1. Principles
1.1. 1. Human beings are information processors and mental processes guide behaviour
1.1.1. People active info processors - Percieve and interpret often based on prior knowledge. Relationship between mental representation and people's perception&world view
1.1.2. Darley and Gross (1983)
1.1.2.1. Aim: Schema or pre-exisiting idea form stereotypes of people
1.1.2.2. Procedure: Participants watched two videos 1 girl play poor environment 2 girl play rich environment then girl(s) in intelligence test Participants judge girls' future
1.1.2.3. Results: All said "rich" girl would do better than "poor" girl
1.1.2.4. Limitations: Realiablity
1.2. 2. The mind can be studied scientifically
1.2.1. Laboratory experiments, neuroimaging, case studies, interviews, archival research can be used
1.2.2. Loftus and Palmer (1974)
1.2.2.1. Aim: using leading questions affect situation (like eyewitness in court)
1.2.2.2. Procedure: Students saw video of traffic accident then answer questoins about it asked to estimate car speed w/ word "smashed", "hit", "collided", "bumped", or "contacted"
1.2.2.3. Results: Highest estimate "smashed" (40.8 mph) Lowest estimate "contacted" (31.8 mph) Manipulate memory using words
1.2.2.4. Limitations: Lab study (ecological validity) Students - hard to generalize
1.2.3. Corkin et al (1997) H.M.'s brain scan
1.2.3.1. Aim: Relationship between H.M.'s brain damage and memory deficits
1.2.3.2. Procedure: MRI scan H.M.'s brain
1.2.3.3. Results: Parts temporal lobes incl. hippocampus and related, both side missing (they transform short-term memory to long-term)
1.3. 3. Cognitive processes are influenced by social and cultural factors
1.3.1. Cognitive processes e.g. perception, memory, and thinking influenced sociocultural factors
1.3.2. Bartlett (1932)
1.3.2.1. Aim: Memory affected by previous knowledge (schema) and extent memory is reconstructive
1.3.2.2. Procedure: British participants hear story and retell Unfamiliar Native American legend "The War of the Ghosts" Participants tell a bit after, repeatedly over period of months or years
1.3.2.3. Results: Remembered main idea (the gist) but changed unfamiliar elements to make sense of it Used terms familiar to own cultural expectations Noticeably shorter every time
1.3.2.4. Limitations: Lab study (ecological validity) No standardized instructions
1.3.3. Cole and Scribner (1974)
1.3.3.1. Aim: Free recall in two different cultures (US & Kpelle people, Liberia)
1.3.3.2. Procedure: Liberia objects familiar to them. Words belong 4 distinct categories US free recall tests matching culture. Presented the words and children remember them 2nd part - presented same objects in meaningful way in story
1.3.3.3. Results: Free recall test - Non-schooled participants hardly improved past age 9-10 First trial 10 items, two more after 15 practice trials School participants performed same no matter country (similar memory strategies) 2nd part - Liberians remembered well School children used chunking Non-school Liberians not same techniques as US
1.3.3.4. Limitations: Nor clear if schooling or cultural
2. Schema Theory
2.1. Mental representation of knowledge stored in brain Network of knowledge, beliefs, & expectations of world
2.2. Input from sensory system (bottom-up processes) & info stored in memory (top-down processes) used to interpret incoming info (pattern recognition, interpretation)
2.3. Gender schema
2.4. Darley and Gross (1983
2.4.1. Aim: Schema or pre-exisiting idea form stereotypes of people
2.4.2. Procedure: Participants watched two videos 1 girl play poor environment 2 girl play rich environment then girl(s) in intelligence test Participants judge girls' future
2.4.3. Results: All said "rich" girl would do better than "poor" girl
2.4.4. Limitations: Realiablity
2.5. Bartlett (1932)
2.5.1. Aim: Memory affected by previous knowledge (schema) and extent memory is reconstructive
2.5.2. Procedure: British participants hear story and retell Unfamiliar Native American legend "The War of the Ghosts" Participants tell a bit after, repeatedly over period of months or years
2.5.3. Results: Remembered main idea (the gist) but changed unfamiliar elements to make sense of it Used terms familiar to own cultural expectations Noticeably shorter every time
