Unit 1 Cognitive
- Created by: Beth
- Created on: 09-03-14 14:55
Definition of Approach
The cognitive approach is a way of explaining human behaviour, by the influence of mental processes. For example, perception, problem solving and memory. A model can be used to understand the flow of information through the cognitive sytem. An example is information processing which involves input, process and output.
Key Assumption - Information Processing
- a model that allows us to understand the flow of information through the cognitive system; input, process to output
- we recieve information via our senses = input
- we encode it (tranform it for brain understanding)
- we process it
- output (e.g. speech or behaviour)
Key Terms
- Memory = cognitive function used to retain information and recall it when needed
- Forgetting = inability to recall or recognise something previously learnt
- Storage= place to retain information
- Retrieval= process of locating and extracting stored memories for use
Methodology - Key terms
- method establishes if there is a cause-effect relationship between 2+ variables
- independent variable =change
- dependent variable = measure
- operationalistation = create own measurement for D.V, precisely define how to measure DV and alter conditions of IV
- hypotheses= prediciton
- experiemental hypotheses = change as IV effect DV
- null hypotheses = no effect and if so due to chance
- directional (one-tailed) = specific effect
- non-directional = (two-tailed) = effect but not specific
Methodology - Key terms 2
- extraneous variables = any variable but IV that influences findings, two types;
- situational variables = environment or situation (e.g noise, location or time)
- participant variables = themselves (e.g. age, gender, mood)
- confounding variables = variable affects findings so much no longer measure what intended
- experimenter effects = body language or inadvertent hints (use double-blinded technique)
- demand characteristics = cue making participant aware of nature of task or expected behaviour. Change outcome of experiment to conform to expectations.
Experiment types - laboratory
- tightly controlled environment
- IV directly manipulated by researcher
- control extraneous variables = results more reliable and replicatable = find cause-effect relationship
- standardised = easy replicate = more reliable
- artificial environment and task = artificial behaviour = low ecological validity = increase risk of demand characteristics and experimenter effects
Experiment types - field
- natural environment
- IV directly manipulated by researcher
- high ecological validity = natural
- less demand characteristics = participants unaware
- less control= more influence of extraneous variables = less replicatable
- ethical issues = consent, deception, privacy
Experiment types - natural
- natural environment
- IV not directly manipulated by researcher
- more ecological validity= natural IV and environment
- no demand characteristics and no bias sample= unaware
- difficult repeat = IV not manipulated
- hard to prove cause-effect relationship= minimal control of extraneous variables
- ethical issues = consent, deception, privacy
Experiment designs - independent measures
- participant in one condition only
- no order effects (carying out task repeatedly can change performance) - fatigue effect or practise effect
- less chance of demand characteristics
- individual differences could mask effect or imply effect that is non-existent
Experiment designs - repeated measures
- participant in all conditions
- no participant variables= same people used
- more efficent= less people needed= saves time and cost
- order effects like fatigue effect or practise effect
- demand characteristics
- use counterbalanced design/ randonisation = participants in all conditions but different orders
Experiment designs - matched pairs
- participant in one condition but mathced based on important factors
- less participant variables = matched
- no order effects= one condition
- participant varibales= matched but individual differences
- less efficent= more people= time and cost
Memory Studies - Levels of Processing- description
- semantic= meaning=deep processing =strong memory trace
- phonetic=sounds
- structural=looks=shallow processing= weak memory trace
Levels of Processing is needed to explain the transfer of info into LTM without rehersal.
Memory is a consequence of how we proces information.
Deep processing is a form of elaborative rehersal (expands upon material and retains long time).
LoP shows difference of elaborative rehersal and maintence rehersal (retains items for short time).
