Unit 1 Cognitive

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. 

• 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)

• 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

• 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

• 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. 

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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).

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

• sensory storage = register= senses
• attention
• STM= store =18-30 secs= 5-9 items
• rehersal
• LTM= store= infinite items and durations

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

• 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

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

• 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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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 

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 

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

CONCLUSION:

• deeper processing, greater recall
• semantic highest for recall
• study supports LoP theory

• 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

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

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 

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

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