Download AS EDEXCEL PSYCHOLOGY 2008 ONWARDS

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY: UNIT 1
Cognitive Psychology: definitions & key
terms used in this approach
 The cognitive approach relates to mental processes that help us to make sense of the
world: these include processes such as perception, language, memory, attention &
problem-solving.
 One way cognitive psychologists think about this approach is by using the information
processing model. This is the idea that our senses receive information (input), our brain
interprets & tries to make sense of this information (processing), and we then respond to
this, usually with a specific type of behaviour (output).
 The computer analogy is also used in the cognitive approach; this compares the
functioning of a computer with that of the human brain to help us understand how
mental functions operate. It is assumed that the human brain is like a computer, it is also
an information processor: information is input via a keyboard, processed & then stored
on the hard-drive (the brain), and various outputs can then be made. Computers also
operate using binary coding, human brains operate using a series of electrical impulses,
neurons alternating between being positively & negatively charged. Also, like computers
humans are thought to have a limited capacity processor, we can only handle a restricted
amount or type of information at any one time.
Cognitive Psychology: definitions & key
terms used in this approach
 Both computers & people have powerful processing abilities – although computers are
better at algorithms (working things out systematically), whereas people are better at
heuristics (guesswork).
 The similarities between human information processing & computer information
processing means that we can use computers as models of human thinking.
 The cognitive approach also studies brain-damaged people, as case studies of people with
brain damage allows researchers to see what a person with a certain area of brain damage
can do/how they process information with someone without that damage. However, it is
unusual for just one part of the brain to be damaged, and unusual for a person with brain
damage to be known to researchers before their condition/injury, so it is hard to gauge
what their mental abilities might have been before the damage.
 Memory is vital for normal human functioning, without memory no learning could take
place and we would have no sense of personal identity – who we are. Memory is usually
thought to consist of: encoding, sensory storage, short-term storage, long-term
storage & retrieval.
Cognitive Psychology: definitions & key
terms used in this approach
 Encoding – the process of transferring information from the senses into a memory trace,
I.e., when we learn something, we are encoding information.
 Sensory storage – all information we perceive is held for a very short time in the sensory
store while we decide whether to process it further or not; very little information goes
beyond this point, unless processed further visual images last for approx. half a second &
sound for approx. 2 seconds.
 Short-term storage – this is the next stage from sensory storage, it has a limited
capacity, approx. 7 +/-2 & limited duration approx. 15-30 seconds without rehearsal.
 Long-term storage - this has unlimited capacity & duration (it lasts a lifetime). With
rehearsal, information is transferred from short-term to long-term memory.
 Retrieval – this is the process of locating & extracting stored memories so that they can
used.
 Failure to encode, store or retrieve information properly can lead to forgetting.
In depth area of study: Memory &
Forgetting
 Memory: Can you describe




& evaluate:
Levels of Processing
theory. AND:
Reconstructive Memory.
OR:
The Multi-Store Model of
Memory. OR:
The Working Memory
Model
 Forgetting: Can you
describe & evaluate:
 Cue Dependent
Forgetting. AND:
 Displacement theory.
OR:
 Trace-decay theory. OR:
 Interference theory.
MEMORY: Levels of Processing
 Levels of Processing theory (Craik & Lockhart,1972) maintains that memory depends on
how we process information; memory is by-product of depth of processing, I.e., how
deeply we process information. There are 3 ways we process information:
 Structural/visual processing – we process information according to how it looks, e.g., if a
word is in upper or lower case. This is the shallowest form of information processing.
 Phonetic processing – we process information according to how it sounds, e.g., does a
word rhyme with another, the sound made by the word.
 Semantic/deep processing – we process information according to meaning, e.g., what is
the meaning of the word. This is the deepest form of processing & the one which leads to
the greatest recall/recollection.
 Types of rehearsal – according to Craik & Lockhart there are 2 types of rehearsal: type 1 or
maintenance rehearsal & type 1 or elaborative rehearsal. Maintenance rehearsal is the
most basic type of rehearsal & least effective for recall, it consists of simply trying to
remember something by repeating it over & over; only small amounts of information can
be recalled for a short time using this method of rehearsal. Conversely, elaborative
rehearsal is where information is considered more deeply/semantically, it is given
meaning and is therefore more likely to result in a durable memory being laid down.
MEMORY: Levels of Processing
Evaluation
 There is a lot experimental research which supports this theory, e.g., Craik & Tulving
(1975). They tested the theory by putting participants into 3 conditions: the
structural/visual, phonetic & semantic. All the participants were told the experiment
was a test of reaction speed & had to identify either structural, phonetic or semantic
properties of words. Participants were then given an unexpected test for recall of the
words in the reaction test. Results: structural (is the word in upper case % recall=15;
phonetic (does the word rhyme with windy) %recall=35; semantic (is the word a kind of
food % recall=70%).
 Physiological evidence (Nyberg, 2002) shows that semantic information results in more
brain activity, which could be an indicator of deeper processing.
 It has practical applications, e.g., to enhance learning & revision. Nordhielm, 1994,
found that viewers remembered adverts better if they processed them semantically;
Riding & Rayne, 1998, showed that students learn better when they process information
semantically.
 It can better explain the diversity/complexity of human memory, I.e., memory is not
simply a matter of different types of stores; it can explain whys some memories are better
recalled than others.
MEMORY: Levels of Processing
Evaluation (continued)





