IB PSYCHOLOGY SL STUDIES (COGNITIVE)

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
0.0(0)
full-widthCall with Kai
GameKnowt Play
New
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/13

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

14 Terms

1
New cards

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.

2
New cards

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.

3
New cards

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.

4
New cards

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.

5
New cards

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.

6
New cards

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.

7
New cards

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.

8
New cards

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.

9
New cards

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.

10
New cards

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.

11
New cards

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.

12
New cards

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.

13
New cards

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.

14
New cards

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.