1/13
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Question 1. Discuss one model of memory.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Working Memory Model: central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer.
Research:
Landry & Bartling (2011): dual‑task articulatory suppression → recall drops from 76% to 45% (phonological loop overload).
HM case study (Milner, 1966): intact STM vs impaired LTM after hippocampal lesion supports separate stores.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: explains multi‑component STM; supported by dual‑task data.
Limitations: central executive vague; artificial lab tasks; poor temporal resolution for subprocesses.
Different command terms:
SAQs:
Outline: name model components.
Describe: explain function of phonological loop.
Explain: link to Landry & Bartling findings.
ERQs:
Evaluate: discuss model’s strengths/weaknesses.
Contrast: compare with Multi‑Store Model.
Question 2. Discuss schema theory.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Schema: mental framework guiding encoding/retrieval.
Distortion processes: assimilation, leveling, sharpening.
Research:
Bartlett (1932): ‘War of Ghosts’ → cultural schemas distort recall over repeated reproductions.
Brewer & Treyens (1981): office‑schema → recall of expected objects, false recognition of schema‑consistent items.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: explains reconstructive memory; high ecological validity (Bartlett).
Limitations: Bartlett lacked standardization/time controls; Brewer & Treyens deception ethics.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline schema concept; describe Bartlett’s distortions; explain impact on recall.
ERQs: Evaluate schema theory; discuss cultural and methodological limitations.
Question 3. Discuss one theory of thinking and decision making.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Dual Processing Model: System 1 (fast, heuristic) vs System 2 (slow, analytic).
Heuristics: anchoring, availability.
Research:
Tversky & Kahneman (1974): availability heuristic in probability estimates.
Englich & Mussweiler (2001): anchoring bias shifts judicial sentencing (low vs high anchor).
Critical thinking:
Strengths: realistic biases; wide replication.
Limitations: many studies artificial; cultural bias (Western samples).
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline dual‑process; describe anchoring effect.
ERQs: Evaluate model; contrast heuristics vs rational choice.
Question 4. Discuss ethical considerations in the study of cognitive processes.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Informed consent, deception, debriefing, confidentiality, protection from harm.
Research:
Brewer & Treyens (1981): office deception required, risk of trust breach.
Loftus & Pickrell (1995): false‑memory induction; potential distress; importance of thorough debrief.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: deception sometimes necessary for validity.
Limitations: ethical cost; psychological harm; retrospective consent issues.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one ethical issue; describe researcher safeguard.
ERQs: Discuss balance between ethics and methodological rigor.
Question 5. Discuss the use of one or more research methods in the study of cognitive processes.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Experiment, case study, questionnaire, naturalistic observation, IV/DV, controls.
Research:
Landry & Bartling (2011): lab experiment with articulatory suppression.
HM case study (Milner, 1966): longitudinal, method triangulation (observations, tests, MRI).
Critical thinking:
Strengths: experiments high internal validity; case studies rich detail.
Limitations: experiments artificial; case studies poor generalizability.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one method; describe its procedure; explain data type.
ERQs: Evaluate and contrast methods’ strengths/weaknesses.
Question 6. Explain the Working Memory Model with reference to one study.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, dual‑task.
Research:
Landry & Bartling (2011): articulatory suppression reduces serial recall (76%→45%).
Critical thinking:
Strengths: clear IV/DV, high internal validity.
Limitations: artificial letters task; central executive underspecified.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline components; describe Landry & Bartling; explain suppression effect.
Question 7. Explain the Multi‑Store Model with reference to one study.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Sensory register, STM, LTM, encoding, rehearsal, capacity, duration.
Research:
Bahrick et al. (1975): cross‑sectional recall vs recognition over decades; recognition > recall.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: simple stages; real‑world YB verification.
Limitations: cross‑sectional confounds; oversimplifies memory types.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline stages; describe Bahrick’s tasks; explain recall vs recognition diff.
Question 8. Discuss research on reconstructive memory
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Reconstructive memory, schema, distortion, post‑event misinformation.
Research:
Bartlett (1932): schema‑driven distortions.
Loftus & Palmer (1974): leading questions alter speed estimates and false broken‑glass recall.
Loftus & Pickrell (1995): false‑mall memory (25% implanted).
Critical thinking:
Strengths: broad support; real‑world legal implications.
Limitations: ecological validity (lab films); ethical issues (false memories).
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one study; describe distortion; explain schema role.
ERQs: Evaluate evidence; discuss eyewitness testimony relevance.
Question 9. Discuss one or more biases in thinking and decision making.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Bias, heuristic, anchoring, availability.
Research:
Englich & Mussweiler (2001): anchoring in sentencing decisions.
Tversky & Kahneman (1974): availability heuristic in probability judgments.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: real‑world decision settings (judicial).
Limitations: small, homogeneous samples; simulated tasks.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one bias; describe key study.
ERQs: Evaluate bias impact; contrast with normative models.
Question 10. Discuss the influence of emotion on one cognitive process.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Flashbulb memory, arousal, personal relevance, amygdala.
Research:
Brown & Kulik (1977): FBM for assassinations; race differences in MLK recall.
Neisser & Harsch (1992): Challenger prospective study; 2½‑year distortions with high confidence.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: real‑time (Neisser & Harsch); cultural insights (Brown & Kulik).
Limitations: self‑report bias; emotional distress risks.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline flashbulb memory; describe one study.
ERQs: Evaluate FBM accuracy vs belief.
Question 11. Discuss ethical considerations in the study of the reliability of cognitive processes.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Deception, informed consent, confidentiality, verification.
Research:
Loftus & Pickrell (1995): false‑mall; potential harm; necessity of debrief.
Brewer & Treyens (1981): office‑schema deception; post‑study disclosure.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: verification via family data.
Limitations: participant distress; retrospective consent.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one ethical issue; describe safeguard.
ERQs: Discuss trade‑offs between ethics and validity.
Question 12. Discuss the use of one or more research methods in the study of the reliability of cognitive processes.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Longitudinal, cross‑sectional, prospective, retrospective, natural experiment.
Research:
Bahrick et al. (1975): cross‑sectional YB recall/recognition.
Neisser & Harsch (1992): prospective longitudinal questionnaires + interviews.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: naturalistic, real events.
Limitations: attrition; cohort effects.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline method; describe procedure.
ERQs: Evaluate/contrast methods’ reliability.
Question 13. Discuss ethical considerations in the study of emotion and cognition.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Emotional distress, sensitivity, debriefing, confidentiality.
Research:
Brown & Kulik (1977): personal relevance; no deception but sensitive topics.
Neisser & Harsch (1992): emotional recall; retrospective consent issues.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: minimal intrusion; real memories.
Limitations: potential re‑traumatization; privacy concerns.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline one ethical consideration.
ERQs: Discuss ethics balance in flashbulb research.
Question 14. Discuss the use of one or more research methods in the study of emotion and cognition.
Key vocabulary/description of theory:
Questionnaire, interview, neuroimaging (fMRI), naturalistic observation.
Research:
Neisser & Harsch (1992): prospective questionnaire + interviews on Challenger.
Sharot et al. (2007): fMRI of 9/11 vs summer memories; amygdala correlation with vividness.
Critical thinking:
Strengths: triangulation (questionnaire + neuroimaging).
Limitations: fMRI artificial; interview bias; small samples.
Different command terms:
SAQs: Outline method; describe example study.
ERQs: Evaluate/contrast methods in emotion‑cognition research.