Maybe the nature of the task, i.e., what is to be recalled is more important than depth of processing.
Morris (1977) found that lists of words were better recalled if they were processed phonetically rather
than semantically.
Other factors can also affect how well-remembered information is independently of depth of
processing, e.g., Reber et al. (1994) showed that the emotional content of words affected recall;
similarly distinctiveness & vivid imagery can improve recall, but these are independent of depth of
processing.
This makes depth of processing hard to define; is it the elaboration of information or the relevance &
distinctiveness of the information? In research into LofP, such as Craik & Tulving (1975), how can we
be sure that in the structural/visual condition participants were not processing the information
semantically, or that the words had some emotionally meaning/distinctiveness for individual
participants: this reduces the experimental validity of the research testing the theory.
The definition of deep processing cannot be identified independently of its effects on recall; we recall
more because of deep processing-deep processing leads to better recall, it is circular logic, the theory
describes rather than explains how memory works.
The theory can only explain explicit memories, not implicit ones, things that we don’t consciously
encode but seem to remember anyway.
MEMORY: Reconstructive memory
 Bartlett (1932) proposed that remembering involves looking at units of memory called
schemas: these are ‘mental scripts’ or ‘packets of information’ that we have for every
aspect of human life, some of these schemas are inherent, such as grasping, but some are
learned through experience. E.g., through experience of going to restaurants we develop
a restaurant scheme, how to behave in a restaurant; or may have a schema for ‘boyracers’
what they will be like, what sorts of cars they drive & how they drive them.
 Bartlett developed his theory famously using a Native American story called ‘The War of
the Ghosts’. He noticed that Western participants, when asked to recall the story after
they had read it, made lots of errors. He concluded that because the story was far
removed from Western experiences & schemas, this made accurate recollection of the
story difficult for Western participants unfamiliar with Native American culture.
 Bartlett argued that the schemas we have about certain situations can lead us to make
recall errors, we open up an existing schema which we be stereotypical and based on
preconceived notions and therefore flawed. We tend to remember information which
confirms our stereotypes and ignore information which contradicts it.
MEMORY: Reconstructive memory (continued)
 According to Bartlett, we reconstruct memories from relevant schemas & make use of
the information in them, e.g., we witness a car accident, see that 1 of the drivers is a
young man, & immediately open our ‘boyracer’ schema to help us reconstruct the
memory of the accident. In the War of the Ghosts story we make use of our own Western,
ghost, war & death schemas to help us interpret & recall the story, in this case
inaccurately.
 In The War of the Ghosts mistakes recalling the story involved: rationalisation – adding
new material/justifications for actions which are not in the original story; omissions;
changes of order; alterations in importance; distortions of emotion – incorporating own
feelings & attitudes in to the story.
Memory: Reconstructive memory
Evaluation
 There is some experimental support for the reconstructive memory theory. Allport &
Postman (1947) conducted a classic experiment showing white participants a picture of a
scruffy white man holding a knife to a well-dressed black man, attempting to rob him.
When asked to describe the scene some time later, many participants reversed the
scenario, with the black man holding the knife. As racism was commonplace in the US at
the time, the explanation is that many of the participants relied on their schemas of
white & black citizens to aid their recall of the picture; the schema being that black men
more likely to behaving aggressively & criminally.
 Brewer & Treyens (1981) asked participants to wait in an office for 35 seconds, they were
then asked, unexpectedly, to recall the items in the office. Most of the items in the office
were consistent with an office schema, e.g., table, filing cabinets & there were some
schema inconsistent items: a skull & a brick. The participants made lots of substitution
errors, omitting things & saying things were there when they weren’t, but which where
consistent with a general office schema, just not that particular office. Participants also
tended to remember the skull but not the brick. The participants had used their office
schemas to help them recall but this had lead to some errors. The brick wasn’t recalled
well because it is not especially schema inconsistent, the skull was well-recalled because
it is very inconsistent with an office schema.
Memory: Reconstructive memory
Evaluation (continued)
 Carli (1999) showed that participants memories become more stereotypical because of
schemas. Participants were either told a story which ended abruptly, or one which ended
with a rape. In the latter scenario participants tended to have a more distorted
recollection of events in the story than the first; the character committing the rape was
