SAQ cognitive studies outline

Glazer & Cuniytz study outline ( model of memory SAQ)

Aim: test multi store model 

Procedure: Researcher read 15 lists of 15 words and asked participants to recall them in any order.

It was repeated measure design.

Partcipants were asked to recall the information immediately after, or after 10 seconds or after 30 seconds. Participants were asked to count from 100 backwards in their break before recalling the words.

Findings: It was found that partcipants recalled better teh first few words on the list: the primacy effect,  as they were probably reharsed and moved to LTM and the last few words on the list,which were still in the STM, the recency effect.

However, when they had to count backwards, they only recalled the first few words, as counting backwards had removed info from the STM.

This study by Glanzer and Cunitz supports that short term and long term memory are allocated in diffrenet places and that infromation in the STM may be displaced.

Stroop study outline ( model of thinking SAQ and the dual processing model)

Stroop effect is a good effect of how these two system works. One study that tested the dual processing modle is conducted by Stroop.

It was a repeated measure design.

Participants in the first condition had to read out a lists of 50 colors written in a different ink, for example the word "red" was written with blue ink as fast as possible

In the second condition, participants had to read out the colour of the name of the ink, rather than the words themselves.

In the first condition, participants were used to doing this task,was automatic and based on past experience as they read out words daily, and thus used system 1 thinking, fast and efficient. However, they struggled in the second condition and had to use their system 2 thinking, more slow and rationalised. They often read the word of the colur rather than the ink, showing the automatic response of system 1 thinking.

This enhances the idea that there are two ways of thinking, one more easy and fast and the othere more slow and requires more effort.

 

Brewens and treyens (1981) and reconstructive theory outline

Brewer and Treyens (1981) investigate role of schemas in encoding episodic memory (info about events, es how things looked)

Participants were put in an office and asked to wait for 35 seconds. In the office there were both items typical and not typical of an office. Some items were omitted. After they were randomly put in one pf these 3 conditions.

Recall condition: people had to write down the items they remembered. After they were given a list and rate how sure the items were on the list.

Drawing condition: participants had to draw the items that they recall seeing in the office

Verbal recognition condition: participants were given a list of items and they had to say if the items were there or not.

 

Findings: participants in the first condition remembered better schema congruent items, (sharpening) and left out items that were schema incongruent. (levelling) partcipants in the third condition remembered more schema incongruent info and were more likely to pick out items that were congruent to their schemas of the office, but not in the room.

Englich and Mussweiller (2001) study outline and cognitive bias (anchor bias) SAQ

Aim: One study that showed anchoring bias is Englich and mussweiler (2001).

Procedure: the sample was made of 19 young judges, which had less than a year of experience. They were given a rape case and a copy of the penal code  and the sentence given by a previous prosecutor. They had 15 minutes to think of the sentence to give to the raper.

Half of the participants were in the low anchor condition, and they were told that the previous prosecutor gave a 2 month sentence to the raper. The other half were in the high anchor condition, and were told that the previous prosecutor gave a 34 month sentence to the raper. They were then asked if the sentence was too high/low/ adeguate and which sentence they would recommend.

Findings: participants in the high anchor condition gave a significantly higher sentence than participants in the low anchor condition. Indeed, participants in the high anchor cpondition gave an average sentece of 29 months, while participants in the low anchor condition gave an average sentence of 18 months.

This shows anchoring bias as participants rely heavily on the first piece of information the researcher gave to them , as their final decision was heavily influenced by that first piece of information. 

This shows that cognitive bias can affect judgements when individuals rely on fast thinking.

 

Loftus and Palmer study outline / research method (experiments)

Example of experiment: Loftus and Palmer

Aim: how a leading question affect's one memory of an automobile's crash

Procedure: participants were showed a mocie of two cars hitting each other.

They were after given a questionnarie, but only one question was im portant. That question asked the participants to estimate the speed the two cars smashed to each other. For some sìparticipants the word "shashed" was replaced hby the world "hit", "collide", "touched" or "contacted". The IV was the intensity of the word, while the Dv was the estiamate speed the participants suggested.

The sample was indipendent design=> deception used => no demand characteristics

Findings: the stronger the intensioty of teh verb used, the higher the estimated speed was.

As the data was quatitative, it was possible to use statistics to prove that the results were not due to chance.

The wording had a direct cause and effect relationship with the estimation of the speed of the participants.

Mc Gauth & Cahill (2005) study outline / effect of emotion on cognitive process SAQ

Aim: test role of emotion in creation of memories

Procedure: participants randomly puy into 2 conditions:

Participants in the 1st conditions head with 15 slides boring story about a hospital stuff performing a prparation drilll.

Participants in the 2nd conditions heard an empotional arounsing story, about a boy who had an accidemt, his feet were seveared, than he was quickly took to the hospital and his feet were re-attached. After two weeks he went home to his mother.

In a follow up study, participants heard the same emotional arounsing story, but received beta blockers for adrenaline. This chemical substances inhibits the receptors of adrenaline to uptake adrenaline in the brain. Two weeks later partoicipants were tested on how much they remembered of the story

Findings: participants who heard the emotional arounsing story remembered much more details than particpants in the boring condition. However, participants who received the beta blockers didn't remember as accurately the story as the participants in the 2nd condition.

This suggests that the special mechanism in our body involves the amygdala and its receptor of adrenaline, and thus adrenaline and emotion  play a key role in the formation of flashbulb memories. 

 

Loftus & Pickrel study outline / ethics and deception SAQ

Loftus and Pickrel outline

Aim: see if the participants remembered an event that never occured

Procedure: participants were told 4 stories about their childhood. 3 were provided by their relatives, one was false. It was about the participasnts getting lost in a mall.

Findings: 25% of the participants recalled a false event that never occured only because their parents said that. They recalled it with great detail. => creation of false memory

 

Problems with deception: participants mey feel stupid=> undue stress or harm.

Deception has to be justified could not NOT be used, otherwise participants may have guessed the aim before, however it is still problematic from an ethical stand point.

 

Brewer and Treyens (1981) study outline (schema theory)

One study that tested shema theory was Brewens and Treuyens (1981)

Procedure: participants were put in a room that looked like and office for 35 seconds and asked to wait. The room had bopth typical objects and atypical objects of an office. Some items were omitted.  After, they were randomly put in either of these 3 conditions:

Recall condition: participants were asked to recall the objects in the room and write them down. Later they were given a list of objects and asked how sure each of the object were there.

Drawing condition : particpants had to draw the items in the room

Verbal recognition condition: partipants were given a list, and had to say if the object was there or not.

 

Findings: participants in the first 2 conditions recalled more schema congruent info, and less schema incongruent info. And change the nature of the objects to match their schemas

Partcipants in the 3rd condition picked out more items that were not in the room, and picked items that were not there in the room buit typical of an office.

This supports schema congruent theory, as people recalled more items that were schema congruent, and even picked them from the list if they weren't there.

Enhance the idea that schemas shape how we aquire new knowledge.