IB PSYCHOLOGY M26: COGNITIVE

GLANZER & CUNITZ (1966) AIM, SAMPLE, DESIGNS

Aim: See if the interval of time between recall of words on a list would increase the number of words recalled at the end of the list.

Sample: 46 army enlisted men

Designs: Repeated measures. Opportunity sampling. Laboratory experiment. Experimental design.

GLANZER & CUNITZ (1966) PROCEDURE + FINDINGS

Procedure: Participants were first given three 5-word practice lists so that they could learn the procedure. They were shown 15 fifteen- monosyllabic word lists on a screen. Each word was shown for 1 second with a 2-second interval between words. The experimenter read each word as it appeared. When the list was done, the participants either saw a # or a number between 0 and 9. If they saw the #, the experimenter said "Write" and they wrote down as many words as they could recall in any order.  If they saw a number, then they were to start counting from that number until the experimenter said, "Write." The Experimenter would either stop them after 10 seconds or after 30 seconds. 

Findings: When asked for immediate recall, both primacy and recency effects were shown.  With the 10-second distraction task, there was a significant reduction in the recency effect.  In the 30-second delay condition, the researchers reported, "no trace" of the recency effect.

LOFTUS & PALMER (1974) AIM, SAMPLE, DESIGNS

Aim: Investigate whether the use of leading questions would affect the estimation of speed.

Sample: 45 students, divided into 5 groups of 9

Design: Opportunity sampling. Laboratory experiment. Independent measures.

LOFTUS & PALMER (1974) PROCEDURE + FINDINGS

Procedure: participants watched 7 short traffic accident films, then were given a questionnaire about the videos after each clip. Questionnaires included a critical question asking them to estimate the speed of the cars. The critical question used different verbs (e.g. hit, smashed, collided, bumped, contacted), depending on the group.

Findings: Speed estimates varied according to the verb used. Estimates were highest for “smashed” and lowest for “contacted.”

LANDRY & BARTLING (2011) AIM, SAMPLE, DESIGNS

Aim: Investigate if articulatory suppression would influence the recall of a written list of phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall.

Sample: 34 psych undergrad students

Design: Independent measures. Lab experiment. Opportunity sampling.

LANDRY & BARTLING (2011) PROCEDURE + FINDINGS

Procedure: Both groups were shown ten lists of seven letters and asked to recall them in order. The control group simply memorised the letters, while the experimental group simultaneously repeated the numbers “1” and “2” at a fast pace, which is meant to block rehearsal in the phonological loop. 

Findings: Results showed that the control group had much higher recall accuracy compared to the experimental group.

BREWER & TREYENS (1981) AIM, SAMPLE, DESIGNS

Aim: Investigate the role of schema in the encoding and retrieval of episodic memory. 

Sample: 86 university psychology students

Design: Opportunity sampling. Laboratory experiment. Independent measures.

BREWER & TREYENS (1981) PROCEDURE + FINDINGS

Procedure: Participants were brought into a room resembling a professor's office for 35 seconds, containing both expected (schema-congruent) and unexpected (schema-incongruent) items. Afterward, they performed one of three memory tasks to recall what they saw. 

Findings: Participants better recalled expected items and often falsely remembered items fitting the expected schema that were not actually present.

KULKOFSKY ET AL (2011) AIM, SAMPLE, DESIGNS

Aim: Investigate the role of culture on flashbulb memory.

Sample: 274 middle-class adults from different countries.

Design: Opportunity sampling. Cross-cultural study. Quasi-experiment. Self-reported method.

KULKOFSKY ET AL (2011) PROCEDURE + FINDINGS

Procedure: Participants from five countries (China, Germany, Turkey, UK, USA) were asked to recall as many public events from their lifetime as they could, creating a flashbulb memory questionnaire. They rated importance, surprise, emotional intensity, and rehearsal. 

Findings: In collectivistic cultures, personal importance and emotional intensity were less predictive of flashbulb memory formation, while individualistic cultures showed a stronger relationship between personal involvement and emotional response.