described in more sinister terms prior to the rape by the participants in the 2nd condition.
 Furthermore, memories of new experiences tend to be less distorted than memories of
more familiar experiences. Presumably this is because when recollecting novel
experiences we cannot use schemas to help us retrieve the memory because we have no
schemas for that experience, thus supporting the role played by schemas in memory
retrieval.
 This theory can explain why we remember events in a distorted, inaccurate way; however,
it only explains the retrieval aspect of memory, but there are many other features of
memory, e.g., the different types of memory that seemingly exist (e.g., the multi-store
model can explain short & long-term memory). Neither can it explain why some
information is better recollected than others (LofP deeper/semantic processing leads to
better recall).
Forgetting: Cue Dependent Theory
 This theory states that we forget things because we do not have appropriate cues to
retrieve these memories.
 The encoding specificity principle (Tulving) is related. This states that the greater the
similarity between the encoding event & retrieval event, the better recall will be, e.g.,
encoding & recalling in the same place, or being in the same emotional state at encoding
& recall.
 The Tip of the Tongue Phenomenon (Brown & McNeill, 1966) is often used to support the
theory, e.g., we often cannot remember something until we are given some relevant
prompt, or cue.
 There are 2 types of cue dependent forgetting: Context-dependent forgetting & Statedependent forgetting.
 Context-dependent forgetting: This refers to being in the same location/context at
encoding & recall in order to improve recall. The environment can also provide context
cues, e.g., music (Smith, 1985); smells (Schab, 1990, chocolate; Aggleton & Waskett, 1999,
‘smelly museum’ study, Jorvik Viking Centre, York).
 State-dependent forgetting: This refers to the our emotional & physical state at encoding
& recall, e.g., happy, sad, intoxicated, fearful, exhausted.
Forgetting: Cue Dependent Theory:
Evaluation
 There is a lot of experimental support for both types of cue dependent forgetting: state &
context dependent forgetting. Smith (1979) context=participants given a list of 80
words to learn in a distinctive basement. Next day asked to recall in same location or 5th
floor room which was very different. Recall in same location=18/80 in different location
12/80; others recalled in different location asked to imagine themselves back in original
room, recall=17/80. Godden & Baddeley (1975) divers study; Abernethy (1940)
classroom setting) Environmental context supporting studies: Smith (1985) music:
quiet, Mozart or Jazz; Grant & Bredahl (1998) noisy or quiet conditions; Schab (1990)
smell of chocolate as a cue; Herz (1997) smell of peppermint, osmanthus & pine: all
studies show memory performance better when cues at encoding are present at recall.
 State-dependent forgetting supporting studies: Duka et al. (2000) alcohol/placebo
conditions=best recall when in same state at recall as encoding; Goodwin et al. (1969)
same effect with heavy drinkers; Eich (1980) same effect with range of other drugs incl.
marijuana; Lang et al. (2001) found similar cue effects when a fearful emotional was
induced at encoding & recall; Miles & Hardman (1998) found that a physiological state
induced by aerobic exercise acted as a powerful state-dependent cue to recall.
Forgetting: Cue Dependent Theory:
Evaluation (continued)
 There is much face validity: it explains the tip-of-the-tongue
phenomena & why when we are given cues, like going back to old
house, or hearing a familiar record, triggers lots of old memories.
 There are many practical applications, e.g., memory can be improved
by introducing context or state cues, e.g., crime reconstructions,
remembering exam material by imagining you are back in you’re the
same place you revised.
 However, it cannot explain why some memories are better remembered
than others, e.g., emotionally charged memories might be remembered
well even without cues and why we generally remember happy material
better than unhappy material (depressed people tend to remember
unhappy material more than happy events).
Forgetting: Trace-decay theory
 This theory states learning causes a physical change in the neural networks in
the brain responsible for memory. This change occurs at the synapses or gaps
between neurones.
 When this change occurs a memory trace (or engram) is laid down.
 This trace becomes stronger through repetition and rehearsal.
 Forgetting occurs when the memory trace is not strengthened by practice, then
the trace begins to break up and disintegrate. Disuse and the passage of time
inevitably leads to the disintegration of a memory trace.
 As STM has limited duration trace-decay is inevitable & very quick; however,
trace-decay takes longer in LTM because the memory trace is stronger, more
secure & profound physical change occurs at the synapse.
 The analogy is with a pathway over grass, i.e., if shortcut is frequently used
eventually a pathway through the grass will be laid down, but if it not used the
grass will begin to grow over the pathway.
Forgetting: Trace-decay theory
Evaluation
 There is some evidence for physiological changes at the synapses when learning
occurs which is consistent with trace-decay theory.
