SL Cognitive Research Methods Evaluation/Critical Thinking + Yuille and Cutshall

🧠 Schema Theory (Bransford & Johnson / Bartlet) Critical Thinking

Common Limitation: Lack of ecological validity and cultural relevance

• Bransford & Johnson (1972): Participants received a vague paragraph, and their recall improved with contextual images. However, the use of such unnatural text reduces ecological validity, as real-world schema activation is usually more nuanced and context-rich. Moreover, the lack of standardized understanding of "context" might create variability in interpretation.

  Bartlett (1932): However, the lack of standardization and control over recall introduces confounding variables. This makes it difficult to determine whether memory distortions arose from schemas or other uncontrolled influences like imagination or cultural stereotypes.
  Field Impact: Schema theory research struggles with balancing ecological validity and experimental control. This limits generalizability and the precision of conclusions about how schemas operate in daily life.

Why we use lab experiments to study Schema theory

Used to manipulate contextual cues and measure recall. This is appropriate for examining how schema activation affects memory encoding under controlled conditions.

Why we use quasi experiments to study Schema theory

Used to observe cultural effects on memory without rigid controls. Suitable for exploring how personal and cultural schemas shape memory but lacks internal validity.

Multi-Store Model of Memory (MSM) : Glanzer & Cunitz (1966), HM (Milner, 1966) Critical Thinking

Common Limitation: Over-reliance on simplistic memory measures that don’t reflect real-world complexity.

Glanzer & Cunitz (1966): Using simple word lists under artificial conditions reduces ecological validity and does not reflect real memory usage involving meaning or emotion. The lab setting may encourage rehearsal strategies that don’t mirror real-life recall.

HM (Milner): Findings are limited by being based on one individual with unique brain trauma. The inability to replicate and the ethical challenges of studying a participant with impaired consent also reduce the generalizability of the findings.

Field Impact: MSM's reliance on artificial tasks and isolated brain cases limits its applicability to complex, dynamic memory systems in real-world contexts.

Why we use lab experiments to study MSM

Lab experiments allow researchers to control variables like timing and order of presentation to measure the primacy and recency effects, which support the idea of separate memory stores.

Why we use Case study to study MSM

Case studies are ideal for studying rare neurological conditions like HM’s, allowing for detailed, longitudinal observation of the brain's effect on memory systems.

Emotion and Cognition (Flashbulb Memory) Brown & Kulik (1977), Sharot et al. (2007), Neisser & Harsch (1992)

Common Limitation: Flashbulb memory research struggles with verification and control over emotional intensity.

• Brown & Kulik (1977): Relies on retrospective self-report years after events, introducing recall bias and confabulation. The study also cannot verify the accuracy of participants’ original memories.

• Sharot et al. (2007): fMRI with recall task, limited by high cost and small samples, reducing generalizability. Emotional intensity at encoding was not measured, only assumed based on proximity to 9/11.

Field Impact: Emotion-memory research reveals biological-cognitive links, but methodological challenges limit the certainty of flashbulb memory reliability.

Why we use qustionaires to study emotion and cognition

Surveys allow researchers to collect large-scale data on people's recollections of emotionally significant public events

Why we use quasi experiments to study emotion and cognition

fMRI provides insight into biological underpinnings of emotional memory recall, useful for linking brain activity to flashbulb memories. Can examine real world events providing ecological validity

Working Memory Model (WMM): Warrington & Shallice (1970), Landry & Bartling (2011) Critical Thinking

Common Limitation: Small sample sizes and task simplicity limit how findings apply to everyday cognitive multitasking.
Warrington & Shallice (1970): Studying one atypical case (KF) makes it difficult to generalize to the wider population. The findings could be due to idiosyncratic brain damage rather than representing broader working memory structure.
Landry & Bartling (2011): The task of recalling letter sequences under articulatory suppression is overly simplistic and lacks ecological validity. It fails to replicate the complexity of multitasking and language processing in everyday working memory use.
Field Impact: The WMM research helps break down memory processes, but over-reliance on extreme cases and simplistic experiments weakens real-world application.

Why we use case studies to study WMM

This method allows in-depth investigation of specific cognitive deficits to test distinct components of working memory (e.g., phonological loop).

Why we use true experiments to study WMM

Lab-based interference tasks like articulatory suppression can isolate specific memory components and control confounding variables.

Thinking and Decision-Making (Biases): Griggs & Cox (1982), Englich & Mussweiler (2001) Critical Thinking

Common Limitation: Use of artificial reasoning or judgment scenarios may not capture real decision-making complexity.
Griggs & Cox (1982): The use of logic puzzles in abstract card tasks lacks relevance and emotional engagement, making it questionable whether matching bias would occur in real-world reasoning tasks.
Englich & Mussweiler (2001): Although slightly more applied, the sentencing task was hypothetical and lacked real consequences, limiting its predictive validity for how anchoring bias might affect judges under genuine legal pressure.

Field Impact: Cognitive bias research is insightful, but abstract or hypothetical tasks weaken applicability to high-stakes decision-making in real contexts.

Reconstructive Memory Loftus & Palmer (1974), Gabbert et al. (2003) Critical Thinking

Common Limitation: Ethical issues and ecological validity are frequently challenged.
Loftus & Palmer (1974): Showed that question phrasing altered memory of a car crash. While highly controlled, the scenario is artificial, and emotional impact is mild compared to real trauma.

Gabbert et al. (2003): Participants who saw different videos of a crime conformed to false memories. This supports memory distortion via discussion, but the crime scene was simulated, not emotionally intense.
Field Impact: Reconstructive memory findings support policy changes in legal systems, but reliance on simplified lab simulations limits full applicability to eyewitness testimony.

Why we use true experiments to study reconstructive memory

Lab experiments are suitable for testing how specific variables (e.g., verb usage) influence memory recall. This design simulates eyewitness discussions to assess memory conformity under controlled conditions.

Why we use field studies to study reconstructive memory

Field studies offer high ecological validity by studying real eyewitnesses of an actual crime, helping to understand memory accuracy in real-life settings.

Reconstructive Memory: Yuille and Cutshall (counter) (topic sentence, aim, method, procedure, results, conclusion)

Topic Sentence:

Yuille and Cutshall’s field study challenges traditional reconstructive memory findings by showing that eyewitnesses to real-life crimes retain highly accurate memories, even when exposed to leading questions.

Aim:

To determine whether leading questions would affect the memory of eyewitnesses to a real armed robbery.

Method:

Field study and case study involving 13 eyewitnesses of a real-life armed robbery in Canada.

Procedure:

Researchers re-interviewed 13 eyewitnesses four to five months after the incident. The participants were asked to recall the event and respond to two leading questions—one suggesting a broken headlight and the other a yellow quarter panel.

Results:

Eyewitnesses were highly accurate, recalling substantial detail verified by original police reports. Leading questions had little effect—10 out of 13 correctly stated they did not notice the falsely suggested details. Accuracy ranged between 79% and 84%.

Conclusion:

This study contradicts Loftus & Palmer (1974), suggesting that real-life emotional experiences may produce more resilient and accurate memories than lab simulations.