENGTHS

high control and internal validity

-lab setting to establish cause-and-effect

Shaw & Porter (2015) LIMITATIONS

low external validity - only young uni students

reconstructive memory COUNTER ARGUMENTS

• testable - researchers can implant false memories

• empirical evidence - strongly supported by experiments

• applicable - legal & forensic

• construct validity - can define but hard to moderate

• unbiased - need more cultures and ages

• predictability - can predict how and why distortion occurs

biases in thinking and decision making

dual processing model - system 1 and 2 thinking

cognitive biases - normal human tendencies to think certain ways that are often contrary to evidence or without considering it

• systematic errors in thinking that can result from relying on heuristics, mental shortcuts to come to a decision, or other factors

• sometimes occur due to ego-depletion (lack of self-control or willpower)

representativeness heuristic - when individuals make judgements based on probabilities

framing heuristic - a bias where the wording of the sentence or option can affect decision making

anchoring bias begins with a statement that influences a persons subsequent decision

biases in thinking and decision-making COUNTER ARGUMENTS

difficult to identify whether the heuristic made an impact or not - cannot read thoughts

biased

multi store model

a model for memory focused on memory storage developed by atkinson & shiffrin

sensory store

stimuli picked up by sensory register and captured for about 0.5 - 4 seconds

• echoic - sound

• iconic - visual

• haptic - touch

• gustatory - taste

• olfactory - smell

short term store

receives info from the sensory store and records info for about 15-20 seconds and 15-20 minutes if info is rehearsed

• allows you to hold info long enough to record what is necessary - remembering first part of sentence while you read the last

• info is discarded or selected for further processing

• can hold around 7±2 items

• chunking: organization of items into familiar categories to increase memory capacity

long term store

a system that encodes, stores, and retrieves info with an unlimited capacity & duration

factors that impact encoding

• level of processing

• timing of practice

• how info is organized

• a person’s reference to self during learning

• distinctiveness of the item

• testing during learning

glanzer & cunitz (1966) AIM

examine whether the position of words influences recall (primacy & recency effect) and whether there are two seperate stores of memory

glanzer & cunitz (1966) PROCEDURE

240 US army enlisted males were presented lists of words one at a time and asked to recall them in any order (free recall)

• IV - presence/absence of a 30 second distraction task

• DV - number of words correctly recalled from different positions in the list

• condition 1 - half were asked to recall words immediately after memorization

• condition 2 - other half counted backwards for 30s before recalling words

glanzer & cunitz (1966) RESULTS

delaying recall by 30s destroyed recency effect (recall of later words was similar to middle words)

• participants had a higher chance of recalling info at the start (primacy) and end (recency) of the list

when there are too many words, primacy effect & recency effect occur

• primacy effect occurs as words have been placed in LTM

• recency effect occurs as words are still in STM

• distractor task reduces recency effect as it interferes with STM

glanzer & cunitz (1966) EVALUATION

provides evidence for STM & LTM, supporting MSM

• highly controlled variables (same distractor task) - high reliability

• low ecological validity - memorizing words is artificial

limitations of model

• describes rather than explains why info is stored

• suggests that memory formation is grouped & distinct but lesion studies have shown that memories are spread

• model doesn’t account for memories being stored based on importance

• model is simple & doesn’t account for why some things are learned with little rehearsal or are rehearsed and aren’t in LTM

level of processing theory - counter for MSM

presented by Craik & Lockhart in 1972

• stimulus info is processed at multiple levels simultaneously depending on characteristics

• deeper processing = more remembered

• info being attended to receives more processing than other stimuli

• we remember more meaningful things as they are processed more deeply

• processing at diff levels is automatic unless we attend to that level

• Umejima et al. (2021) found that writing things on paper caused deeper processing than typing

working memory model

the small amount of information that can be held in the mind

Baddeley & Hitch (1979) expanded the short-term aspect of the MSM

explains how primary memory is separated into 4 parts

• central executive: located in the frontal lobe & co-manages retrieval, attention, & inhibition

  • attention control system that monitors the operations of the other subordinate components

• phonological loop: deals with auditory information

  • temporal lobe

• visuospatial sketchpad: limited capacity for visual/spatial memory here

  • in the occipital lobe

  • visual cache: what things look like (form, shape, colour)

  • inner scribe: process spatial & movement information

• episodic buffer: links info to form integrated units of visual, spatial, and verbal information

  • associated with the frontal & temporal lobe and the hippocampus

Warrington & Shallice (1970) AIM

investigate the relationship between STM & LTM when it has been impaired

Warrington & Shallice (1970) BACKGROUND & SAMPLE

KF suffered a motorcycle accident which caused brain damage to his STM only

Warrington & Shallice (1970) PROCEDURE

longitudinal case study

researchers directly observed his behaviour & administered memory recall tests

• asked to remember numbers, lists of words, and other learning tasks

Warrington & Shallice (1970) RESULTS

quickly forgot numbers & words when presented orally

remembered numbers and words when presented visually

• impairment was mainly for verbal info

supports this model as it states that there are separate STM for visual & verbal information

wmm evaluation

has lots of experimental evidence

brain scans have demonstrated that different areas of the brain activate when carrying out verbal tasks

helps us understand why multitasking occurs while with other models you can’t

how the different parts interact is unclear

role of the central executive is unclear despite being called the most important

only explains STM & not LTM

does not explain memory distortion or the role of emotions in memory formation

contrasting MSM & WMM

SIMILARITIES

• rehearsal is necessary for transfer from STM to LTM

• neither explain memory distortion or the role of emotion

• both agree that STM is limited in capacity & duration

DIFFERENCES

• WMM argues that STM is not just one store but many

• WMM only focuses on STM

• WMM explains multitasking

• WMM agrues that different modalities are processed differently

Milner et al. (1968) AIM

to understand the effects that removing tissue from the medial temporal lobe had on patient HM

Milner et al. (1968) PROCEDURE

method triangulation - case study

• psychometric testing (IQ tests)

• direct observation

• interviews with HM & family

• cognitive testing (memory recall & learning tasks - reverse mirror drawing)

• MRI to see the extent of damage to the brain

Milner et al. (1968) RESULTS

• couldn’t acquire episodic (memory of events) or semantic (general info about the world) knowledge

• had a capacity for working memory

• procedural memory was well maintained

• MRI showed damage to hippocampus - difficulty with transferring memories from STM to LTM

Milner et al. (1968) CONCLUSIONS

• memory systems in the brain are highly complex & specialized

• hippocampus plays a crucial role in converting memory from STM to LTM

• STM is not stored in the hippocampus as HM could retain rehearsed info

• medial temporal region does not store LTM as HM could recall very old memories

• implicit memory has many stores - procedural & emotional memory, skills & habits - related to different areas of the brain

Milner et al. (1968) EVALUATION

longitudinal study over 50 years - change observed over time

high ecological validity

cannot be easily replicated - low reliability & external validity

some data was retrospective as data on Hm’s cognitive abilities before the accident was few