 However, this theory cannot explain why we can recall things that we have not
thought about for a long time; presumably the physical changes at the synapses
would have decayed and the memory trace dissipated.
 It cannot explain why we can retrieve ‘old’ or ‘lost’ memories with the
appropriate state or context cue.
 Jenkins & Dallenbach (1924) had 2 groups of participants learn a list of words: 1
group recalled the words after a night’s sleep (no interference); the other group
learned the words at the beginning of the day & recalled the words at the end of
the day. The group who learned the words before going to bed & recalled the
list the next morning recalled more words than the other group – presumably
because they experienced less interference with their memories. However,
according to trace-decay theory both groups should have had the same level of
forgetting because passage of time & disuse leads to forgetting, not amount of
interference experienced, and as both groups experienced the same passage of
time & lack of rehearsal the level of forgetting should have been the same.
Forgetting: Interference theory
 In LTM one explanation for forgetting is Interference; this is when forgetting
occurs because of interference or confusion between old & new memories.
 This does not mean the memory is lost, as in trace-decay theory, but that it
becomes confused or distorted as a result of conflicting memories.
 There are 2 types of interference: retroactive & proactive.
 Retroactive interference is when later/newer or more recently acquired
memories interfere with the recall of earlier memories/learning: e.g., because
you have a new girlfriend, when you see an ex-girlfriend you cannot remember
her name because of retroactive interference – the name of your current
girlfriend confuses or distorts your earlier memory of names.
 Proactive interference is when earlier learning/memories interferes with
later/newer or more recently acquired memories: e.g., you call your current
girlfriend by an ex-girlfriend’s name.
Forgetting: Interference theory
Evaluation
 There is a lot of research evidence supporting interference theory in LTM. E.g.,
see earlier study by Jenkins & Dallenbach (1924); and McGeoch & McDonald
(1931): they gave participants two lists of information to learn – the more
similar the second set of information was to the first set, the greater the level of
interference & the worse the recall of the first list of information. Also
Baddeley & Hitch (1977) studied 2 groups of rugby players, 1 group had played
all the games that season, one group – because of injury - had missed lots of
games. The first group were worse at recalling the names of all the teams they
had played in the season because they had a higher degree of interference than
the players who missed lots of games through injury so had played less and had
less interference.
 However, interference only accounts for a certain type of forgetting; we forget
things even when there is limited interference. Just because there is only 1
word for forgetting, it does not mean there is only type of forgetting.
Forgetting: Displacement Theory
 This is an explanation of forgetting in STM.
 STM has a limited capacity, so when that capacity is reached (I..e, 7+/-2) new
information displaces older information stored in STM, e.g., item number 10
displaces or replaces item number 1 in your STM.
 Displacement seems to make sense for STM, but it hard to distinguish between
displacement, interference & trace-decay as an explanation of forgetting in
STM, i.e., item number 1 might have been lost due to displacement, but equally
could have been lost due to trace-decay (it had been some time since it was
rehearsed – STM has limited duration – and so an engram or memory trace had
disintegrated); or all the items after number 1 had caused interference and so
prevented recollection of that item.
 NB., lots of research into memory involves learning lists of random
words, numbers & trigrams, and so lacks a certain amount of validity.
Studies in detail: Can you
describe & evaluate
Godden & Baddeley
(1975) Cue
dependent
forgetting/memory
in divers: AND
Craik & Tulving
(1975) Levels of
Processing:
Godden & Baddeley (1975) divers study: cue
dependent forgetting
 Name: Godden & Baddeley (1975)
 Aim: To investigate whether a natural
environment can act as a cue for recall;
to ascertain if encoding & recall in the
same context/environment improves
recall.
 Method: 18 divers were randomly
allocated to 1 of 4 conditions: 1. learn &
recall on dry land; 2. Learn underwater &
recall underwater; 3. Learn on dry land &
recall underwater; 4. Learn underwater
recall on dry land. Participants were also
given a recognition test of the words.
 Generalisability: Although the study
involved divers, the concept under
investigation can be generalised;
memory is a universal cognitive
function.
 Reliability: As the research was a field
experiment it is harder to control
confounding/extraneous variables &
having a standardised procedure is more
difficult, e.g., very difficult to control
diving & weather conditions.
 Application to real life: there are many
practical applications, e.g., better to
learn tasks, such as CPR in the same
environment as they are likely to be
carried out. Abernathy (1940) found
Godden & Baddeley (1975) divers study: cue
dependent forgetting


