Cognitive Approach Studies

Stroop (1935)

Stroop (1935)

Aim: It assesses the ability to prevent cognitive interference, which occurs when the processing of a stimulus feature affects the process of another attribute of the same stimulus.

Procedure:

• 100 students

• Every subject read 2 sheets of 100 word each test

• Instructed to name the colors OF the word as quickly as possible and correct all errors

Results:

• Color matched the word - mean = 63.6 seconds

• When the color didn’t match the word - mean = 110.3s

• System 1 = can fly through the test easily 

• System 2 = must kick in when the colors don’t match the words.

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Aim: testing the accuracy of eyewitnesses based on the ability to retrieve a memory from LTM and proving that it ends up altering the original memory

Procedure:

• 7 videos

• 5 groups

• each shown a car wreck video in a diff order

• Each group was given a questionnaire with using different word choice for the different groups: “How fast was the car going when they (hit/smashed/collided, bumped/contacted) each other?

Results:

Response Rias: giving a higher speed based on the intensity of the word used.

Memory change: they truly remember it going faster based on the verbiage of the word.

Huber, Payne & Puto (1982)

Aim: seek to confirm the Asymmetrically Dominant Decoy Theory

Procedure:

• 153 participants

• Required to make choices in six categories: cars, restaurants, beers, lotteries, films, and TV sets

• Each decision set included two or three alternatives, with each alternative defined on two attributes (for example, size versus price)

Results: 3-9% of participants switched their choice in the predicted direction whenever a third option was added.

System 1 and 2 thinking could be at work here. Maybe we fall for the decoy when we have to make a fast decision and we choose what seems to be the better option/deal. But if we can rationalize for long enough we will still do our original choice.

Sharot et al. (2007)

Ain: what is the mutual basis of Flashbulb memory?

Procedure: 

• 3 years after 9/11/2001, 24 participants were asked to retrieve their memories of the event based on their geographical location

• They were placed in an MRI scanner & asked to retrieve 60 memories related to a cue word "summer” or "September"

Results: 

• Those in Downtown Manhattan recorded having a higher rate of a ‘flashbulb memory’ as they recalled events of 9/11. 

• Supports evidence that flashbulb memories have a neural basis.

Baddeley (1994)

Aim: Tested central executive (intentional switches) and predicted that the central executives should slow down when there's too many tasks to focus on.

Procedure:

• students type random digits on a keyboard - different timing, different letters, has to be completely random. 

• 3 different conditions: 

  • 1 - recite alphabet

  • 2 - numbers

  • 3 - alternating between letters AND numbers (A,9,R,0,2,K)

Results: found that randomness was lower and the tasks were preformed slower in condition 3 compared to 1 & 2.

Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)

Aim: 

• to support the Multi Store Memory Model through serial position effect and the stores for STM and LTM

Serial Position Effect: 

• When you remember the beginning and end of a list but not the middle

Procedure: 

• 240 army-enlisted men were required to memorize a list of words

• Condition one: (free recall)- presented with 20 word lists followed by 2 minutes of a free recall task

  • Primacy effect: represents long term memory

  • Recency effect: represents short term memory

• Condition 2: requires the participants to see or hear the lists, and before they can free call, they have to count backwards from 30

Results: people tended to remember the beginning of the list and the end of the list, more than the middle of the list. Indicated by the serial position effect.