Memory Studies - Levels of Processing- evaluation
For: supporting research
- Craik & Tulving = semantic words recalled best on word list
- Hyde & Jenkins = semantic words recalled best on word list
Applications
- student revision notes need meaning to be recalled in exam
Against: research
- Morris = phonetic words best recalled on word list
Alternative theories
- Multi-store model of memory = memory transferred from STM to LTM by rehersal
- imagery and emotionality= leave lasting memory traces
Memory Studies - Multi store model - description
- sensory storage = register= senses
- attention
- STM= store =18-30 secs= 5-9 items
- rehersal
- LTM= store= infinite items and durations
Memory Studies - Multi store model - evaluation
For: supporting research
- Peterson & Peterson = preventing rehersal causes forgetting, not transfered from STM to LTM
- Clive Wearing = damage to hippocampus prevents STM to LTM = 2 stores
- Glanzer & Cunitz = word list first and last words remembered best (primary and recency effect) = 2 stores
Application
- revision = rehersal for STM to LTM
- eye witness testimony = rehersal needed to be accurate
Against: Alternative theories
- Levels of Processing = process deeply for LTM not rehersal
- imagery and emotionality = leave memory trace
Forgetting studies - Cue dependent - description
- when we encode a new memory, also store information occured around it= retrieval cues
- forget= not same situation= lack retrieval cues to locate in LTM
- external retrieval cues= context (e.g. room)
- internal retrieval cues = state (e.g. feelings)
- encoding specificity principle = greater similarity between encoding event and retrieval even more likely to remember
Forgetting studies - Cue dependent - evaluation
For: supporting research
- Godden & Baddley= lack of retrieval cues cause divers to forget in different environment
- Smith = words learnt t jazz or mozart, best recalled with same music
Application
- Revision = no music, none in exam
- Police TV reconstruction = designed similar enviroment to cue memories
- Eyewitness testimony = back to scene for best recall, cues
- recollect childhood memories
Against: Alternative theories
- Trace decay = learning causes physical trace, disintergrates if not rehearsed
Forgetting studies - trace decay- description
- learning cause phyical change in neural network = memory engram
- connects to neurons
- more use info = strengthen trace
- less use info = decays = forgetting = time or disuse
Forgetting studies - trace decay - evaluation
For: supporting research
- Peterson & Peterson = rehersal prevention causes decay
- Penfield = probed brains of epileptics and found certain areas of brain held certain memories
Application
- Alzheimers = lose memories, not inability to retrieve
- Eye Witness Testimony = rheresal for accurate account
- Revision = rehersal for trace in exam
Against: Research
- Hall = remember algebra from school if practise, trace not lost
Alternative theory
- Cue dependent = accesibility problem, forgetting because of lack of retrieval cues
Practical - Cue dependent - description
AIM: To test if environment act as context cue to aid recall of word list, and if absence of cue prevents recall.
METHOD:
- laboratory
- control extraneous variables for cause- effect relationship
- demand characteristics= low ecological validity= artificial task and environment
- IV environmet of recall - same or different to learning
- DV number of words recalled
- repeated measures (same p. both condtions) = order effect but compare
- experimental directional hypothesis: memory of words better in same location as learning, than different location
Practical - Cue dependent - description
PROCEDURE:
- p. selected by oppurtunity sampling
- p. used in both conditions (repeated measures) with seperate word list for each condition
- p. briefed and gave informed consent, p. assured of confidentiality and right to withdraw
- p. seated first room, shown 20 words, one at time on powerpoint, each word 3 secs
- condition 1 learn and recall same room condition 2 learn and recall different room
- after 2 mins grous given blank paper and pen, asked recall all words could in 2 mins
- both groups debriefed
Practical - Cue dependent - description
RESULTS:
- cued = same room = 12.45 words recalled (average)
- non cued = different room = 12.72 words recalled (average)
CONCLUSION:
- experimental hypothesis not supported - better recall in different room than same room - cue dependent theory not supported by results
Practical - Cue dependent - evaluation
GENERALISABILTY:
- sample of 22 not sufficent to draw conclusion - too small
- p. students Itchen College age 16 to 19 - only applicable to young adults at Itchen College
- oppurtunity sampling - could pick desired characteristics
RELIABILITY:
- standardised brief, debrief and procedure - increase reliabilty - all same experience
- repeated measures - order effect - practise effect
- lab experiment - control extraneous variables - cause effect relationship
- lab - experimenter effect + demand characateristics (aware of study)
Practical - Cue Dependent - Evaluation
APPLICATION:
- eye witness testimony - witness back crime scene or recreate to cue more memories
- educational environments - exam preparation
VALIDITY:
- artifical task - word list - low ecological validity
- artificial environment - low ecological validity
ETHICS:
- brief and debrief
- informed consent
- right to withdraw
- confidentiality
Detail study _ Godden & Baddley_Context forgetting
AIM:
- investigate if natural environment acts as cue for recall
- test Tulving's encoding specificity principle
PROCEDURE:
- 4 days long in Scotland, scheduled dives to ensure same wet cold state
- 18 p. all from Uni diving club randomly allocated learning and recall area (4 combinations)
- 38 unrelated 2/3 syllable words on list
- tested 2 at a time
- divers recieved words by tape recording via communciation device (4 sec pauses for breathing apparatus)
- words repeated twice, delay 4 mins between learn and recall, 2 mins recall
Detail study_Godden& Baddley_Context forgetting
RESULTS:
- 50% higher recall if same enviro.