Results: Recall was 50% higher when it took
place in the same context/environment as
encoding (learning). 40% more words were
forgotten if recall took place in a different
environment to learning.
A change of
environment between encoding & recall had
no effect on the word recognition test. NB.,
word recall is much harder than word
recognition; thus we need more cues to
prevent forgetting for recall rather than
recognition.
Conclusion: The results suggest that
environment/context does act as cue for recall;
we forget more readily of we do not have
contextual cues.



Application to real life cont’d: that students
scored improved if they recalled information
in their usual classroom. Can be used to help
police interviews & eye witness testimony
(EWT),i.e., going back to scene of crime to
interview witness.
Validity: it was a field experiment so high in
ecological validity, I.e., measuring behaviour
in a real world situation. The 4 separate
conditions ensured that context was likely to
be the cause of greater recall, I.e., encoding &
recall took place both underwater & on dry
land & in both conditions where encoding &
recall took place in the same location recall
was higher.
Ethics: there are no ethical issues as such,
informed consent was obtained, no deception
or distress was involved.
Craik & Tulving (1975): Levels of Processing
Experiment



Name: Craik & Tulving (1975)
Aim: To test the Levels of Processing THEORY
(Craik & Lockhart) by analysing recall rates
after different levels of information processing.
Method:
A laboratory experiment 24
participants shown 60 words via a
tachistoscope, which allows visual material to
be presented under conditions of very brief
exposure, & asked questions about the words
requiring either structural (visual), phonetic
or semantic processing. Participants were
then given a recognition task, where they were
asked to recognise the 60 words from a list of
120 (the 60 original words & a further 120 new
words).




Generalisability: See comments for Peterson
& Peterson, Godden & Baddeley above.
Reliability: See comments for Peterson &
Peterson above.
Application to real life: In real life we
encode & process information at different
levels according to its relevance &
meaningfulness.
Validity: Experimental validity was good
because Craik & Tulving did not tell
participants they would be asked to recognise
words later; therefore the study was testing
incidental learning through depth of
processing, i.e., they were not consciously
using other types of memory techniques to
ensure they would remember more words.
However, ecological validity was low because
of the task itself. In real life we are
Craik & Tulving (1975): Levels of Processing
Experiment (continued)


Results: 17% recognition for structural
(visual) processing; 36% for phonetic
processing; & 65% for semantic processing.
Conclusion:
Deeper, i.e., semantic
processing, leads to better recognitions & so
better recall, supporting the Levels of
Processing theory of memory.


Validity cont’d: not usually confronted with
lists of unassociated words for a very short
period of time; we encode & process
information at different levels but not usually
this kind of information, i.e., the task is
unrealistic & presents a simplistic view of
memory, ignoring the role of imagery &
emotion that are often linked to LTM (e.g.,
Morris et al., 1977).
Ethics: There are no real ethical issues, the
deception/lack of fully informed consent was
minor, unlikely to cause personal distress &
necessary for the experimental validity of the
study to avoid demand characteristics.
1 Key Issue in Cognitive Psychology
The reliability of Eye Witness Testimony
(EWT) OR
‘Flashbulb’ Memories OR
Cognitive Interviews OR
Eye Witness Testimony
Levels of Processing, Reconstructive memory, Rehearsal, Cue-Dependency






Research evidence suggests that EWT is
unreliable:
Loftus & Palmer (1975) showed that changing a
verb used to describe an accident had a dramatic
effect on estimations of speed made by
participants witnessing video footage of a car
accident (e.g., collide, bump, smash.), I.e., the
influence of post-event information.
Similar
studies include Loftus & Zanni: Did you see the
broken headlamp/a broken headlamp (Nb.,
definite, indefinite article).
Weapons effect – Loftus (1979) showed that when
a weapon is involved witnesses often concentrate
on the weapon & do not focus on the
characteristics of the assailant.
Is this due to stress of situation involving a weapon
or unusualness of situation involving a gun?
Reconstructive memory suggests we use schemas
to help us interpret events which may reduce
accuracy.
Cue & state dependent theories of forgetting
suggests we need the right cues to recall
accurately.





Is EWT really unreliable?
Much of the research conducted into EWT is
based on laboratory experiments & therefore
lacks ecological validity: real life events happen
quickly, are confusing & generate intense
emotions. Participants in lab. Experiments know
they have to pay attention & so are already cued
for attention. Also the type of questioning in lab.
Experiments do not reflect the importance &
intensity of police questioning.
Later studies have tried to use field experiments,
e.g., Yarmey, 2004
In EWT research slides & video footage is often
used – this lacks experimental realism as the
emotion & involvement of a real incident are not
achieved.
A lot of EWT research lacks population validity;
the participants are often drawn from
undergraduate students, so are not necessarily
representative of the general population in terms
of age, personality types etc.
Eye Witness Testimony


Pickel (1998) showed participants a video clip
of a man entering a hairdressers holding
either: scissors, a raw chicken, a wallet or a
gun. The objects represented either high or
low unusualness or high/low threat or both.
Participants could identify the man from a
line-up but were poor at remembering the
object he was holding the more unusual (for
that situation) it was: indicating that the
stress/arousal of the situation involving the
gun was not necessarily the cause of poor
memory, but it was the unusualness of the
situation that adversely affected memory.
Schema theory & Stereotyping: EWT can also
be
explained
using
schema
theory
(reconstructive memory) – as the above study
shows. People are often heavily influenced by
their schemas – see reconstructive memory,
Brewer & Treyens & Allport & Postman.




