Cognitive Area studies

Question 1

Loftus + Palmer - Aim, Sample and Method

Answer 1

Aim:

• wanted to see the effect leading questions had on the memory of an event.

Sample:

Opportunity Sample

1. EXP 1 - 45 students from Washington University
2. EXP 2 - 150 students from Washington University

Method:

• Lab experiment with independent measures design
• IV - Verbs/ Smashed or hit or control
• DV - mean speed estimate/ or if they recall seeing broken glass

Question 2

Loftus + Palmer - Procedure (3 &3)

Answer 2

EXP 1

1. P’s shown same 7 film clips of traffic accidents forming a driver safety video
2. Each p given a questionnaire to describe the accident and answer questions about the accident
3. Critical question “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other” asked, other 4 groups got the same question however they were given the verbs: smashed, collided, bumped, collided

EXP 2

1. All p’s shown a one-minute film containing a 4 second multiple car crash
2. Asked the critical question “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other” other group got smashed and one group not asked about speed
3. One week later, given a questionnaire involving critical question “Did you see any broken glass” which they answered Yes/No to and given a questionnaire to answer questions about the accident

Question 3

Loftus + Palmer - Controls (3)

Answer 3

• P’s shown same 7 film clips of traffic accidents forming a driver safety video in experiment 1
• All p’s shown a one-minute film containing a 4 second multiple car crash
• All p’s asked same critical question

Question 4

Loftus + Palmer - Results (2) and conclusion

Answer 4

• P’s in smashed condition guessed highest mean speed estimate and P’s in contacted condition guessed lowest mean speed estimate
• More participant’s in the smashed condition recall seeing smashed glass than in the hit condition

Event information and post-event information are combined when we reconstruct eyewitness testimonies

Question 5

Grant - Aim, Sample and Method

Answer 5

Aim:

• To show environmental context can have a more positive effect on performance in a meaningful memory test

Sample:

• Eight members of a psychology class acted as experimenters and picked 5 participants each
• 39 Participant (one was omitted)
• 22 male and 17 females

Method:

• Used a laboratory experiment with independent measures design
• IV - Condition they studied and complete MCQ and SAQ
• DV - Score on 16 MCQ and 10 SAQ about Psychoimmunology article

Question 6

Grant - Procedure (3)

Answer 6

1. All p’s given the cassette and headphones that was provided from each experimenter and those in silent condition listened to nothing whereas noisy condition involved the identical University lunchtime cafeteria background noise
2. A break of roughly 2 minutes between the study time and test time was given to limit short term memory recall
3. They were given 16 multiple choice question and 10 short answer questions on the article

Question 7

Grant - Controls (4)

Answer 7

• All tested on the same Psychoimmunology article
• All listened to identical cafeteria noise for noisy condition
• They were all told they could read for as long for as long as they needed
• A break of roughly 2 minutes between the study time and test time was given to limit short term memory recall

Question 8

Grant - Results (2) and Conclusion

Answer 8

• They showed matching conditions (studying and testing in the same environment) produced better results.
• There was no overall effect of noise on performance

Students should study in silence as they will be tested in silence and recall is improved when the conditions in which they study and are tested are the same

Question 9

Moray - Aim, Sample and Method

Answer 9

Aim:

• To investigate other factors affecting attention in dichotic listening

Sample:

• Undergraduates/ research workers of both genders from Oxford, England
• EXP 1 - Unknown
• EXP 2 - 12
• EXP 3 - 2 groups of 14

Method: All Lab Exp

• EXP 1

   - Repeated Measures 
   - IV - Prose and short list of words. 
   - DV - number of words correctly recalled in the rejected message

• EXP 2

   - Repeated Measures 
   - IV - Affective or non-affective instructions to both ears. 
   - DV - Number of instructions heard

• EXP 3

   - Independent Measures 
   - IV1 - Whether digits were inserted into both messages or only one. 
   - IV2 - Whether participants had to answer questions about the shadowed message or remember all the numbers they could. 
  - DV - Number of digits correctly recalled

Question 10

Moray - Procedure (2,2,2)

Answer 10

Exp 1:

1. Short list of words presented to one ear of participant while they shadow a prose message to the other ear
2. Participant asked to report all they remembered of the shadowed message

Exp 2:

1. They were told responses would be recorded and the aim was to make the least amount of mistakes possible
2. Half of the instructions had the affective cue

Exp 3:

1. Each of the two groups shadowed one of the two simultaneous dichotic messages
2. One group was told they would be asked questions on the content of the shadowed message at the end of each message, whereas the other group were specifically told to remember as many digits as they could

Question 11

Moray - Controls (3)

Answer 11

• The passage was read in the same monotone voice at 130 words per minute
• Word list repeated 35 times
• Before each experiment the participants were all given 4 passages of prose to practice

Question 12

Moray - Results (3) and Conclusion

Answer 12

EXP 1 - More words were recognised from the shadowed message, than rejected message and recognition task

EXP 2 - When instructions had an affective cue, they were heard more

EXP 3 - No significant difference between two conditions in mean number of digits reported

Conclusion: Subjectively ‘important’ messages, such as a person’s own name, can penetrate the block: thus a person will hear instructions if they are presented with their own name as part of the rejected message.

Question 13

Simons + Chabris - Aim, Sample, Method

Answer 13

Aim:

• To investigate inattentional blindness for complex objects and event in dynamic scenes

Method:

• Lab experiment - independent measures design
• IV1 - Seeing the Gorilla or Umbrella condition, Being opaque or transparent
• IV2 - Watching the black or white team, following the easy or hard task
• DV - was the number of participants in each of the 16 conditions who noticed the unexpected event (Umbrella Woman or Gorilla).

Sample:

• 228 participants but 192 after removals - undergrads from America
• Self selected sample
• For the controlled observation = 12 participants watched the video in which the gorilla pumped its chest

Question 14

Simons + Chabris - Controls (3)

Answer 14

• All of the four video tapes were 75 seconds in duration
• After 44-48 seconds the unexpected event occurred
• All videos were filmed with a SVHS video camera

Question 15

Simons + Chabris - Procedure (3)

Answer 15

• All p’s tested individually and gave informed consent in advance and told to focus on the black or white team
• They were asked the same questions starting with “did you notice anything unusual in the video?”
• They were asked after if they were aware of the general phenomenon (these were discarded). Everyone was then debriefed

Question 16

Simons + Chabris - Result and Conclusion

Answer 16

• 54% noticed the unexpected event vs 46% that did not notice the expected event

The level of inattentional blindness depends on the difficulty of the task