2.5.4. Limitations: Lab study (ecological validity) No standardized instructions
2.6. Brewer and Treyens (1981)
2.6.1. Aim: Memory for objects in room (office) influenced by existing schemas (expected)
2.6.2. Procedure: 30 uni students Alone in lab - asked to wait in office w/ objects (e.g. desk, typewriter, coffee-pot, calender) also object not conform office schema (e.g. skull, piece of bark, piece of pliers) Taken out and write down what remember
2.6.3. Results: Most recalled schematic objects (e.g. deskm typewriter) Some recalled stuff not there (e.g. telephone, books) Many recalled skull (better recall than predicted by schema theory)
2.6.4. Limitations: Lab study (artificiality) Deception but debriefed and no harm Sample bias - hard generalize
2.7. Evaluation
3. Models of cognitive process
3.1. Multi-store model of memory (Atkinson and Siffrin, 1968)
3.1.1. Model
3.1.2. Memory consists number separate stores and memory processes are sequential
3.1.2.1. Memory stores are structural components include control processes (e.g. attention, coding, rehearsal)
3.1.2.2. Sensory memory registers sensory info and stores it 1-4 sec Info modality specific (related to senses) Only small amount transfer into short-term memory (STM) store
3.1.2.3. STM limited capacity (ca. 7 items) & limited duration Info processed into LMT if rehearsed. if NOT = lost
3.1.2.4. LMT indefinite duration & potentially unlimited capacity
3.1.3. Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)
3.1.3.1. Aim: Regency effect free recall (i.e. in any order)
3.1.3.2. Procedure: Participants heard list of items then immidiately had to recall them
3.1.3.3. Results: Participants recalled words from beginning of list (primacy effect) and end (recency effect) If given filler task after last word, primacy effect disappeared but regency remained
3.1.3.4. Limitations: Lab study (ecological validity)
3.1.4. Evaluation
3.2. Working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974)
3.2.1. Model
3.2.2. Active store used to hold and manipulate info. Model developed over years to include finding from research (e.g. fourth component, episodic buffer, added)
3.2.2.1. Central executive Controlling system monitoring and coordinating operations of other components (slave systems) Modality free so it process info in sensory modality but limited capacity
3.2.2.2. Episodic buffer Limited-capacity temporary storage system or interface between other systems in working memory. Assumed controlled by central executive through concious awareness Episodic buffer handles info in various modalities and resembles concept of episodic memory
3.2.2.3. Phonological loop handles verbal and auditory info. devided into two components: 1. Articulatory control system: "inner voice" 2. Phonological store: "inner ear" holds speech-based material active in phonological form. 1.5-2 sec if not refreshed
3.2.2.4. Viduo-spatial sketchpad "inner eye" handles visual and spatial info from either sensory memory (visual info) or LMT (images)
3.2.3. Buddley and Hitch (1974)
3.2.3.1. Aim: Reasoning, language comprehension, and list learning involve the same limited capacity as short term memory
3.2.3.2. Procedure: Participants answer increasingly difficult questions about simple letter combinations Reaction increase as question become more difficult Then asked to do articulatory supression task (e.g. repeating "the" all the time, repeating numbers 1-6 or random) while answering questio
3.2.3.3. Results: No significant difference between the group repeaeting "the" or numbers 1-6 Group repeating random numbers worst performance Assumed overload problems for central executive
3.2.4. Quinn and McConnel (1996)
3.2.4.1. Procedure: Participants learn a word list using either imagery or rehearsal Undisturbed or concurrent visual noise (changing patterns of dots) or concurrent verbal noise (speech in foreign language)
3.2.4.2. Results: Learning by imagery not affected by concurrent verbal task but by concurrent visual task Opposite with rehearsal condition Imagery processing uses vidup-spatial sketchpas Verbal processing uses phonological loop