Research population is not necessarily
homogenous (representative of all parts of
society).
Even Loftus has shown that eyewitnesses can
only be mislead about peripheral details of an
incident, not necessarily central details, e.g.,
when asked leading questions about the
colour of a stolen purse, participants were not
mislead about the colour of it.
Yuille & Cutshaw showed that in real life
situations EWT can be very accurate. They
studied statements given 4 months after
witnessing a shooting & found that recall was
accurate & not affected by leading questions.
Smith & Elsworth (1987) showed that if a
witness does not trust the interviewer, or
believes the interviewer has no knowledge of
the incident, they will not be influenced by
leading questions.
‘Flashbulb’ Memories



A special form of memory we have evolved that
enables us to remember particularly distinctive events
in detail (in evolutionary terms it gives us a survival
advantage). Events such as the death of Princess
Diana, The Twin Towers attacks & the London
Bombings are events we might recall in a lot of
personal detail.
Brown & Kulik (1977) found that participants had very
detailed & specific memories for events such as the
assassinations of Martin Luther King, John & Robert
Kennedy & the deaths of relatives. We tend to have
flashbulb memories for events that are more personal
to us, e.g., Brown & Kulik found that 75% of black
participants reported flashbulb memories for the
assassination of Martin Luther King, compared to only
33% for white participants.
Personal relevance/consequences are important for
accurate flashbulb memories. Conway et al. (1994)
showed that 86% of UK participants had a flashbulb
memory of the resignation of Margaret Thatcher 11
months after event, compared to only 29% of
participants from other countries.



Flashbulb memories are not a special form of memory
at all.
Neisser & Harsch (1992) asked students to report how
they learned about the Challenger Space Shuttle
disaster 1 day after the event & 3 years after the event.
When asked 3 years later to recount how they learned
of the disaster, no one produced an entirely accurate
report (compared to the one produced a day later) &
over 1/3 produced a completely inaccurate report even
thought hey thought it to be very accurate. Similar
findings were reported by Wright (1993) about the
1989 Hillsborough football disaster 5 months after the
event.
Neisser argues that flashbulb memories are not really
distinct memories but are simply more vivid because
they are likely to be recalled fairly often & have much
media coverage. Furthermore, vividness of recall is
not the same as accuracy of recall.
The Cognitive Interview



The cognitive interview is a technique used by
the police to try to elicit more accurate recall
from an eyewitness, and is based on
psychological research into memory.
There are 4 basic component of a cognitive
interview: recreating the context/environment
of the incident (mentally); reporting very
detail, however seemingly irrelevant; reporting
the incident in different orders; reporting how
others may have viewed the incident.
It is a more open & less interrogatory form of
interviewing
than
traditional
police
interviews. It is designed to provide as many
cues to recall as possible. It prevents memory
contamination by asking open - not leading –
questions, in an attempt to avoid memory
reconstruction
by
introducing
new
information as a result of leading questions
which may trigger pre-existing schemas.




