cognitive

• L&P first aim: to investigate the effect of leading questions on memory
• L&P second aim: to investigate if leading question change memory
• L&P first sample: 45 students in 5 groups, selected through opportunity sample, independent measures design
• L&P second sample: 150 students in 3 groups, selected through opportunity sample, independent measures design
• L&P 1: IV = verb changed, DV = speed estimated in mph
• L&P 2: IV = smashed, contacted or control group, DV = if glass was seen or not
• L&P first procedure: 7 clips of car accidents from Seattle Police department shown, questionnaire asks critical question of ‘about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other’ each group has different verb. Every group had a different order of clips and it lasted around an hour and a half
• L&P second procedure: participants shown a 1 minute clip of a multiple car accident and the first group asked about speed when the cars ‘smashed’ the second asked about speed when cars ‘hit’ and the third were a control group. a week later, participants asked if they saw broken glass
• L&P first results: the smashed group estimated highest (40.8 mph) and contacted group estimated lowest (31.8 mph)
• L&P second results: higher speed estimates in ‘smashed‘ group, regardless of group, higher speed estimates = more likely to think there was glass. the smashed condition were more likely to assume there was glass
• G aim: to investigate environmental context with materials typically found in schools
• G: 39 American university students, opportunity sample, independent measures design
• G: IV = if conditions match or not DV = amount of points on multiple choice and short answer test
• G procedure: experimenter reads standardised instructions, article on brain read once as participants wore headphones, then participants wait two minute and are given a short answer test, then a multiple choice test after
• G results: multiple choice answered better than short answer = recognition is better than recall, matching conditions were more likely to recall (silent/ silent = 81%), regardless of how it was tested, context dependency occurred
• G ethics: no ethical concerns because experimenter emphasised voluntary participation and informed consent was given
• M 1 aim: to investigate and test Cherry’s results more vigorously
• M 2 aim: to investigate if certain important cues can break through the attentional barrier
• M 3 aim: to investigate how expectations affect the way messages are processed
• M 2 sample: 12 undergraduates, opportunity
• M 3 sample: 14 undergraduate students, opportunity
• M 1 method: laboratory experiment, repeated measures


  IV = message played, DV = recall of rejected words
• M 2 method: laboratory experiment, repeated measures design


  IV = whether or not participant’s name was said, DV = number of instructions responded to
• M 3 method: laboratory experiment, independent measures design 


  IV = if message contained digits and if participants were aware of them, DV = digits correctly recalled
• M 1 procedure: shadowing ear is randomly determined and is presented a passage of prose while rejected ear has a word list repeated 35 times. participant is unexpectedly asked about rejected message, then 30 seconds later given a recognition test
• M 2 method: participants told to ignore rejected ear and that the shadowed ear would be recorded. Different messages play in each 10 times. The shadowed ear had instruction at the start and the rejected ear had random instructions throughout, 3 of which included the participants’ name
• M 3 procedure: participants shadow 1 of 2 simultaneous dichotic messages with digits throughout either one, both or neither messages. Group 1: told they would be asked questions on shadowed content, group 2: told to remember all digits
• M 1 results: 4.9/7 words recalled from shadowed ear, 1.9/7 in rejected


  no recall of words from rejected ear
• M 2 results: more affective instructions were heard in rejected ear (20/39) than in non affective (4/36)
• M 3 results: no significant difference in digits recalled by any group, despite being warning
• S & B aim : to investigate whether inattentional blindness for unexpected objects occurs in dynamic scenes under controlled conditions
• S & B aim :

  factors of influence:

  •task difficulty

  •visual similarity of fixation and unexpected

  •superimposed vs. live

  •nature of unusual event
• S & B sample : self selected sample of 192 American uni students (used to be 228)
• S & B background :

  inattentional blindness: as concentration increases, individuals become blind to distractions


  change blindness: attention is on one thing so changes aren’t noticed especially if out of focus sight
• S & B method : laboratory experiment, independent measures design, 21 experimenters with script for standardisation
• S & B procedure : participants told to watch either blank or white team and to count either passes (easy) or bounces (hard)

  participants wrote down their counts then answered surprise questions, which they would be pressed on further if they answered ‘yes’
• S & B standardisation : 4 videos, 75 seconds long, standardised ball throws- after 44 seconds, 5 second long unexpected event started.
• S & B results : 103 noticed the unexpected event, 89 didn’t notice, it was more noticeable in opaque and easy conditions
• S & B results: black team more likely to notice gorilla (65%), no team difference for umbrella condition, observers tend to notice unexpected events that share colours with their focus
• S & B conditions: transparent condition is filmed separately and then superimposed

  opaque conditions: all 7 actors filmed simultaneously live