3.2.5. Evaluation
3.3. Compare and contrast
4. Biological factor affect cognitive process
4.1. Scoville and Milner (1957) The case study of H.M.
4.1.1. H.M. fell from bizcycle (7y/o) injured head He got epileptic attacks prevented normal life
4.1.2. Scoville performed experimental surgery to stop seizures (removed hippocampus) Seizures stopped but H.M. suffered amnesia rest of his life
4.1.2.1. No loner store new memories (anterograde amnesia) Most memories post operation remained intact (partial retrograde amnesia)
4.1.2.2. Unable to transfer new semantic and episodic memories (explicit memories) to LTM
4.1.2.3. Could form new long-term procedural memories (implicit memories)
4.1.2.4. Could normal conversation (i.e. had capacity for working memory) But forgot conversation immidiately
4.1.3. Provides info on particular brain areas & networks involved in memory processing Scientists new theories
4.1.4. Corkin (1997) H.M. fMRI
4.1.4.1. Aim: Relationship between H.M.'s brain damage and memory deficits
4.1.4.2. Procedure: MRI scan H.M.'s brain
4.1.4.3. Results: Parts temporal lobes incl. hippocampus and related, both side missing (they transform short-term memory to long-term)
4.2. Lupien et al. (2002)
4.2.1. Aim: (follow-up w/ two elderly frim five year study) Possiblility reversing memory problems w/ drug
4.2.2. Procedure: Participants two groups Gr.1 moderate cortisol level at baseline Gr.2 high cortisol level at baseline Both 1st given drug preventing secretion of cortisol (metyrapone) Then memory test Both given another drug (hydrocortisone) to restore cortisol level to previous one Results compared with levels of placebo group
4.2.3. Results: Gr.1 given metyrapone no problem restoring normal memory function Gr.2 no memory improvement. Hydrocortisone caused even greater memory loss
5. Cultural factors affect cognitive process
5.1. Culture and memory
5.1.1. Cole and Scribner (1974)
5.1.1.1. Aim: Free recall in two different cultures (US & Kpelle people, Liberia)
5.1.1.2. Procedure: Liberia objects familiar to them. Words belong 4 distinct categories US free recall tests matching culture. Presented the words and children remember them 2nd part - presented same objects in meaningful way in story
5.1.1.3. Results: Free recall test - Non-schooled participants hardly improved past age 9-10 First trial 10 items, two more after 15 practice trials School participants performed same no matter country (similar memory strategies) 2nd part - Liberians remembered well School children used chunking Non-school Liberians not same techniques as US
5.1.1.4. Limitations: Nor clear if schooling or cultural
5.1.2. Rogoff and Waddle (1982)
5.1.2.1. Mayan kids better at memory test if given one meaningful in local terms
5.1.2.2. Researches constructed miniature model of Mayan village resembling kids' own Picked 20/80 objects (e.g. animals, furniture, people) placed them in model Objects taken out replaced among the 60 objects Children reconstruct what they saw Mayan children did slight better than US
5.1.2.3. Content and context of memory task important Useful memory strategies learned in sociocultural context
5.1.3. Ability to remember universal (hardware) Specific forms of remembering (software) not universal but context-bound
5.1.4. Methodological problem - most memory research conducted in cultures w/ formal schooling systems Hard to generalize
5.2. Cultural and methodological considerations in cross-cultural research on memory
5.2.1. Wang and Ross (2007)
5.2.1.1. Culture is system (values, schemas, models, artifacts) & process (rituals, daily routines, practices)
5.2.1.2. Culture affect how, what, and why they remember and if it's necessary to remember
5.2.2. Researches conduct cross-cultural memory research (western & non-western cultures) Often use tasks developed in lab e.g. free recall Western cultures better at those Maybe meaningless ability for non-Western?
5.3. Cultural and social demands determine memory
5.3.1. Bartlett (1932)
5.3.1.1. Aim: Memory affected by previous knowledge (schema) and extent memory is reconstructive
5.3.1.2. Procedure: British participants hear story and retell Unfamiliar Native American legend "The War of the Ghosts" Participants tell a bit after, repeatedly over period of months or years
5.3.1.3. Results: Remembered main idea (the gist) but changed unfamiliar elements to make sense of it Used terms familiar to own cultural expectations Noticeably shorter every time
5.3.1.4. Limitations: Lab study (ecological validity) No standardized instructions
5.3.2. Misty and Rogoff (1994)
5.3.2.1. Culture and memory enmeshed skil Remembering determined by demands social & cultural context
5.3.2.2. e.g. Itamul elders in New Guinea have extraordinary memory for lines of decent and history This important to them bc resolve disputes w/ conflicting clans
6. Cognitive process reliability
6.1. Memory not "tape recorder" look at schemas
6.2. Memories not fixed can be lost, changed, & created (Loftus, 2003)
6.3. Remember overall idea and reconstruct info
6.4. Self-serving bias (memory distorted for personal reasons)
6.5. Bartlett (1932) Theory of reconstructive memory