Fisher et al. (1985) reported that recall was
much better using this technique: 42 items
compared to hypnosis, 38 items (but with
confabulation) and standard interview, 29
items.
Gieselman (1984) that the cognitive interview
produced 35% more information than the
standard interview, with no difference in error
rates.
However, some argue that recall may actually
be inaccurate due to witnesses being asked to
recall from another’s perspective, leading to
witnesses guessing what someone might have
seen. Some research has also shown that the
cognitive interview fails to provide significant
improvement in recall compared to standard
interviews & generates greater errors in recall
(Memon, 1997).
The cognitive interview may not be suitable
for children because of their limited linguistic
skills; this means that they might not be able
to respond appropriately to the cognitive style
of questioning.
The Cognitive Interview
 Studies such as Loftus & Palmer illustrate how just a change of a verb can affect
eyewitness recall, therefore, a technique such as the cognitive interview, that
takes into the account the power of words is clearly needed.
 The cognitive interview technique is based on well-controlled laboratory
experiments, which were replicated & found to be reliable, e.g., Loftus &
Palmer.
 Milne (1997) found that the cognitive interview did not seem to lead to the
recall of more material than any other technique, contradicting other research
(see previous slide)
 Memon et al. (1997) found little difference in recall when asking witnesses to
recall from different places/sequences in the witnessed event than recalling
normally.
 The enhanced version of the cognitive interview (Fisher & Gieselman, 1992)
includes many different features, so it is hard to know which elements are
effective.
Research Methods/How
Science Works & Practical
 As with the social approach, you will need to know a
range of scientific terminology & be able to describe &
evaluate a range of different cognitive psychology
research methods.
 You will also need to conduct and keep a record of a
short practical, based on principles from cognitive
psychology.
Experiments: Laboratory, Field & Natural
Type of Experiment
Strengths
Weaknesses
Laboratory: the IV is
manipulated and the effect on
the DV measured in a controlled
environment which aims to
reduce effects of extraneous
variables, in order to establish
causal relationships & test
hypotheses.
Because of strict control over extraneous variables a
cause & effect relationship is easier to establish; we
can also be fairly confident that it is only the IV
affecting the DV. Researchers can control who takes
part. No ethical problems, consent easy to obtain,
withdrawal easy.
The situation is highly artificial so
behaviour is very contrived, cannot be
applied to real life, demand characteristics
may apply as participants are aware they
involved in research and researchers
themselves may influence participants’
behaviour (experimenter effects).
Field: IV is manipulated and
DV measured in participants’
natural environment.
Behaviour is more natural and realistic as it takes
place in a natural environment & participants are not
aware they are taking part in research so there are no
demand characteristics or experimenter effects.
Less control over extraneous variables
which could affect validity of study
(something other than the IV affecting the
DV); this reduces reliability as the
participants may not all be getting the
same experience. Ethical problems with
consent & withdrawal; difficult to set up &
so time consuming. No control over who
takes part.
Natural: Similar to a field
experiment in that it takes place
in a natural environment;
however, the IV is not
manipulated by the researcher: it
occurs naturally (e.g., Charlton,
1998, study of St.Helena)
More realistic as IV occurs naturally, not contrived
& takes place in natural environment so behaviour is
not artificial are more ecologically valid. Ethical as
behaviour is occurring naturally, it is not a
psychological study as such, the situation has not
been engineered by researchers
As for field experiments; also, it tends to
be unique situation and so is hard to
replicate to see if behaviour would be
repeated under similar circumstances, thus
reliability is low.
Hypotheses
 See Social Psychology:
 Hypotheses can be one tailed (directional) or two tailed (non-
directional).
 This means: 1 tailed hypothesis=makes a definite prediction about the
direction of results e.g., participants who are given the same context
cue at recall & encoding will recall more words than those who are not.
I.e., they will remember more words.
 2 tailed hypothesis=something will happen but the direction of the
results is not predicted, e.g., giving participants a state cue at encoding
recall will have an effect on recall – but this effect could improve or
reduce recall, it will simply affect recall – the 2 tailed hypothesis does
not state what this effect will be.
Experimental Control & Variables
(NB., only experiments have IVs & DVs)






