Cognitive Approach - reliability

Anchoring Bias

Occurs when individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information they receive (the "anchor") when making decisions. Once the anchor is set, people tend to adjust insufficiently away from it, even when new information is presented.

Dual Processing Model

Model of thinking and decision making that outlines two systems: 

System 1: fast, unconscious, automatic, error prone, and prone to mental shortcuts and cognitive biases

System 2: slow, conscious, effortful, and less error prone

System 1 thinking uses mental shortcuts called heuristics - such as anchoring bias - where we fail to think logically about a decision using System 2 thinking and base our decisions on information that is immediately available to us.

Flashbulb memories

Flashbulb memories are vivid memories of the circumstances in which one first learned of a surprising and emotionally arousing event. They are like a snapshot of a significant event. These memories are often characterized by a strong sense of detail and confidence in their accuracy, although they can be flawed over time.

Englich and Mussweiler (2001) - Anchoring Bias and Dual Processing Model

A) Investigate if the simple request for a certain length of prison sentence would unduly influence the decision made by a judge.

M) Independent samples design. 19 trial judges, 15 male and 4 female, with an average of 9 months of experience.

Split into two conditions and given a case of alleged rape. The prosecutor in one condition demanded a sentence of 2 months (low anchor condition) vs. 34 months (high anchor condition)

R) When presented with a low anchor of 2 months, the average sentence was 18.78 months. In the high anchor condition of 34 months, the average sentence was 28.70 months.

Tversky and Kahneman (1974) - Anchoring Bias and Dual Processing Model

A) Investigate the effect of anchoring on estimate the value of a mathematics problem.

M) High school student participants split into two groups, the “ascending condition” and the “descending condition”

Participants in the “ascending condition” were asked to quickly estimate the value of 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8 in five seconds.

Those in the “descending condition” were asked to quickly estimate the value of 8 X 7 X 6 X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 X 1.

Since we read from left to right, the researchers assumed that group 1 would use "1" as an anchor and predict a lower value than the group that started with "8" as the anchor. The expectation was that the first number seen would bias the estimate of the value by the participant.

R) The researchers found that the median for the ascending group was 512; the median for the descending group was 2250. The actual value is 40320.

Sharot et al (2007) - Flashbulb memories

A) Determine biological factors of flashbulb memories

M) 3 years after 9/11, 24 people who were in NYC during the attack (recruited through advertisements) were put into an FMRI. On the scanner, they were shown the words “summer” and then the words “september”, brain activity was observed while they recalled the events. Participants were then asked to rate the memories they associated with each word for vividness, detail, confidence in accuracy, and arousal. Participants were also asked to write a description of their personal memories.

R) Only half of the participants reported having what would be called "flashbulb memories". Those that did report having flashbulb memories also reported that they were closer to the World Trade Center on the day of the terrorist attack. Participants closer to the WTC also included more specific details in their written memo. Activation of the amygdala for the participants who were downtown was higher when they recalled memories of the terrorist attack than when they recalled events from the preceding summer, whereas those participants who were further away from the event had equal levels of response in the amygdala when recalling both events. The strength of amygdala activation at retrieval was shown to correlate with flashbulb memories

Talarico & Rubin (2003) - Flashbulb memories

A) Investigate how more reliable and consistent flashbulb memories are compared with normal memories.

M) They tested this by asking participants on September 12th, 2001 (the day after 9/11), to recall details of where they were when they heard about the attacks the day before. They also recorded details of an everyday event that the participants recalled. They subsequently tested them after 7, 42 and 224 days.

R) Participants reported the memories very vividly and were confident in their memories. However, they were no more consistent than the memories of the everyday event. Accuracy for the flashbulb and everyday memories did not differ; both declined over time. Ratings of vividness and belief in the accuracy of memory declined only for everyday memories. Emotional response to the news correlated with later belief in the accuracy of memory. Emotional response to the news did not correlate with accuracy of memory.

Flashbulb memories are only special in their perceived accuracy.