6.5.1. Aim: Memory affected by previous knowledge (schema) and extent memory is reconstructive
6.5.2. Procedure: British participants hear story and retell Unfamiliar Native American legend "The War of the Ghosts" Participants tell a bit after, repeatedly over period of months or years
6.5.3. Results: Remembered main idea (the gist) but changed unfamiliar elements to make sense of it Used terms familiar to own cultural expectations Noticeably shorter every time
6.5.4. Limitations: Lab study (ecological validity) No standardized instructions
6.6. Loftus and Palmer (1974)
6.6.1. Aim: using leading questions affect situation (like eyewitness in court)
6.6.2. Procedure: Students saw video of traffic accident then answer questoins about it asked to estimate car speed w/ word "smashed", "hit", "collided", "bumped", or "contacted"
6.6.3. Results: Highest estimate "smashed" (40.8 mph) Lowest estimate "contacted" (31.8 mph) Manipulate memory using words
6.6.4. Limitations: Lab study (ecological validity) Students - hard to generalize
7. Cognitive and biological factors interact in emotion
7.1. Amygdala (specialized in processing emotion) Hippocampus (necessary for semantic & episodix memory)
7.2. LeDoux's theory of the emotional brain (1999)
7.2.1. Theory
7.2.2. 1. Short route
7.2.2.1. Amygdala reacts immediately to sensory input and activates response system e.g. physiological stress response "fight or flight" Useful in case of danger (live or die)
7.2.3. 2. Long route
7.2.3.1. Sensory input ->sensory cortez->hippocampus Route incolves evalution of stimulus and considering appropriate response (Lazarus,1975)
7.3. Easterbrook (1959) Cue utilzation theory (central traits and peripheral traits)
7.3.1. Situation w/ high level emotional arousal People pay more attention and encode details of the emotion arousing stimulus (central details) Not pay attention details not central to emotional arousal (peripheral details)
7.4. Lazarus (1975) Appraisal theory
7.4.1. Cognitive factors modulate stress responses i.e. physiological & psychological reactions
7.4.2. Speisman et al (1964)
7.4.2.1. Aim: Extent manipulation of cognitive appraisal influences emotional experience
7.4.2.2. Procedure: Participants anxiety-evoking films (e.g. genital cutting) Three different soundtracks 1. "Trauma condition" empjasis on mutilation and pain 2. "Intellectualization condition" anthropological interpretation of initiation ceremony 3. "Denial condition" willing and happy in ceremony During film various objective physiological measures taken (e.g. heart rate, galvanic skin response)
7.4.2.3. Results: 1. much higher physiological measures of stress Manipulation of cognitive appraisal significant impact on physiological stress reactions
7.4.2.4. Limitations: Lab study (ecological validity) Ethical issues (video shown)
7.5. Cognitive and viological factors on large but complex extent interact in emotion (not well knwon) Emotions influence memory(maybe) Appraisal (cognitive process) influence emotions
8. Emotion affect cognitive process
8.1. Flashbulb memory (FM) episodic memory (explicit memory) Assumed highly resistant forgetting i.e. details of memory remain intact and accurate bc emotional arousal when encoding (controversial)
8.2. FM high defined: Highly accurate and exceptionally vivid memory when person first hears of shocking event
8.3. "flashbulb" event registered liek photograph
8.4. 6 important features
8.4.1. Place i.e. where they were when news hit
8.4.2. Ongoing activity i.e. what they were doing
8.4.3. Informant i.e. how hey learned of it
8.4.4. Own affect i.e. how they felt - emotional status or effect
8.4.5. Other affect i.e. how others felt
8.4.6. Aftermath i.e. importance of event - consequence
8.5. Brown and Kulik (1977) Flashbulb memory (FM)
8.5.1. Aim: Shocking events are recalled more vividly and accurately than other events
8.5.2. Procedure: 80 participants Questionnaires - recall circumstances when hit w/ shocking news
8.5.3. Results: Participants lived up to important features e.g. of JFK assassination Same w/ sudden death of relative FM most likely for unexpected and personally relevant events
8.5.4. Limitations: Interpret event from current perspective Vivid but not accurate in details Reliance on retrospective data questions reliability
8.6. Neisser and Harsch (1992)
8.6.1. Aim: Extent memory of shocking event (Challenger disaster) is accurate after time
8.6.2. Procedure: 106 students (introductory psychology class) Questionnaire and describe how the news hit them 7 questions related 6 important features less than 24 hours after event 2½ years later 44 answered again Rate how accurate they think they are (1-5) & if they answered about subject before After last questionnaire semi-structured interview to test memory of earlier answer
8.6.3. Results: 11/44 remembered answering before Major discrepancies between original and follow-up Mean score for 7 questions: 2.95 out of 7 11 = 0 22 = less than 2 Average level of idea of accuracy 4.17 Challenges FM
8.6.4. Limitations: Participants may not be reprsentatives Emotional arousal between public and personal event and importance may vary - could influence memory of event