cognition erq

mueller and oppenheimer AMF

TWE does handwriting vs typing notes affect memory recall

volunteer sample of 109 undergrads took notes either on paper or computer on 4 random topic film lectures

tested 1 week later with 40 MCQ (factual and conceptual): “study” studied notes 10 minutes before, “no study” went in blind

both longhand and typing no study did did bad on factual but decent on conceptual

longhand study did better then typing

mueller and oppenheimer values

highly standardized and can be replicated

order effects are controlled bc independent samples

high mundane realism

mueller and oppenheimer limitations

low ecological validity (concepts aren’t connected)

participant variability bc independent samples

low internal validity (can’t control extraneous variables)

low temporal validity (tech is rapidly advancing and changing)

sparrow et al AMF

TWE does tech lead to cognitive offloading of factual info

60 harvard students typed 40 trivia facts of new and old knowledge

space = save or space = erase, half were told to remember and half weren’t

given 10 minutes for recall, then given 40 t/f statements

remember vs no remember had no difference, difference between save vs erase → internet is becoming external store, hurting our encoding skills

sparrow values

highly controlled

easily replicable

introduced google effect, foundational

sparrow limitations

participant variability (typing speed)

extraneous variables

low ecological validity

talarico et al AMF

TWE does reception context effect the vividness/accuracy of memories

memory = Osama bin Laden assassination

329 psych students were asked of how they heard about it through online questionnaire

were then asked immediately after, 7, 42, 224, and 365 days later

compared the memories of those who learned through tv, social media, and another person

immediately after, tv exposure had strongest vividness/accuracy

accuracy: person communication was weakest, vividness: social media was weakest

talarico values

high temporal and ecological validity

large sample so less participant variability

talarico limitations

sample was culturally biased

extraneous variables (longitudinal)

schaefer AMF

TWE does reception context effect flashbulb memories

38 undergrads did free recall 28 hours and then 6 months after 9/11

2 groups based on recall: immediate and delayed viewing

2 blind researchers coded the responses for 9 categories (time, location, informant, etc.)

no difference within 9 categories, delayed group had less elaborate and consistent accounts

exposure to emotional info digitally enhances reliability of info

schaefer values

no researcher bias, high ecological validity, high temporal validity

schaefer limitations

low sample size, WEIRD sampling bias, high bidirectional ambiguity

rosser AMF

TWE does playing videogames needing fine motor skills improves precision needed for laparoscopic surgeons

correlational study with 33 surgeons

measured number of errors during normal practice drills

questionnaire assessed videogame experience pre-study

played 3 games for 25 minutes, total score = game mastery

found improved fine motor skills and attention that could be transferred to skills in actual surgery

rosser values

can see trends (strong correlation)

high construct validity (defined IV and DV are connected)

high ecological validity

rosser limitations

no cause-effect can be inferred

can’t generalize to others

participant variability (no base level)

griggs and cox AMF

TWE does personal relevance affect the likelihood of using matching bias when solving WST

144 undergrads did WST with 3 levels: abstract, intermediate, and memory cueing in 6 groups (different orders)

abstract: one side is A then 3 on the other

intermediate: person wearing blue means they’re 19+

memory cueing: person drinking beer means they’re 18+

abstract = 3%, intermediate = 43%, memory = 60%

when given abstract first, increase in use of matching bias

griggs and cox values

can be replicated (reliable)

repeated measures (controlled for participant variability)

counter balanced conditions to control for order effects

griggs and cox limitations

highly artificial

low ecological validity

sampling bias isn’t representative, can’t generalize

tversky and kahnman AMF

TWE do positive and negative frames impact decision-making

307 undergrads had to decide between 2 option in a hypothetical scenario

condition 1 = positive frame (save 200 people or 1/3 chance save 600, 2/3 no one)

condition 2 = negative frame (400 die or 1/3 chance no death, 2/3 600 die)

condition 1: 72% chose first option, 28% chose second

condition 2: 22% chose first option, 78% chose second

tversky and kahnman values

highly controlled/standardized

high internal validity

easily replicable with reliable results

tversky and kahnman limitations

low mundane realism

cultural sampling bias (higher loss aversion levels)

low ecological validity

cognition

the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses

memory

the mental process of encoding, storing and retrieving information

visuospatial skills

ability to process and interpret visual information, specifically how objects relate to each other and to your own body in space

transactional memory

knowledge of where info can be found and how to access it

digital amnesia

belief that people tend to forget info they can easily find online

cognitive load

amount of effort needed to process info

reception context

context in which you receive info can effect how you remember it

overt rehersal

hearing about an event over and over has an impact on how you remember it

vicarious experiences

provokes emotions that may lead to stronger memories than if we had only heard/read about it (ex imagery in the news)

dual process model

model for understanding human reasoning and decision-making

thinking

using knowledge and info to make plans and predictions

decision making

identifying and choosing alternatives based on values/preferences

system 1

automatic, effortless thinking with heuristics (mental shortcuts)

system 2

slower, conscious, rational thinking

cognitive bias

consistent but inaccurate patterns of thinking/decision-making resulting from system 1

framing effect

decisions are influenced by how info is presented/”framed”

“twe” for +/- tech effect on cognitive processes

tech reshapes cognitive processes rather than “helping” or “harming them”

not universally negative, depends on usage

“twe” for tech influencing a cognitive processes

effects can be seen in real world behaviorssome use tech in different ways (ex to organize/deepen encoding with flashcards)

flashbulb memories

memories created as the result of high levels of emotion are like “photographs” (remembered heavily)

lab experiment

IV is manipulated

DV is measured

goal is to determine causation

quantitative

highly controlled

no extraneous variables

random allocation of participants

under stress or harm

any stress must be the same level as in everyday life

must be protected from physical and mental harm

bad bc it cause anxiety and duress within the participant

cox and griggs link

since data was quantitative, stats could be calculated to see if the results were significant or due to chance → shows causation

talarico link

controlled bc participants could withdraw at any time