Independent Variable (IV): This is the variable that is manipulated or changed by the researcher – it
is the thing under investigation e.g., does alcohol affect reaction time? Alcohol is the IV.
Dependent Variable (DV): This is the variable that is being measured, or the result of the
experiment – the DV depends on the IV e.g., reaction time is the DV, it depends on the level of alcohol
consumed.
Extraneous Variables: Any variable that can influence the DV bit which has nothing to do with the
IV, extraneous variables may or may not confound the results.
Confounding Variables: This is variable, other than the IV which has confounded the results, i.e.,
has directly affected the DV but is nothing to do with the IV, e.g., tiredness may have affected reaction
time, not alcohol consumption. The researcher should try & control/eliminate confounding variables
wherever possible.
Situational Variables: The are extraneous variables that could affect the IV which are related to the
situation the study was conducted in, e.g., level of noise, weather conditions, heat, level of crowding
could all affect the participants’ performance & so influence the DV; as such they should be
controlled/eliminated wherever possible.
Participant Variables: These are extraneous variables related to the nature/experiences of the
participants themselves, e.g., mood, personality type, skills or relevant experience, fatigue. E.g.,
reaction time might be affected by a participants’ level of fatigue or tiredness; a test of alcohol &
driving reaction time might be affected by participants’ driving experience..
Operationalisation
 In an experiment once the IV & DV have been
decided it is important to define – or
operationalise – what the IV & DV is exactly. A
precise definition makes the experiment easier to
design & DV easier to measure validly. E.g., if your
hypothesis was that boys are more aggressive than
girls – the IV is easy – gender – the DV would need
to be more precisely defined/operationalised i.e.,
what would count as aggressive behaviour?
Participant Design
 This refers to how participants are allocated to the conditions in the
experiment, e.g., if testing reaction time & alcohol consumption will
participants be involved in both conditions, I.e., doing the reaction test sober &
after various units of alcohol; or will some participants do the reaction test
sober, others after consuming alcohol.
 Independent Measures Design: Participants are only involved in 1 condition,
e.g., one group does the reaction test sober, 1 does it after consuming alcohol.
 Repeated Measures Design: The same participants are used in both
experimental conditions, e.g., participants do the reaction test sober &
intoxicated.
 Matched Pairs Design: Essentially the same as Independent Measures
Design, except that participants in both conditions are as equally matched as
possible for a quality the researcher thinks is important, e.g., with alcohol &
reaction time they might be matched for age, or experience of alcohol.
Participant Design (Continued)
Participant Design Strengths
Weaknesses
Independent Measures Design
Avoids order effects
(practice/fatigue)
Needs more participants. Might
be significant differences between
the two groups of participants
which could skew results
(participant variables)
Repeated Measures Design
Avoids problems of possible
differences between
participants (participant
variables)
Same participants doing both
conditions might lead to order
effects.
Matched Pairs Design
Avoids order effects &
largely avoids problem of
participant variables as
participants are equally
matched in both conditions
Difficult to match participants &
so time consuming & protracted.
Participant Design (Continued)
Order effects, Counterbalancing, Randomisation
 Order Effects: In a repeated measures design participants take part in all experimental
conditions; this may lead to order effects (practice effects or fatigue), where as a result of
doing the a similar condition the participants become more practised so perform the 2nd
part of the experimental better, or they become more tired as a result of doing something
similar before & so a fatigue effect sets in. Both practice & fatigue can affect participants’
performance and so artificially skew the DV – the DV results are influenced by factors
other than the IV.
 Counterbalancing: To counter order effects counterbalancing is used. This is where
participants are divided equally between the experimental conditions, e.g., half do
condition A first then condition B & half do the reverse, condition B first then condition
A. If everyone did condition A then condition B results might be skewed by order effects
(practice or fatigue).
 Randomisation: Very similar to counterbalancing except that participants are allocated
to each experimental condition entirely randomly, e.g., tossing a coin or names out of a
hat.
Demand Characteristics/Experimenter
Effects
 Demand Characteristics: Human participants may respond to the
experimental conditions that they are involved in, they are not passive & may
alter their behaviour simply because they are in an experiment. E.g.,
participants may try & guess the purpose of the experiment & behave
accordingly, either according to the their perception of the researcher’s
expectations, or to contradict what they believe the researcher’s expectations
are.
 Experimenter Bias: This refers to the subtly cues & signals, sometimes
completely unconsciously, given by the researcher/experimenter which may
influence the reactions & behaviour of the participants. E.g., the researcher
may have expectations or personality & behaviour traits that subtly influence
the responses given by the participants; thus skewing results – the DV is
affected by factors other than the IV. E.g., female experimenter asking a male
participant about their attitudes towards women.
Types of Validity & Reliability




Ecological Validity: how well does a study
represent behaviour in the real world, are we
measuring how people would behave in the
real world, or simply how they would behave
in a lab.situation.
Construct Validity: how well does the study
measure the construct or phenomenon being
studied, i.e., how well has the construct of
aggression been operationalised in the study.
Content/face Validity: does the study seem
to, on the face of it, measure what it claims to
be measuring.
Predictive Validity: how well does the study
predict future behaviour, e.g., if a job
interview has predictive validity, everyone who
did well at the interview would nearly always
also be good at the actual job.


Test-Retest reliability: If the participants
take the test again, maybe a few months apart,
will their performance still be similar, or was
the original performance a ‘one-off’ affected
by variables on the day other than the IV.
Inter-rater reliability: If two researchers rate
the performance or score behaviour in the
same way, we can be fairly confident that the
results are more reliable & consistent than if
the scores were rated by just one experimenter,
were subjectivity in interpreting
results/behaviour might be an issue.
Types of Validity & Reliability



Experimental Validity: Does the procedure
of the study accurately reflect what is being
studied; is the experiment credible (e.g.,
Milgram), would demand characteristics play a
big part in the results (e.g., Zimbardo).
Population Validity: Are the participants a
good representative sample of the target
population, or are they drawn from one
particular type of people, e.g., all strongly
religious, or all students.
Concurrent Validity: Are the results from the
behaviour being studied in line with other
measures of the same behaviour, e.g., new test
of reading ability should be in line with other
measures of reading age, if it has concurrent
validity.

Equivalent Forms reliability: Instead of retesting participants some time later, simply
give them another form or version of testing
the behaviour under investigation, and see if
the results between the two types of tests are
the same. E.g., to test IQ you might use more
than one type of IQ test or measure of
intelligence.
Research Methods/How Science Works: The
Practical
(see also Social Psychology)
 Choose an appropriate design: repeated, independent & matched pairs – why
that design?
 What will be your procedure?
 Note the ethical implications: is the cue material ethical, I.e., not illegal drugs,
do participants leave feeling positive about themselves & psychology, are
debriefed, not caused distress etc.,
 Analysing results: mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation.
 Graphical representation: Bar graph, frequency graph, histogram.
 Was the experimental procedure Valid (experimental, ecological, population
etc.), Reliable (standardised instructions/procedure, etc.), Generalisable
(sample representative, sampling method, random, opportunity etc.)