- learn and recall both land higher mean of 13.5 than u.water 11.4
- 8.6 mean land learn, u.water recall
- 8.4 mean u.water learn, land recall
CONCLUSION:
- natural enviro. can act as contextual cue for recall
- prove encoding specificity principle
Detail study_Godden&Baddley_Context forgetting
GENERALISABILITY:
- low - 18 divers - too small group- ethnocentric- same Uni club
- high - cue dependent forgeetting most common regardless of age, gender, etc
RELIABILITY:
- lack of procedure control - equipment failure
- inconssistent diving location - weather conditions
- possible p. cheating - reasearcher not see u.water during learn and recall
- consistent findings Abernathy (1949)
APPLICATION:
- educational enviro. - more lessons where exam take place- aid recall
- eye witness testimony - witness back crime scene - cue more memories
Detail study_Godden&Baddley_Context forgetting
VALIDITY:
- high ecological - realistic open water enviro. divers used to
- low ecological - artificial task - word lists
ETHICS:
- protection - 20ft deep - risk - but experienced so reduced risk
- limited informed concsent + deception - otherwise demand characteristics
- right to withdraw - difficult u.water
- confidentiality
Detail study_Craik&Tulving_LoP_description
AIM:
- test LoP theory (Craik & Lockhart) by if words processed different levels affect recognition of word
PROCEDURE:
- 24 p. read 60 words - mix of structural, phonetic and sematic processing
- p. must then recall by recognising words from list of 180 (60 original, 120 new)
RESULTS:
- 17% words recalled structural
- 36%words recalled phonetic
- 65% words recalled semantic
Detail study_Craik&Tulving_LoP_description
CONCLUSION:
- deeper processing, greater recall
- semantic highest for recall
- study supports LoP theory
Detail study_Craik&Tulving_LoP_evaluation
- GENERALISABILITY:
- low + unrepresentive = sample size 24 = small = more males=andocentric=one university=ethnocentric
- lab experiment = artificial enviro.
RELIABILITY:
- lab = standardised procedure = high control of extraneous variables = repeatable
- Hyde & Jenkins research supports = reliable
- Moris study contradicts = phonetic best recalled
APPLICATION:
- revision - rehersal not enough - meaningful to remember
Detail study_Craik&Tulving_LoP_evaluation
VALIDITY:
- low ecological = lab = artificial task = word list = short time
ETHICS:
- no informed consent + deception = not told remember words till after= so not conciously recall words so accurate reflection of processing influence memory
Key Issue_ Is eye witness testimony reliable?
What is EWT?
- recalled memory of witness of crime or incident
- give statement, pick from line up or testify in court
- argue unreliable that not be basis of criminal convictions (e.g. Beth Rutherford)
- argue jurors more likely to rely on EWT than scientific proof / forensic evidence
Why EWT important when there is forensics / why issue?
- possibility of miscarriages of justice if EWT inaccurate or wrong
- EWT can be unreliable if only basis
- e.g. Ron Cotton
Key Issue_Is eye witness testimony reliable?
Explain key issue with concepts and theories.
LoP
- reliable - know they witness crime -process semantically- remember better
- unreliable - too many questions on looks (structural) - least remembered
Multi store model
- reliable - rehearsed - witnesses talk and think about it - push from STM to LTM - increase recall
- unreliable - if not rehearsed - stay STM for 18to 30 secs then forgotten
Cue dependent
- reliable - witness back to or at scene - more cues for more memory recall - police reconstructions
- unreliable - witness recall police station or court - different surroundings
Key Issue_Is eyewitness testimony reliable?
Trace decay
- reliable - witness interview asap - witness talk and think about it - strengthen trace as rehearse
- unreliable - not rehearsed - memory trace decays and weakens
Loftus and Palmer
- influence of leading questions make EWT unreliable
- distortion by verbal label
Loftus
- weapons focus - narrow attention and memory of event - unreliable of offender recall, etc
- core vision - weapon
- peripheryvision - offender, surroundings - lack detail
Related discussions on The Student Room
- essay help needed !!! :) »
- psychology a level aqa »
- AQA A-level Psychology Paper 2 (7182/2) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat] »
- Oxford PPL vs Cambridge PBS? »
- BTEC H&S Care Unit 12: Supporting Individuals with Additional Needs Work Explained »
- Philosophy and Pschology »
- Non-Cognitive statements »
- LearnDirect Access to Social Science Unit 8 Introduction to Cognitive Psychology »
- Psychology in social work »
- Predictions for A level Psychology AQA 2023 »
Comments
No comments have yet been made