Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Cognitive Area (Loftus & Palmer (Aim: Exp1: To see if leading…
Cognitive Area
Loftus & Palmer
Aim: Exp1: To see if leading questions (verb used) affect participants speed estimates. Exp2: To see if memory is reconstructive. Will the verb affect whether they report seeing glass.
-
-
Procedure: Exp1: shown 7 clips of car crashes. Verb used in critical question was either: smashed, collided, bumped, hit & contacted. Participants asked to estimate speed of car in mph. Exp2: Shown 1 min film of car crash. Verb used in question was smashed, hit or no verb. One week later pp's asked if broken glass in clip.
Results: Exp1: 'Smashed' estimated highest speed (40.5mph) told verb 'contacted' lowest speed (31.8mph). Exp2: Smashed- 16 said yes. Hit- 7 said yes. Control- 6 said yes.
-
Grant
-
Sample: Each experimenter recruited 5 pp's. 39 pp's, 1 omitted, 17 females and 23 males. Mean age of 23.4 yrs.
-
Procedure: Gp1 read a 2 page article on psychoimunology whilst listening to 'canteen' noise while Gp2 was in silence. Then completed 2 memory tests- Recognition (16 multiple choice) and recall (10 short answer) in noisy or silent conditions. 4 conditions- noisy/noisy, noisy/silent, silent/noisy, silent/silent.
Results: 1. Studying and testing in same environment produced better results.
- Overall noise level didn't affect memory recall.
- Pp's performed better on recognition test.
-
Moray
Aim: 3 experiments to test Cherry's findings on cocktail party effect. To investigate factors affecting attention, i.e. information with meaning breaks attentional block.
Sample: Undergrads and research workers (unknown in experiment 1, 12 in exp 2 and 14 in exp 3). Both genders.
-
Procedure:
- List of 7 words repeatedly presented (35 times) to one ear whilst they shadowed a message presented to the other ear. The pp was asked to report rejected message.
- Pp's shadowed 10 short passages of fiction- extra instructions included during 6 passages, in half of these instructions prefixed by participants name.
- Both groups of pp's shadowed one of the 2 simultaneous dichotic messages- remember numbers or content.
Results:
- There was no trace of material from rejected message recognised.
- When participants had instructions with their own name (affective) in rejected message, heard this 20 times compared to 4 times when name not used.
- No difference in number of digits recalled, when told to listen for digits and when not.
Conclusions: Almost none of content of rejected message able to penetrate the block. Subjective messages, a person's name, can penetrate the block.
Simon & Chabris
-
-
-
Procedure: Watched clip of event. IV1- unexpected event: Umbrella Woman/ Gorilla Condition. IV2 - video style; Transparent/opaque condition. IV3- Team colour: Black/White. IV4: Task difficulty: Easy condition (silent count of number of passes). Hard condition (keep two separate silent counts for number of 'bounce' passes and 'aerial' passes). Asked about unexpected event.
Results: 54% noticed unexpected event, 46% didn't. More pp's noticed unexpected event in opaque condition (67%) than transparent (42%). More pp's noticed unexpected event in easy (64%) than hard (45%) condition. Umbrella woman was noticed more often than Gorilla overall (65% vs 44%).
Conclusions: Individuals fail to notice an ongoing and highly salient but unexpected event if engaged in primary monitoring task.
-
-
-
Key studies
Loftus&Palmer, Grant, Moray and Simon&Chabris
Debates
Reductionism, Determinism, Psychology as a Science, Individual explanation