Presentation on theme: "Nancy Jenkins Barbara Ostrowska Esha Patnaik IB Psychology, Pamoja TO WHAT EXTENT IS ONE COGNITIVE PROCESS RELIABLE?"— Presentation transcript:
Nancy Jenkins Barbara Ostrowska Esha Patnaik IB Psychology, Pamoja TO WHAT EXTENT IS ONE COGNITIVE PROCESS RELIABLE?
Outlining an ERQ Response Read the command term carefully – what does the question ask you to do? Introductory section – Expand upon the central thesis, the structure of the essay and mention pertinent studies to be discussed. Relevant theories and studies – At least 2-3 studies (aim, procedure, results, conclusions, implications - What does it all mean? Why did you use this study? How does it support your argument?) Argumentation – what are your arguments and counterarguments? Conclude – Tie the response back to the question – weave the the command term into your answer, keeping focus on the question.
Assessment Knowledge and comprehension – Your knowledge of pertinent concepts, theories and studies in adequate detail Critical thinking skills – Analysis and evaluation of concepts / theories / studies / and their use in developing the central thesis Organisational skills – sustained focus on the question, flow of logic. Use of words from the question and appropriate terminology throughout the essay. Use of analytical language – furthermore, on the other hand, however, as a result, consequently, thus, etc.
To what extent is one cognitive process reliable? To what extent: Consider the merits or otherwise of a concept or theory. A sound argument supported with appropriate evidence leading to an informed conclusion. One: Only one cognitive process must be written about. Any additional process will not be considered for assessment. Cognitive process: Memory - The encoding of sensory information, its storage and subsequent retrieval. Reliable: The trustworthiness of memory. Is what we remember actually what happened?
Loftus and Palmer 1974 Two laboratory experiments on reconstructive memory Study 1 45 participants were shown 7 video clips of automobile accidents. Answered a questionnaire on specific aspects of the video. Critical question – About speed of vehicles when they smashed, collided, bumped, hit and contacted each other.
Loftus and Palmer 1974 Study 1 Findings VerbMean speed estimate (mph) Smashed40.5 Collided39.3 Bumped38.1 Hit34.0 Contacted31.8
Loftus and Palmer 1974 Study participants were shown a video clip depicting a multiple car accident. Answered a questionnaire describing the accident and responding to questions on specific aspects of the video. Critical question Group 1: About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? Group 2: About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? Group 3: No question about speed. A week later, answered questions about the accident. Critical question: Did you see any broken glass?
Loftus and Palmer 1974 Study 2 Findings Mean speed estimate for critical word smashed: mph Mean speed estimate for critical word hit: 8.00 mph Did you see any broken glass Verb Condition ResponseSmashedHitControl Yes1676 No344344
Loftus and Palmer 1974 Implications of Findings Perception of the original event and information gathered after the event combine to form memory. Changes in the external information in the form of leading questions can cause shifts in the memory representation of that event. The form of a question can lead to response bias by aligning responses with the critical word/s. Significance in eye witness testimony Relevance in therapy
Yuille and Cutshall 1986 A Case Study. Reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 71 (2), May 1986, witnesses observed a shooting incident in which one person was killed and a second seriously wounded. Incident took place on a major thoroughfare in the mid afternoon. All witnesses interviewed by the investigating police. 13 witnesses (aged 15-32) agreed to a research interview 4-5 months after the event. Two leading questions were asked: Did participants see a smashed headlight or the smashed headlight? There was a question about the yellow quarter panel on the car. Eyewitness accounts given to the police and to the researchers were analysed.
Yuille & Cutshall, 1986 Findings Witnesses highly accurate Little change in the testimony over 5 months Little change in the amount of testimony or the accuracy of recall Errors in colour memory, height and weight estimates included errors Eyewitnesses resisted leading questions. 10 of the witnesses said there was no broken headlight and no yellow panel on the car. This was the correct information. Stress levels appeared to have no negative effects on subsequent memory
Yuille and Cutshall, 1986 These findings contradict laboratory experiments In this study, the eyewitnesses were actively involved in the event Field research is required of this type to evaluate how far laboratory findings can be generalised.
What does this mean in terms of your ERQ? Memory, according to this study, is more reliable than might be thought. However: It is a small study-only 13 participants. Only 3 were female and 10 male. No control over the way statements were originally taken by the police. Leading questions could have triggered schema that led to memory reconstruction. A case study and not a laboratory experiment. How far can this be generalised to the wider population? The participants could have been subject to flashbulb memory, which means that details of the event were stored accurately because of the trauma of the event.
Yuille and Cutshall 1986 There were also some inaccuracies in the scoring that turned qualitative into quantitative data. It is therefore important to look at other studies that have set out to examine the reliability of memory.
Loftus, Miller and Burns 1978 This was a laboratory experiment. The participants were divided into two groups. Both groups were shown slides of a red Datsun just before it was involved in an accident. Group 1 were shown the car as it approached a junction with a Stop sign. Group 2 were shown the car as it approached a junction with a Yield sign. They were then given a questionnaire. Group 1’s questionnaire asked if another car had passed the Datsun as it reached the Yield sign and Group 2 was asked the same question, but with the Stop sign. The participants were then shown signs in pairs and asked to identify which were in the original order.
Loftus, Miller and Burns 1978 Findings. 75% of the control group, who had not been misled, correctly identified the Stop sign. Only 41% of the misled participants did so. When misled participants were given a second guess, “Was it a Stop sign or is it a no parking sign?” their likelihood of selecting the correct sign was no greater than chance. On the basis of these findings, Loftus et al concluded that misleading post event information could not only supplement eye witness memories, it could also transform them
McCloskey and Zaragoza, 1985 Subjects watched a slide sequence of a theft in an office. The theft was carried out by a worker who was presumably called in to fix a chair. A soft drink-say a can of coke-was in one of the slides. After viewing the slides, subjects answered a series of questions. For the misled subjects, one of the questions implied there was a different soft-drink, say a 7-Up. Sometime later subjects were asked which kind of soft drink was on the desk. Recognition memory of the misled subjects was lower than that of the control subjects. This lends support to Loftus, Miller and Burns Even control subjects did not perform perfectly and hovered around 70%
McCloskey and Zaragoza, 1985 The researchers argued that there was no need to assume that the misleading information had any effect on memory. They made a strong case that Loftus, Miller and Burns’ result could be repeated by some subjects remembering the actual information, some remembered the misled information and some simply guessing.
Tversky and Tuchin, 1989 Tversky and Tuchin replicated the experiment in Subjects viewed a slide sequence depicting a theft and later read a narrative describing the event. This introduced one piece of misleading information in each condition. Memory of the slide sequence was tested with a Yes/No or True/False. This allowed for separate measures of the memory for the original information, memory for the misleading information and memory for plausible information from the same category, that was entirely new. Results confirmed Loftus, Miller and Burns’ 1978 findings.
Where does this leave your ERQ? Evidence suggests that memory is unreliable. It is not a video recording of events. Memories can be reconstructed based on leading questions Memory can be filled with post- event information. Memories of entirely fictitious events can be created, such as the memory of being Lost in the Mall. The prompt is “To what extent” so make sure that you explicitly answer that question in your conclusion.